jamesid29:

Turns out that the definition of atheism as "lack of belief in god(s)" is almost non existent in the field of philosophy itself.
In almost all the encyclopedia & dictionaries of philosophy and amongst philosophers and in academia the standard definition of atheism is " the belief/view that there is no god(s)" or put in another way "The proposition that God(s) do not exist."

You can check
Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy( one of the most cited encyclopedia of philosophy)

Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy

Internet encyclopedia of philosophy

Encyclopedia Britannica

ismbook.com/ism-list/

The oxford companion to philosophy

oxford dictionary of philosophy

Blackwell dictionary of western philosophy

Cambridge dictionary of philosophy (the only dictionary to include the none-standard definition in a positive light but it itself holds to the standard definition as it's preferred one)

and so on

And it's what noting that the standard definition in this dictionaries/encyclopedias are written by atheist philosophers themselves.

So amongst the vast majorities dictionaries of philosophy and within philosophical discourse itself, the standard definition is used.

That I think begs the question why the vast majority of people on the internet and atheist activists still chose to insist that atheism is simply " the lack of belief in god(s)"? A definition that's almost none existent in academia itself.

Hi there. If you look up "begs the question" in those same philosophical dictionaries, I think you'll find it doesn't mean what you think it means!

JideJordan:
Hello guys, so I've been lurking around this section for a few weeks now. I've got a lot of questions on my mind and I am not getting satisfactory answers.
Does God exist? I don't know. At this point, I can't keep deceiving myself. I don't think I can call myself a Christian any more because I am starting to doubt a lot of things. If you are a Christian/believer, I have nothing against you, neither I'm I here to "deconvert" you or something.

Anyways, I just wanted to post this here, because I don't have anyone to talk to at the moment. Have a nice evening.

That's how I went about it. Do it until there are enough valid reasons to simply not do it anymore. Never looked back with any regret!

HbJ2:
As long as the Democrats are in power the US is screwed. Future generations of Americans will still be stuck trying to pay off their national dept. What would you rather have, christians running the country, or the the party that founded the KKK?

They will have the right to take part in democratic elections,.. as well as the present generation, so I'll suggest you try and grasp the idea that sometimes democracy doesn't return the result you'd hoped for.... then teach that simple fact to them.

The RepubliKLAN party has been taken over by trump and his evangelical base. They are the ones that stormed the capital with their Jesus signs and confederate flags and the gop is now the Qanon party of white domestic terrorists. I have been watching a CNN program about how this all started back in the 1950’s and christianity played an important role in their takeover. Does anyone think we will ever get religion out of politics? Or is democracy dead? What is your opinion of the future of America?

Cerebellum:
Nah the "sever pain" funny me most

But why Facebook request con become matter now ntori oloun


Aswear to slap this OP dey hungry me

You won't understand

E never reach to dey slap sha

crossfm:
Just a friend request and you are already panicking.

I know it hurts to break up the way you guys did,but I will advise you move on.She was sincere enough to let you Know she found another guy and I respect her for that.Some would have been giving you a lot of hope even when they know it's no longer possible you guys can still be together.

If I were in your shoes,I will accept her friend request and see what she has to say. Mind you it doesn't pay to have a lot of resentment in your heart.If it's possible you guys can still be friends.

We ended things on a very very bad note. I didn't imagine we'd ever be speaking again and that's what informed my surprise when I saw her friend request. Either way, I accepted it already but I'll leave it at that for now.

Two months ago (on valentine's day to be exact), I broke up with my girlfriend of four years. We started dating in 2017, then she and her family moved to Ghana a year later and it became a long distance thingy. We kept in contact for a very long time up until 2020 during the COVID-19 lockdown period.

Then I noticed she started becoming more bored and distracted anytime I called her, and I was always the one to initiate contacts. She later confessed that she found a new guy in Ghana. Things led to a boiling point in February and we called it off. As I was in severe pains, I unfriended/blocked her all over social media, blacklisted her numbers and removed everything that reminded me of her. I remember she blamed it on us being very far apart and also claiming that I stopped "giving her vibes".

Just yesterday, I was browsing through my Facebook when I saw that she sent me a friend request. I'm struggling to come up with reasons as to why she must have done this. I am yet to respond to the request as I type this. What could have motivated her to send a random friend request?

Someone rank Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Agents of Shield, Flash, Green Arrow, Legends of Tomorrow, Doom Patrol & Titans.

I would think I'd love to watch Titans but that initial trailer never sit right with me. Nor did I ever hear this was a must watch.

Previously on The Big Bang Theory

AfricaGalactic:
so I was thinking. If disney+ was a thing sooner, how it would have changed the MCU. A great option would be the Hawkeye series taking effect during the snap. So we get to see how the Earth is handling missing half it’s population and Clint darks transformation from Hawkeye to Ronin.

It could have been good

Could have been good. But I still think Disney and Marvel should have shown more spine and set all of Phase 4 during the 5 year snap and put Endgame at the end of Phase 4. They could have had a Hawkeye film in the vein of Logan. And a smaller scale Black Widow film with Natasha having to pick up the pieces and operate in a world with mostly failed governments. It would have been an opportunity to do darker and more intimate character oriented films for a few years.

dragonflyy:

charlie cox is is a much better actor than cavill , but I'm happy he ended up being the perfect matt murdock instead.

They made the right choice with Cavill, in my opinion. They just had the wrong director, scripts, and vision, again, in my opinion.

On the Tudors, Cavill had tons of charisma and charm. When he was cast, I thought they were going to bring those elements to Superman, but instead they made him a charisma vaccum.

You see hints of his natural charm in MOS, in particular the seen in the interrogation room between Cavill and Adams. You see it in interviews as well.

WB and the filmmakers fumbled on those fiilms, not Cavill or even Affleck for that matter. They could only work with the script they're given, and what they're directed to do.

I can't speak for Cox as an actor since I haven't seen much of his other work outside Daredevil. He may have made a good Superman too.

Then again, he may have been bogged down in the same type of studio interference and/or weaker scripts that Routh and Cavill had to deal with.

So its hard to speculate "what if" or that "Cox's would have been better!".

It depends on alot of things including the conditions, the vision, the director, script, story, and the right timing.

Cottonmouth:

Doesn't matter. I describe how I see a possible MCU reboot, not what kind if reboot that IS GOING to happen.

With that said, I came up with the idea how to used to FC mutants instead of the original cast.
After the event of Dark Phoenix during the 90s, the mutants went into hiding. It was for the best because they got too much bad attention after one of the good guys turned bad. That's one of the explanations they aren't mentioned in neither Raimi's Spider-Man or Hulk, because they haven't been seen for several years. And could also explain partly why the military was so eager to capture/control Hulk. They know how much devastation superpowered beings can make.
And that's why Spider-Man is viewed as a possible threat at first, in both incarnations of the character (more so in ASM, but more about that later).

First Hulk happened and it didn't went unnoticed. Then Doc Ock wrecked havoc in New York.
So after the major event with Sandman, Venom and Goblin (2007) - Spidey was almost killed in a brutal manner - the mutants decided to finally come back into the world after being gone for about a little more a decade. They understand that people need protection from all these weirdly powered criminals. Like Peter said "were do all these guys come from?"
It could sort of make sense that they could have been hiding and then come back.
But not only because of past supervillains, but a new even more dangerous threat is on the rise. Xavier have noticed something with his mind-reading and/or tech

I think Raimi's Spider-Man would be best to go further with. It's close enough in time for Hulk and for both incarnations of X-men. He could actually meet the original X-Men, it's not impossible to blend the tones of the two frachises. Although Spidey being lighter at times, the fights could be violent.
After the loss of Harry, Peter might consider leaving Spider-Man behind him.
But something happens and he must again save the city. Does it have something to do with mutants? Or his Hulk back in town? Both original X-Men and FC can suit this idea.

I also see it possible for original X-Men also hiding for some years after the devastating events in Last Stand. They caused too much trouble fighting among themselves, and there were this massacre at Alcatraz, killing many humans in the process.
They then come back, and meet ASM version of Spidey in 2014 (who's torn and in grief after the death of Gwen). X-Men and ASM can work good together because they both present somewhat darker worlds. Maybe Peter has already teamed up with Daredevil by then?
What's the cause of the mutants' return? Has Ghost Rider arrvied and looks to be an evil demon? Or is it about Blade and the hidden world of vampires?
But in this scenario, we must perhaps leave out Ang Lee's Hulk since too much time has passed (11 years).

Now have have presented different suggestions here in a couple of posts.
Unfortunately none will take place at the same year of release, but years ago. That's the biggest obstacle when returning to older storylines for a MCU reboot.
All of them could even be soft reboots, meaning we could take the good parts and leave out the bad stuff. And have hints that the characters are the same from those storylines.
A different set of actors will even make it seem like it's something new, even it's not completely new.

Raimi's Spider-Man/Hulk/original X-Men (will be set in 2007-08)
Raimi's Spider-Man/Hulk/FC X-Men (-II-)
Amazing Spider-Man/original X-Men (2014).

You guys can dislike it if you want to. But there's atleast stories to continue from in all three options.
No need to rebuild an MCU reboot from scratch.

Sorry but much of the substance of that comes over not as discussion of whether people would be open to a reboot of the MCU but as hijacking the fact there's an audience for that question to deliver fan-fiction ideas.

In particular I find using "will" when describing how your suggestions "would" play out difficult to handle, as it blurs the line between fact and your own imagination.

With Fantastic Four, X-Men, etc. the Marvel Universe have enough characters to keep them going for awhile. But I think we will start seeing noise about a reboot in about 20 years. At some point it is inevitable. They aren't going to keep the big guns like Tony Stark and Steve Rogers on the shelf forever when there is so much money to be made off of them.

That being said, COVID-19 is ravaging the entire movie industry. It isn't outside the realm of possibility that Disney gets desperate for some cash sooner than we might think. In an extreme case, such as Disney being bought out by a tech giant like Amazon or Apple, a reboot is practically guaranteed to soon follow.

Rorschach1:
https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/ny-coronavirus-jeremy-renner-lower-child-support-20200325-b72yikxh6nexjj37lvpclztxy4-story.html?outputType=amp

So, at what point does Marvel drop Jeremy Renner?

Honestly, asking for a reduction in child support during a pandemic is not a great look. But I don't see why this would play any role whatsoever in whether or not Marvel Studios keeps working with Renner. They hired him because of his acting ability, not because he is a loving husband and father. Making decisions based on stuff like this would be setting an awful precedent going forward.

And is Evangeline Lilly next? Her coronavirus comments were far more damaging to more people than Renner's actions. How about ScarJo and her continued support of Woody Allen? And don't forget Paul Rudd, who has been tormenting Conan O'Brien for years with a prank involving a clip from "Mac & Me".

It's s a slippery slope. Much like the one Eric rolled down in his wheelchair.

AfricaGalactic:
Apparently, Disney may be getting the rights to the Defenders ( Daredevil, Luke Cage, Jessica Jones and Iron Fist) early from Netflix:

Marvel Reportedly Getting The Rights To The Defenders Back In Early 2020

Marvel Could Start Getting Its Netflix Heroes Back This Year

Though apparently, Disney also considering a film with the comic book version of the Defenders:

Defenders: The MCU May Be Assembling the Original Team

What do you guys hope to see from either Defenders team?

I wonder if this is more about "Defenders" for future Dr Strange use than about Luke Cage, Iron First, Daredevil and Jessica Jones

AfricaGalactic:
With regard to The Mandalorian and The Witcher, you guys should consider the platform. Like, come on . All things being equal, you would expect The Witcher to far outpace The Mandalorian. How many people have Netflix as opposed to Disney +? I think it speaks volumes that The Mandalorian is even in the same area code

‘The Mandalorian’ Vs. ‘The Witcher,’ Disney Plus Vs. Netflix, In One Chart

Here's a snip of info from the above website.

Just for fun, here are some other Witcher vs. Mandalorian metrics to compare:

* The Witcher RT Critic Score: 64%
* The Mandalorian RT Critic Score: 94%
* The Witcher RT Audience Score : 93%
* The Mandalorian RT Audience Score: 93%
* The Witcher IMDB Audience Score: 8.5
* The Mandalorian IMDB Audience Score: 8.9
* The Witcher Metacritic Critic Score: 53
* The Mandalorian Metacritic Critic Score: 69
* The Witcher Metacritic Audience Score: 7.8
* The Mandalorian Metacritic Audience Score: 8.4
SOURCE: FORBES

Speaking to how this success impacts Disney + moving forward, it's interesting to note that Star Wars wasn't even the biggest draw for people prior to the service's launch, but The Mandalorian became the biggest show in the world all the same.

BTW, I am a big fan of The Witcher series too.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ParrotAnalytics/status/1214998637727629314?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1214998637727629314&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2Ftwitter.min.html%231214998637727629314

Cottonmouth:
Do some of you think Sony will make Venom 2 R-rated now after Joker proved to be so successful?

Only if Marvel allows them. The contract specifies the movies have to be PG-13 or lower. Disney/Marvel would have to approve an "R" rated movie from the license if Sony wants to go that route.

13.a. SPE Creative and Business Control Over Productions. SPE shall have total creative and business control, in its sole discretion, over all matters relating to each Production and the development, production, creative content, marketing, distribution and other exploitation thereof, including without limitation total creative control and discretion regarding the depiction of the Property (and all elements thereof) in each such Production and in all marketing, advertising and promotional materials for each Production (and Marvel shall have no rights of approval or control with respect to any of the foregoing), except for (i) SPE’s Character Integrity Obligations with respect to Core Elements under Section 13.c(ii) hereof, (ii) the $75 million minimum production budget requirement with respect to Pictures under Section 13.e(i) below, (iii) the 2000 screen requirement with respect to Pictures under Section 13.f below, and (iv) the PG-13 (or equivalent) rating requirement under Section 13.e(ii).

13.e. Production Specifications. Each Picture produced and completed by SPE shall conform to the following production specifications:


13.e(i) The all-in, above-the-line and below-the-line production budget of the Picture shall be not less than $75,000,000.


13.e(ii) The Picture shall qualify for an MPAA rating no more restrictive than PG-13 (or the equivalent thereof if such rating no longer exists).

IAmSabrina:

I thought MiramaX was owned by Disney. I don't really know a lot of MiramaX movies butI can guess having those 800+ titles would be good for any streaming services.

They used to. Sold them, but now it's on sale. Honestly it'd be good to have Hulu buy them and put the debt on Hulu. Movies include Pulp Fiction, No Country for Old Men, and many others. It's a good library.

Cottonmouth:
Disney Not Planning Another Marvel or Star Wars-Level Acquisition Anytime Soon

“Well, I never say never,” Iger told BBC Radio’s The Media Show when asked if he might broker another mega-acquisition before his contract expires at the end of 2021. “But I think given the fact we’ve only recently made a big one [Fox], and we’re still absorbing that, and given the fact that I don’t have much time left in this role, I think it’s probably unlikely that another big one occurs.”

https://comicbook.com/movies/2019/11/02/disney-not-planning-another-marvel-star-wars-level-acquisition-purchase-ceo-bob-iger-exit/?

sounds like we're going to have to wait maybe till 2021 at least to see if Disney makes a play for Spider-Man. Would Spider-Man be considered "another big one"?

Miramax's library of film is on sale. 800+ titles, full of AA winners and critically well received movies that would greatly add to Hulu's library especially as NBCU and Warner pull their content. Cost? About 325MM. Honestly a much better - and cheaper - purchase than SM movie rights.

hulk616:
[s][/s] another long trash.
You don't even know normal.

K.

hulk616:
[s][/s] you write alot trash. This is the result of believing Homosexuals are normal people

I want to indulge you,

You can keep cancelling my posts, dude. Only thing that it proves is you're a dogmatic re.tard

By the way please define "normal"

Right off the bat: What the Bleep does "abnormal" mean? Are you appealing to the paranormal? Are you saying gays are ghosts? Demons?

Unless you are implying that homosexuality is somehow caused by forces outside of the natural universe, then you are going to have to accept that everything that happens within this ball of mass is perfectly natural. If it wasn't, then it wouldn't happen as "abnormal things" things are, by definition, impossible.

Then again I'm guessing this will also fly over your head and you don't know a lot of biology either.

hulk616:
troll You think I m trolling. Please if you support LGTQ nonsense don't carry it inside MCU

First, it's LGBT. Not LGTQ. The fact that you miss this simple detail just shows you don't even know what the Bleep you're crying about.

You think Kevin Feige and the other MCU head honchos give a flying shit about your whiny ass rants? LOL. There's nothing remotely wrong in using an LGBT character. What matters here is the motivation. Write a good character who does something important in your story. If they happen to turn out gay on the way, great. Don't do it the other way - deliberately trying to write a gay character purely for the sake of having a gay character is the worst sort of pandering.

Unfortunately, knowing your pattern so far, you'll make a mundane response dismissing my argument based on NOTHING and then go ahead to keep babbling like a butthurt simpleton but I'm giving you the benefit of doubt here.

hulk616:
homosexuals should go and create their own movies and TV shows instead of being useless and destroying years of hard work done by MCU

LOL. Go troll someone else

hulk616:
what is the point of putting those abnormal people if they are going to be useless?

Regarding Nia Nal (on Supergirl), I wouldn’t say she’s useless. But I don’t think she’s all that interesting. My pet peeve about the Arrowverse is that the “solo” heroes have too many superpowered co-stars. I prefer that the main hero be a unique champion. And the addition of similarly endowed allies kinda dilutes that concept. (IMO, of course. Your mileage may vary.) Thus, I could do without Nia. But the same goes for Brainiac 5 and J’onn J’onzz. (Or Arsenal and the various Canaries on Arrow; or Killer Frost, Vibe and Elongated Man on Flash; etc.) It’s got nothing to do with being normal or “abnormal”; it’s too many cooks in the kitchen.

Shittaakeem:

Has this been a cause for concern?

By no means have I kept up with all the genre movies and TV shows. But based on my own sampling, I’m only aware of one trans character: Nia Nal (aka Dreamer) on Supergirl. Arguably, Gillian on Jessica Jones might count too. But although played by a trans actor, the character was never identified as such.

So as far as representation goes, that seems fairly modest. Is there more that I don't know about?

IAmSabrina:
Among the new actors in the MCU among the movies and Disney+ shows, which ones will be the breakout stars of Phase 5? It doesn't have to be one as it can be many. Example is Black Panther. Many thought that the breakout star of Black Panther was Letitia Wright and are waiting to see what Shuri does next in BP2. Mark Ruffalo, Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Liz Olsen, Sebastian Stan....all became household names because of the MCU.

Who will that be for Phase 5? My picks are Simu Liu and Teyonah Parris (all depending upon how big her role in the MCU is going to be and I think it'll be a significant one). I had seen Teyonah before in a lot of stuff and I knew who she was and I had seen Simu Liu in the Taken series, but the MCU is a big deal.

Given examples like Shuri in your post, doesn't the "breakout star" depend on the actor and direction the character will be taken and will thus be entirely impossible to predict, especially for phase 5 about which we barely know anything? This seems to be a bit like asking people to predict Letitia Wright becoming a breakout star as Shuri back in 2012.

AfricaGalactic:

Whats that about?

Steinfeld apparently has a clause in her contract that prevents her from appearing on another streaming service, that could be a hold up too.

This is actually quite scary. Disney will, at this rate, be releasing one big blockbuster every month. I wonder if the other studies can even compete.

Lala39:
Disney adds 5 new dates for marvel related content:
OCT 2022
FEB 2023
MAY 2023
JULY 2023
NOV 2023

I wonder if all the content will be theatrical or some will be TV series streamed on Disney+

I think Disney/Marvel are holding back the TV shows way too long.

For Disney+ to work, they need to put out the primo stuff on first, otherwise if they just have the Disney back-catalog on there, people without kids will burn through it a couple of months and unsubscribe.