I worried about all the innocent people in those buildings, but for the sake of enjoying the film I decided that because the alien gravity laser the size of a sky scraper had been around for almost a day at that point, the city was long evacuated.

My other thought was that this is Clark's first big-boy fight. Zod was his equal, and Zod was trying to murder him. He was just unprepared for what that meant to the city. He's not Superman yet. That's why they called it 'Man of Steel'. Henry Cavill's line delivery of 'Mom?' explains it all better than I can.

I haven't read a lot of Superman comics, but the character's inertness always bothered me. He was good because he was good.

In the classic origin story Clark Kent for the most part never felt pain or discomfort. He had his secret nature, but getting outed had consequences for him and his family, but not the world. He was raised in a loving home, had friends, went to college, was handsome, got a great job at a prestigious newspaper, had the power of a god, and from that came a morally and ethically ideal man. He protects the weak and innocent because that's what he does.

Henry Cavill's Superman knows what it's like to be one of us. His experiences of helplessness and social isolation give him a stronger motivation to feel empathy for humanity. His desire to be accepted by his adopted species provides a stronger motivation to be a paragon of justice and good. The fact that his power terrifies everyone motivates him to use the power only to help people. He's still do the right thing because it's the right thing to do. Man of Steel just gave the character personal reasons to be a moral paragon.

This is the first iteration of Superman I've encountered that I've found interesting or empathized with. Man of Steel also had the best Louis Lane I've seen.

They should have run the 'I'm getting hired at the daily planet' bit after a few seconds of black.

@77 that's what a secular justice system is for.

Try to think of a context outside of religion in which threatening your child with excruciating torture is not child abuse.

"If you think about an elephant, I will chop off your hands and feet, little boy!"
"If you steel a candy bar, I will cut off all your skin, and you will bleed and scream forever, little girl!"

When you tell a child that they should love a supreme being that will burn them for eternity for not loving him, what does that teach them about right and wrong, or love, or justice? How does terrifying them with horrible lies make them better able to distinguish between fact and fiction? It's fucking sick.

Being a good person is not difficult. My kittens learned not to extend their claws when they wrestle each other because it hurt when their siblings extended their claws. The kitten cried when they hurt, and changed their behavior when something they did caused their playmate made that same sound. I yelped when they ran across my bare arm, and now they avoid running across my bare skin. If an animal with a brain the size of a walnut can understand the rudiments of the social contract, your child does not need to be threatened with eternal torment to be a good person.

@32 If only we could hook up a bunch men that claim to be celibate to lie detectors, and ask them a lot of personal questions, we'd know what kind of chances CEAM has at a happy life.

I'd guess it's similar to the chances of being a professional athlete. If someone has talent, athleticism, and drive, they're more likely to succeed. Men with low sex drives and unquestioning faith would have a better chance of going pro at not having sex. This guy has admitted he's horny, and is struggling with the expectations of his faith. This guy is a a clumsy overweight five-and-a-half foot tall teenager dreaming of playing in the NBA. Encouraging him would be cruel.

Anyway. "Fates to grotesque to mention" is about being tortured in hell right? If I believed in a god that physically tortured anybody for any amount of time, let alone an eternity, I'd really hate that god. How can anyone be OK with that? Do these people even understand the meaning of the words 'burning for eternity'? How could you think a god capable of inventing a place where billions of human beings will be forced to endure agony for a million billion zillion quadrillion years is in any way just or good? I couldn't torture a person for a second unless a gun was put to my head. It just completely eludes me.

@79 The frotelons, greemoflecks, targalomeks, fruuus, and tergltarglewarglefargs are all species of lizard endemic to Antarctica, and when their scaly tummies are rubbed together in the right combination create a fusion explosion that will destroy the entire earth a billion times forever. Only the Brufariglek Gitons can stop the evil Gruktalmaliamecitifor from collecting all of the Antarctic lizards, rubbing them together, and thereby ensuring our doom.

How sure are you that the above text isn't an accurate representation of reality? Is it close enough to round up? If you presented yourself as an agnostic on such matters as the earth being destroyed in an Antarctic Lizard Tummy Fusion Explosion how foolish would you feel?

This is where religious people and agnostics find their opportunity to call atheists arrogant. I've studied and considered in great depth the verifiable claims of the dominant religions in my culture, and found them to be absurd at the least, and deeply immoral at the most. I don't feel comfortable calling myself anything less than an Atheist because all of the evidence presented in favor of the evidence of god(s) is as ludicrous to me as the paragraph which with I began this post. It would be dishonest of me to present myself, after all the intense interest and study I've given this subject to present myself as anything other than atheist.

You have no reason to believe in Antarctic lizard tummy rubbing exploding apocalypses. In fact you know that there are no living reptiles endemic to Antarctica because you know reptiles are exothermic, and would not survive the cold. You know that lizard stomach friction doesn't cause fusion explosions. You know that all of the names in the first paragraph are made up because they never existed before this post on Slog that like 3 people will ever read. You know that you're sure enough the first paragraph in this post to know you don't believe it is factual.

What if I told you that the only way to stop Gruktalmaliamecitifor from causing a billion fusion explosions was to build an electric fence around Antarctica? Would you vote for me? Would you donate money? Would you remain silent as your family devoted %10 of their income to building that electric fence?

Based on how sure you are that the first paragraph of this post is complete bullshit, how willing are you to make decisions based on protecting Antarctic lizards from world ending fusion explosion causing tummy rubs? Would I be safe to say the effect on your behavior would be around zero?

There is no other evidence of God than ancient texts that eclipse by far the first paragraph of this post in absurdity. None of them even reference Antarctica for fucks sake. The fact that so many people believe in the supernatural is just proof that human children don't develop critical thinking skills and what their parents teach them unless they are exposed to other cultures.

I respect other human beings too much to misrepresent my opinion on issues as important as the nature of our very existence. No one can ever be God as far as I understand the concept, so no one can ever be sure of anything. I really don't believe anyone that says they have %100 faith in anything. Because if I did, I'd have faith in them. I can be sure enough of my observable reality to dismiss the billions of possible absurdities presented by my fellow humans' imaginations in the ways I chose to live my life. the existence of God like Antarctic fusion explosion lizards is one of those numerous absurdities that aren't plausible enough based on verifiable fact to be worth considering in my daily life.

Everything I wrote above is why some people think atheists are arrogant. But hey, at least I got to my arrogance on my own. How many theists are proudly and thoughtlessly carrying their ancestor's arrogance?

Sorry Romiel, but based on your post, and your level of certainty, I think it would be dishonest of you to present yourself as an agnostic.

Oh, I'm also Toasterhedgehog. I know it doesn't matter, but I feel disingenuous posting under 2 log ins. I got my panties in a bundle on this one, and forgot my password to my own account. So all the bullshit from both IDs is from the same asshole.

@74 I'm 99% sure there is no guiding intelligence in the universe. I'm %100 sure that the god(s) described in the Torah, Bible, Book of Mormon, Koran, Hinduism, Greek Myth, and Viking Lore are fictional. These gods offer no compelling evidence of their existence, and basic study of the observable world offers overwhelming evidence of their non-existence. The creation myths associated with these gods have been disproved through scientific observation. The supernatural feats they perform in those texts are not physically possible in this universe. There is currently no verifiable supernatural event that would indicate walking on water, parting seas, having the universe in your mouth, or being birthed from a severed head are actually possible.

There comes a point where based on observation, a certain possibility seems so unlikely that it's not worth using as a criteria to make decisions or guide one's life. I'm sure enough that the universe did not have a creator, that I call myself an atheist. That one percent of uncertainty is based on the fact that I know that I don't know everything. The %99 certainty is based on what I have learned throughout my life. If you can prove the existence of God I will change my mind. Most atheists feel the same.

There's a trick if you're an atheist and want to do your part to keep the discussion civil. Be specific about what religious institutions actions you find objectionable. I hate Westboro Baptist Church's protests of military funerals. I hate the Catholic Church's official stance on denying women birth control. I hate the Mormon Church's massive financial support of Prop 8. I think Casey Treat's Christian materialism is laughably stupid. If members of any of the institutions I mentioned were not involved those specific actions, they should have no beef with me for stating my opinion. If you think I'm bashing Christians, that's not my problem.

And here's a trick for theists. Every time I tell a person who believes in a supernatural deity that I'm an atheist, I'm telling them that I think their deepest held beliefs are fantasy. It's the unavoidable implication of my admission of non-belief. Nobody likes to be told they are wrong; especially when they believe they are right. It's extremely difficult not to interpret that implication as arrogance or condescension without even realizing it. It's the same impulse I feel when someone implies that God gives them their morals.