Life of Brian

[noel]

Shall we just rename all threads "Offensive brexit/political arguments" and be done with it?

"I went for a run today, which I can do because we live in a free society, not one controlled by that would-be Marxist dictator Jeremy Corbyn etc" [ad nauseam].

Back to the point. One of my favourite scenes in Life of Brian is where he falls off the tower and lands in the spaceship. The revving motorbike noises that accompany the ensuing chase scene are a sign of genius. I think Monty Python's stuff would be viewed very differently without Gilliam's influence.

[Muddy Retriever]

Back to the point. One of my favourite scenes in Life of Brian is where he falls off the tower and lands in the spaceship. The revving motorbike noises that accompany the ensuing chase scene are a sign of genius. I think Monty Python's stuff would be viewed very differently without Gilliam's influence.

It ends up with the spaceship crashing into earth at maximum velocity yet Brian walks away completely unscathed. Perhaps he was the messiah after all.

[Witton Park]

Shall we just rename all threads "Offensive brexit/political arguments" and be done with it?

On my earlier post I tried to point out that of 17 threads updated this month, there is no evidence that threads are taken over with politics and/or Brexit.
One specific GE thread.
One partially political thread on a 70s satirical movie.
15 pure and pristine.

So let's have a little balance eh?

and I know I have a reputation, but if anyone cares to look at threads started by me, the front page of 25 has only 4 of 25 political threads.

So again balance please.

I suspect like many that frequent down the pub, we are the ones injured, ill, not training or racing much.

I'd love to be more involved in Tour of Pendle, Cardington Cracker and David Staff threads and fingers crossed I will be.

[Oracle]

You are right in considering psychological triggers are indeed strong. But perhaps not in the way you thought.

Your comments here also demonstrate the essence of confirmation bias. You consider "life of brian" demonstrates a psychological model for religion, because you believed that model apriori true , and the film reinforced what you held to be true.

It is not of course uncommon. On release of the da vinci code, an enormous number of people believed that the essence of that was true, only because they wanted it to be. It was of course a travesty of fact.

This would not be so bad if it was not endemic amongst the scientific establishment. Take for example the ludicrous Carbon Dating of the shroud of turin. Anyone who knew anything of the science and history of the shroud, knew that whatever it is, it could not be a 14 th century artwork, because it is not 14th century and not an artwork.

It did not stop Professor Halls making beginner scientific mistakes in failure to sample ( so there was not in essence multiple tests, it was one with the same correlated systematic error) , and mistakes in process, like failure to note red flags (all the labs commented on inclusions in the samples that did not look right) - but most of all when he concluded with what he believed using his unproven AMS, he did not consider why it was other evidence simply did not agree with his apriori conclusion of 14th century..

We now know that was totally discredited, several other physio chemical dating tests (which have never had the same publicity) have since put it in the first century, and the mark has only been reproduced using a UV laser. The forensic correspondence with the sudarium of oviedo makes it near a millenium older than the RC date.. It is not artwork, and is too shallow to be other than a short term radiation burst.

The fundamental problem was confirmation bias. Halls , indeed scientific establishment so wanted it to be mediaeval, they didnt stop to ask why the evidence didnt add up when their unproven test said it was so.

Dawkins also attracts a mass following. Because people want to believe his conclusion. Despite the fact his grasp of quantum chemistry and probability is as good as the statistics of Professor Roy Meadows. Neither of the possibilities of spontaneous appearance of life, or evolution to first modern cell have a shred of evidence. Abiogenesis is considered "mainstream science" despite the fact in scientific terms the entire phenomenon does not even qualify as a hypothesis. There is nothing to test. And there is no process.

As I pointed out earlier, atheism is such a strong faith it clouds the judgement of scientific men.

Lights blue touch paper. Withdraws immediately.

Although Christianity was used as the main focal point for the narrative it's only because that was the common jumping off point for the Male caucasian British writing team. Their skill was to illuminate how such cults come about but would be totally transferable to any other. For sandal and gourd read christianity and Islam. Or catholic and protestant. Or liverpool and man utd. A fanatical devotion to an identified leader embellished with physical props or tropes. It's just part of our subconscious drive to self and group identify.

[Wheeze]

Nah mate, I just enjoyed some very clever writers taking the piss out of multiple sacred cows!!

[Wheeze]

I agree Noel, Gilliam was the essential gravy in the stew. Whenever a TV episode of MPFC started to drag (which was often to be honest) you could always rely on a sudden bizarre Gilliam interlude to freshen the palate.

[Oracle]

Nah mate, I just enjoyed some very clever writers taking the piss out of multiple sacred cows!!

Taking the p!ss is one thing. Ascribing it any significance greater than fiction is quite another.

The observations I make on similar confirmation bias in the scientific establishment are worrying. And true.

[Wheeze]

Are you sure you're not Always Injured re-born?

[Graham Breeze]

Opus Dei?

[Oracle]

Opus Dei?

You are confusing two things.
The historic backdrop to ( say) downton abbey is authentic, as are some of the institutions it names. But The story itself is pure fiction.

Ditto da Vinci Code. Even though Opus Dei is real.

Why people focus on fiction surprises me. The truth is far more bizarre, and interesting.