• Like Us On Facebook
    • Like us on Facebook

  • +1 Us on Google
  • Follow Us On Facebook
  • Follow Us On Facebook
    • Follow us on tumblr.

  • Search

Posted at 12:00 pm,
November 21, 2012

Ridiculous things that movies always get wrong

A lot of movies are unbelievable. However, sometimes they just get things plain wrong. In this opinion piece, Richard looks at some of the less obvious (yet no less ridiculous) things that crop up time and time again.

There’s something to be said about a good story. Actually, there is more to be said about a bad story than a good one, but that contradicts with my opening narrative. But while we’re on the topic, have you ever noticed that the longest reviews and critiques are generally negative? Isn’t it odd that we enjoy criticism more than appreciation? Clearly there is something odd from an evolutionary standpoint that enlightened humans revel in masochism, albeit in an intellectual way. Anyway, getting back to good stories.

I’m talking about the kind of tale that gives you a strange tingling deep in your stomach containing a mixture of apprehension and exhilaration. It’s really a conflict between wanting to get to the end of a story and not wanting the story to end. One of the few good conflicts in life; the only other one I can think of is deciding whether to leave the job you love for another one that is a bit duller but pays 10x more and gives you a free helicopter. If that tingling is closer to nausea, then you’re more likely to be hungover than exhilarated. On the other hand, if you’re watching say, The Shawshank Redemption, and you get nothing from it emotionally, then you’re probably just dead inside. Finally, if that tingling is a bit further down from your stomach, then you probably aren’t consuming a good story, but instead watching pornography.

What really fascinates me is that we’re fully willing to abandon all plausibility when we’re gripped in something, whether it be a film or a book or television episode. We know (or at least should know) when reading something completely fictitious (Harry Potter, Twilight, the Bible, etc) that the plot is out-with the realms of probability or even possibility, yet we pursue the fantasy with energy and gusto.

There are, however, some regular occurrences (particularly in the movies) that I want to focus on which simply defy all logic, belief and credibility yet no one seems to bat an eyelid or even notice. Before we begin, I know what you’re probably thinking. “Can’t you just enjoy movies for what they are and be done with it?” … “Weren’t you JUST moaning about everyone in journalism complaining all the time a mere three paragraphs ago?” … “Are you THAT much of a killjoy?” … “I didn’t actually like The Shawshank Redemption, but now that you’ve mentioned pornography. Hmmm…” and so on. Well, yes. These are all true, but allow me to paint a picture for you…

Professionally, I’m a scientist. I work in an academic institution where I’m expected to make claims and back them up with sufficient evidence. If I say something unsubstantiated, the first response I typically hear is, “prove it!” Scepticism, it seems, is contagious. A questioning, inquisitive and arguably narcissistic mind has been instilled into me, and it has boiled over from the test tube of science and into the dubious world of entertainment.

7 things that movies always get wrong:

Massive Explosions in Space

Virtually every science fiction movie ever made makes this glaring error. When the Death Star blows up at the end of Star Wars, there is a massive boom with sparks and fire and debris and so on. This is all nonsense. It’s nonsense in Star Wars, nonsense in Star Trek, nonsense in The Avengers and nonsense in everything else. I can accept that say, in the future, mankind has found a way to make space travel a regular occurrence. I can accept that we interact with alien life. I can even accept that the aliens seem to speak English. This isn’t impossible, just highly improbable. What IS impossible is to see flames of any kind in space. Why? Because flames require oxygen to burn and there is no oxygen in space. And there is no boom either. Sounds require air to travel and as we’ve just learnt, no air means no loud explosions.

This might not bother you, but I wince each time I see one of the fundamental laws of physics essentially shat over in each sci-fi movie. Imagine you were watching something really terrible like My Best Friend’s Wedding. I know, it’s a horrible thought, but bear with me. Now imagine that as Julia Roberts’ character starts singing “I Say A Little Prayer” at the wedding reception, she started hovering in mid-air instead, then a pink unicorn crawled out of her massive, massive mouth. This is exactly how ridiculous it is to have an explosion in space, yet somehow, if a floating Julia Roberts in the middle of a romantic comedy transpired, your gut instinct would not be to admire the wonderful special effects but instead to ask “Why?” You might even raise an eyebrow.

Reason: Explosions look cool. It IS possible to have a small and very instant ignition if a massive ship was to blow up, from the oxygen inside the ship. However, that oxygen would burn up in a fraction of a second in the vacuum of space.

Humanoids in Space

While we’re on the topic of space, let me point out another ridiculous notion, and that’s the general assumption that aliens have a slight (often profound) resemblance to humans. Our own particular species wasn’t just planted on this planet the way we are now. We’ve evolved over millions of years of gradual, non-random change and along the way, we’ve developed the tools that we need to survive.

Our distant cousins, for example, didn’t walk on their hind legs like we do now but on all fours. Our legs have grown stronger and stronger as we gradually made more use of them. Our bodies’ intake of oxygen and output of carbon dioxide (which subsequently fuels other life) developed to become a seamless process. Why aliens would share this is simply ludicrous.

Why would one assume that aliens have noses (or can even smell)? Perhaps on their home planet, it favoured their species from an evolutionary standpoint to eat through their anus. Perhaps they don’t even have an anus. Perhaps their entire “body” for lack of a better word is just one giant anus. Come to think of it, that seems rather efficient doesn’t it? One organ that eats, sniffs, breathes and poops.

Reason: Set and prop designers lack imagination. And for some reason, we’re apparently more likely to identify something as an alien if it’s closer looking to humanity than not.

Knocking someone unconscious

How many times has James Bond refrained from killing someone (how gracious), instead given them a quick chop to the face, rendering them unconscious? Sometimes they wake up later but generally the movie just moves on and we assume that the victim will recover from Bond’s assault. He kindly allowed them to live. Ehhh, I’m afraid not.

People do get knocked unconscious in real life all the time, but it generally only lasts for a few seconds at most. Any longer and it’s typically called something different: a coma. Yes, all those times John McClain or Jason Bourne left someone “asleep,” they weren’t being humane at all. They were giving those poor people a likely dose of brain-damage and probably a very upset wife to top it off. Fiends!

Reason: You can punch someone unconscious and still get your movie listed as a PG-13, however, if you start shooting people, then that’s much more likely to up the censor’s rating.

Rationality will detonate in T minus 4 minutes

For some unknown reason, it’s customary for a (stupid) ship’s computer to tell us that the space ship, or secret base or bomb will blow up in “T minus 60 seconds,” or some other value of time. Why? Who knows. T stands for time. Therefore, if the ship is to explode in T (Time) minus four minutes, that means the ship has already exploded four minutes ago! This phrase is used time and time again, yet no one seems to spot this glaring logical error. Funny how the ship’s computer is sufficiently well programmed to be able to initiate a self-destruct mechanism, yet the simple task of telling the time is beyond it. The ship’s computer SHOULD be telling us that detonation will happen in T plus four minutes, however, let’s be honest, this isn’t that useful either.

If I’m unfortunate enough to be on a vessel somewhere that is about to be incinerated, the last thing I want is an incorrect countdown. Quite frankly, clarity is a must. Instead, I want a loud shouting voice that repeatedly warns, “RUN! THIS SHIP IS ABOUT TO BLOW UP BUT THERE WILL BE NO EXPLOSION AS WE’RE IN SPACE, BUT YOU’RE STILL GOING TO DIE FROM IT! FOR GOODNESS SAKE, RUN! ARGHHH!” Or better still, ships that don’t self-destruct at all. That’s probably easier for all concerned.

Reason: The term comes from NASA, when they say “launch in T minus 60 seconds” where T stands for “Takeoff.” T actually makes sense in this context, but ever since Ridley Scott (incorrectly) used the phrase in Alien, it took on a new meaning and other screenplay writers started using the term without wondering what it meant.

The Elevator Hatch

Whenever an elevator breaks down in a movie or TV programme, someone invariably pushes open a hatch on the roof and climbs up in fear that it might plummet to the floor. I’ve been looking for a hatch in an elevator for 25 years and I’ve yet to see one. Have you?

Secondly, what do they expect to find up there? It’s a shaft. The only way is up because the elevator is blocking your way down and as I pointed out earlier, you can’t just randomly hover upwards (unless you’re still imagining my image of Julia Roberts in My Best Friend’s Wedding). You may as well climb back down the imaginary hatch and wait for the rescue to arrive.

Thirdly, the elevator will never just plummet to the ground because like any moving object, it has brakes.

Reason: The hatch seemingly provides a story-arc for whatever follows it. No other reason can be attributed to this nonsense.


Movies always seem to romanticise childbirth. There is always a lot of screaming, and then a loving mother embraces her newly born child. For some reason, such fictional births never seem to include the part where the woman shits herself. Yes, you read that correctly. Most women tend to defecate during birth; it is natural, albeit unpleasant. As a result, I suspect a new mother’s first reaction isn’t to hug her new child, but for someone to very quickly wipe off the faeces that is now dripping down her legs and smelling quite badly.

Another more unpleasant part of childbirth: it’s actually quite common for doctors to make a small cut in a woman’s vagina, giving the baby’s head more room. This is also perfectly routine. However, when Rachel gave birth to her baby in Friends, at no point did a doctor come along with a scalpel and slice an extra inch down her woman-bits. Perhaps this is a bit too much realism for Jennifer Aniston to convey in her acting? One does struggle to find a good expression for illustrating one’s torn vagina.

Reason: If we showed the unromantic side of childbirth in the media, we might put mothers off of having babies which might endanger our human race? I’m sure something stupid like this crossed the mind of the TV producer or film director.

Computer Hacking

This one is my absolute favorite (or most hated, depending on which way you look at it). Firstly, the idea that one can hack into some government agency from an HP laptop in around 11 seconds by pressing lots of keys very quickly, and secondly, the wonderfully elaborate user-interfaces that the computer seems to have on its monitor showing bright colors, wavy lines and moving shapes.

If the aim is to gain access to someone else’s computer (like Q was trying to do in the new James Bond movie), why on earth did he or anyone else spend a seemingly massive amount of time making the process look so pretty? Surely that’s just counter-intuitive AT BEST, given all these moving shapes are going to be a bit of a distraction when you’re desperately trying to guess someone’s password.

Reason: Movies try to make computer hacking seem cool and sophisticated. The reality is most hackers are middle-aged men, considerably overweight, and sitting in front of a screen with just a lot of text on it and nothing else (because pretty much all hacking is done on a command line). Go to hackertyper.com, type really fast and see how movies fake it.

These are just some of the many things that bug me when watching a film or TV episode. I’m not at all advocating that movies should be based firmly in reality because then the magic of fantasy would be lost forever. However, I think (due to movies) that we sometimes forget just what is and isn’t real.

Most importantly, now you know how difficult it can be for scientists to go to the cinema. It turns out, people sitting next to you find it rather irritating when you’re scoffing at something every seven minutes.

View the latest articles from: Features
  • http://twitter.com/PabloRV7 Pablo Ruiz V

    Nice post, I’d like to see how a real explosion looks like in space. I do understand why they don’t show how real childbirth is in a sitcom. Do you really want to see Rachel shit herself and then have her vagina sliced open? That’s not what audiences want, that’s not what sitcoms do. Shameless (US) had a pretty realistic birth and it was uncomfortable. Most TV Shows or Movies don’t want uncomfortable. Otherwise you could complain that we never see any characters in most movies going to the bathroom and stay with them while they shit.

    • B.

      People are going to the bathroom ALL THE TIME in the Game of Thrones book series. Has anyone read book 3, A Storm of Swords? Best scene involving a toilet ever.

    • http://twitter.com/Tygridia Tygridia

      On the other hand Harry Potter only goes three times in 7 years, and he only showers once…

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=33411927 Ashleigh Morgan

    For the Childbirth part – In the horrible Jennifer Lopez movie The Back-up Plan, one of the characters is having a water birth and does in fact shit herself in the scene.

  • keshi

    The super quick child birth is the silliest. The woman has one contraction, shouts, “The baby’s coming! Now!” lol! Real labor takes time. LOTS of time. HOURS and hours of time. But babies are most often born lighting fast in the fantasy world of TV & movies. Then, when the person waiting outside hears the baby’s first cries, they rush in, and the baby is already all clean, wrapped up in a smiling mam’s arms! lol! There is NEVER afterbirth, along with stitching up mama, and everything else. I know they don’t have all the time in the world to show these things, but could at least imply that they happened?

    The second silliest is, “zoom in on that,” on a security camera picture in a crime show followed by, “clear that up,” which with someone then types frantically, and magically produces a crystal clear image of the murder’s face or other vital clue! Seriously? Similar to the computer hacking. In fairytale movie & TV land, pixels can arrange themselves into clues!

    • http://twitter.com/Tygridia Tygridia

      I wrote the same before reading your comment. LOL

    • http://twitter.com/akacj7 Caroline J.

      not only can pixels rearrange themselves, they can also manifest out of thin air!

  • http://twitter.com/SarahKHansen S.K.Hansen

    The one about people being knocked unconscious drives me crazy in books, in movies and on TV. (Particularly the books, movies and shows I love). Every time it happens I feel like yelling “NOOO! Wake him up! Take him to a hospital ASAP! He could have permanent brain damage you morons!” It happens so often in stories, characters get knocked out for minutes, hours or even DAYs, writers and readers/audiences don’t think about it.

    Another one is when a character discovers a “new” Element that “magically” solves their problems. (coughIronMan2cough).

  • B.

    BTW, it’s McClane, not McClaine. ;)

  • Ultron

    You forgot the physics of the entire TDKR.

  • Gary65

    Where was space in the Avengers?

    • singlis

      During the climax where Iron Man decides to sacrifice himself to save the city, and flies the nuclear warhead through the portal into the space dimension and it blows up all the aliens and their ship.

      • Gary65

        Yes but there was living creatures in there. Living things can’t exist in a vacuum. Therefore, we can assume that it wasn’t space and explosions are possible.

  • MeMe

    I’d like to point out that not everyone sees the Bible as a piece of fiction….

    • amo

      I agree, I respect that everyone has there own opinions, but in a piece like this I do not think the Bible really needed to be mentioned. I personally do believe it is true and not a piece of fiction.

      • Gary65

        And that’s great but this is an opinion piece and, in Richard’s opinion, the bible is fiction.

        • http://www.facebook.com/erikd1 Erik Davison

          By listing the Bible next to Twilight and Harry Potter though, he was obviously trying to start something…

          • Sharon

            Think that’s why it’s called an opinion piece. Since opinions usually conflict with one another.

          • Gary65

            Indeed. I believe it’s called a joke.

          • Zack

            And I believe that he knew it would cause something. And if he didn’t know, the he is an idiot. Rude atheists.

          • Gary65

            It’s only gonna cause something if you can’t learn to take a joke and let it slide. Plenty of Christians make jokes about other people’s faith all the time. Let it go.

      • http://twitter.com/SlySound Brett H

        I personally believe in Slender Man….so…..yeah

        • KleppMelk

          I am a firm believer in the Flying Spaghetti Monster… but I don’t take my faith to seriously.

      • http://erictheperson.tumblr.com Eric Coppes

        Guys, it’s Richard. That’s his sense of humor. Being mildly offensive is just the way he writes. What else did you expect?

        • elvendorr

          There is a difference between being mildly offensive and being completely disrespectful to a very large group of people’s religion. It was very upsetting and extremely offensive, as well as completely unnecessary to include. If you think it is fictional, that is completely fine, but choose another place to share these views. Hypable is not the place to attack a religious group.

          • http://www.hypable.com Richard Reid

            I think you might be focusing too much on the word “bible” and ignoring the rest of the article as a whole. And my claim that the Bible is fictitious is one shared among many devout Christians (including the Pope who publicly stated his belief in evolution, thus countering vast amounts of text within the Old Testament). Unless you find the Pope’s views on the Bible as insulting, I think you might be reading too much into it.

          • belac889

            Technically Catholics (according to my theology teacher at school) believe that the first eleven chapters of Genesis aren’t historically accurate but they believe that the rest is mostly accurate.

          • elvendorr

            Not all Christians are Catholic and share these views, Richard. You are really upsetting a lot of people. Your comment is unnecessary, and it would not kill you to remove that one tiny part of your article. It is two words.

          • http://www.hypable.com Richard Reid

            Then unfortunately 95% of the comments would not make sense. I’m leaving it in so newcomers aren’t under the illusion that I launched a massive verbal-assault on the Christian faith when in fact I simply labelled the Bible as fictitious (which it is). I don’t see why that undermines it at all? We know Harry Potter is a work of fiction and we love it no less for being so.

          • elvendorr

            Labelling the Bible as fictitious when a massive amount of people do truly believe in it is most definitely attacking religious group’s beliefs. Do not pretend it is not.

          • Sheechiibii

            A believe is not a truth. Unless something written is a fact then it is still fiction, even if people believe it to be true. Some people believe vampires actually exist, that doesn’t mean everything written about vampires is no longer fictitious.

          • elvendorr

            Many historians agree that Jesus was a man who actually existed. You cannot claim that absolutely everything in the Bible is “completely fictitious” like Richard says. Is everything in the Bible true? Probably not. But is it entirely false? No, you do not have proof of that. And before you say I do not have proof that Jesus does exist, there are many things we believe in that we cannot prove. The theory of gravity, for example.

          • Sheechiibii

            Richard doesn’t say that everything in the bible is completely fictitious and neither have I. But it is a work of fiction. There are many facts used in fiction books, sometimes even real people, but that also doesn’t change that the book is still fiction.

          • elvendorr

            And I quote: “We know (or at least should know) when reading something completely fictitious (Harry Potter, Twilight, the Bible, etc)…”.

          • Sheechiibii

            Again, he doesn’t say everything in the bible is fictitious, just that the book itself is fictitious. There are often many real things in fiction books, that doesn’t change that they are still works of fiction.

          • elvendorr

            And, again Sheechiibii, he still called it “completely fictitious” when no one, not me, or you, or Richard, can prove or disprove the Bible. The real issue at hand here is not whether or not the Bible is true, it is that fact that his comment was extremely offensive and hurtful, and it seems to me he put it in there knowing exactly the response he would get from people. If I am wrong, however, and he really did not know it would hurt his readers, than I don’t see why it is such a big problem to apologize and move on.

          • Sheechiibii

            Would you say that Bridget Jones’ Diary is completely fictitious? It’s a fiction novel right? It has real facts in it, even features real people in it. That does not mean the book itself is any less of a fiction novel. I don’t know why Richard wrote what he did, but either way it’s still the truth. Writing a book about aetheism and how there is no god would be just as fictitious as any religious book. Unless it’s factual, it’s fiction. And since no religion (including aetheism) can be proved anything written about it is fictional.

          • elvendorr

            You are ignoring the real problem here. If does not matter who’s opinion is right, it is the fact that his comment has really upset a lot of people. Richard is completely free to believe whatever he wants, it is just the situation in which he posted it was completely inappropriate. As humans we all have our own different opinions, and I could sit here and argue with you for ages and I will bet we will never see eye to eye. And that is fine and I accept that.

          • Sheechiibii

            The real problem here is that some people seem to think that their belief should be classed as factual simply because they believe it to be true. A belief is not a fact, the bible is fictitious, so there is nothing false about what Richard wrote.

          • elvendorr

            Clearly you have not read any of my other posts. I have NEVER claimed the Bible is completely fact. As I stated above, I have absolutely no proof that the Bible is true. On the other side, neither you, nor Richard, nor anyone on the planet has proof that it is completely false either. Like you said before, a belief is not a fact. Just because Richard BELIEVES the bible is completely fictitious does not make it fact and just because I BELIEVE it has some truth to it does not make my opinion fact either.

          • http://www.hypable.com Richard Reid

            elvendorr I regard anything and everything as fictitious until there is sufficient evidence that corresponds to its claims. While the bible itself is a real physical artefact (thus is quite obviously real), the contents of it are up for much debate. Quite simply, there is no evidence at all that correlates or confirms the vast majority of content in the bible and until I am presented with some, my opinion shall remain of ignorance.

            Please don’t feel like I am somehow targeting Christians; I say quite clearly that as a scientist, I treat EVERYTHING with scepticism until evidence is presented. Furthermore, I’m not sure I understand how exactly my dismissal of the Bible’s factual content is somehow insulting. I’m not dismissing Christianity as a whole, nor am I dismissing Christians or even the Bible itself.

            Simply stating content as factual or fictitious is in no way demeaning to those who are sympathetic to its teachings. Once again, I said that we realise Harry Potter is a work of fiction, yet we love the stories in spite of this. Why does having a basis in fact determine that you should value the teachings in the Bible any less? Furthermore, how does my lack of belief in any way invalidate your convictions? I think you’re offended more in my lack of belief than the words themselves, since there was no malice or mockery in my words at all.

            Finally, as others have pointed out, this is in fact a piece solely based solely from the opinion of the writer (i.e. me). It’s listed under a “column” category and obviously meant to be light-hearted. However, most of my posts (which are few and far between) are usually in some way condescending and patronising. If you haven’t read any of my previous articles, then I can understand your surprise. However, if you’re familiar with my style of writing, I’m quite sure that you would be less than shocked at my comments which in the case of this article as a whole, were rather restrained.

          • Elvendorr

            Richard, you seem to think that I am offended because you do not share my beliefs with me. In all honestly, I do not care either way what you believe. I myself do not have any other Christian friends and it does not bother me in the slightest. What does bother me, however, is your sticking a sacred book along with other books like Twilight. Your comment was not necessary and seemed to be put in there only to start conflict. If your intention was not to hurt people, then I see no reason why making a point of being more sensitive in the future is such a big deal.

          • KleppMelk

            I think you’re gonna have to prove the book is sacet before you make that claim. Sacret, to me, is only a mumbojumbo lable people use to deny others the right to say their critical opinions out loud.

          • Elvendorr

            It is in the opinion of hundreds of thousands of people around the world that it is a holy book. If you disagree, that is fine, but be respectful of that, as I am respectful to you. Many people say they hate it when Christians try to shove their religion down their throats. KleppMelk it goes both ways.

          • KleppMelk

            Ones upon a time everyone thought the earth was flat. The fact that this was the belief of hundreds of thousands did not make them any less wrong. The number of people who believe something does not make the thing they believe in more real.

            I respect that humans have the right to believe whatever they want, and I recognize there is pretty much nothing I can do to make them change their minds, but this does not mean I or anyone else should be restricted from challenging those beliefs on the basis of any reason. ‘Hurt feelings’ is a particularly weak one at that.

          • elvendorr

            Fine, do not get pissed off when Christians or any other religion say that Atheists’ beliefs are completely fictitious then either.

          • Liderc

            Don’t worry, we won’t. We don’t have a religious zeal to try to turn people into atheists. We simply believe what we want and have no intention of trying to convince you of anything. That’s the difference, you want us to shut our mouths, but allow you to keep your’s open. How can you not see the problem?

          • KleppMelk

            Lol, don’t worry about that. “Atheist beliefs.” That’s an oxymoron my friend. Atheists don’t have beliefs in the way religious people do, disbelief is more like it.

          • Sheechiibii

            In the same way religious people believe there is a god, Aetheists believe there is no god. Since we cannot know one way or another if there is a god or not, both are a belief.

          • KleppMelk

            You’re making the mistake of thinking atheism works the same way as religion. Without religion there would be no atheism. Being an atheist does not mean believing there is no god(s), though it’s true for some atheists. Being an atheist means having disbelief/doubt in the existence of (a) god(s) because the evidence to support such an extraordinary claim is inexplicably absent. Until that evidence is presented the only reasonable position is not to believe it. Belief there is no gods(s) is different than disbelief in (a) god(s).

            All Chrisians (or Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc) are also atheists, because like atheists they do not believe in all the gods that exist in religious mythologies other than their own, (like Thor, Zeus, Odin, Artemis, Allah). The only difference between a Christian and an atheist when it comes to belief/disbelief is that the atheist has added just one more deity to the list of gods they don’t believe in.

            So no, atheism is not a belief, it’s disbelief.

          • Sheechiibii

            What you’re describing is agnostic, not atheist. Agnostics believe that there is no proof and therefor a conclusion cannot be drawn about the existence of gods etc. Agnostic can go hand in hand with atheism, but you can be religious and agnostic as well. For example, you can believe there is a god, but not hold that as any sort of truth due to there being no proof, just like an atheist can believe there is no god, but not hold that as a truth because there is no proof of that either.

            Atheism is a belief that there is no god/s or afterlife etc. Agnosticism is drawing no conclusions due to no proof.

          • KleppMelk

            Oh boy…

            Lets do an experiment to make this easier for you to understand.

            Tell me something, do you believe in Odin?

          • Sheechiibii

            If you don’t understand the difference between Agnostic and Atheist then that’s fine. Atheism is a belief, it’s the belief that after death there is nothing, that we were created through nature. Unless there is proof (for example of what comes after death) then people either choose to believe something or choose not to believe in anything (this is agnostic). In this example, not believing in anything would be to say ‘I don’t know, I won’t find out until I’m dead, I’m not going to theorise’. Believing in something would be to say ‘I think when we die that’s it, there’s nothing else’ or ‘I believe when we die we go to heaven/hell’.

          • KleppMelk

            I don’t care what your personal definition of agnosticism and atheism is.

            I’ll repeat my question, but you don’t have to go along with it if you don’t want to, although it’s a pretty harmless question. Just don’t try and argue semantics again. I have no interested in that.

            So, do you believe in Odin?

          • Sheechiibii

            It’s not my personal definition. “Being an atheist means having disbelief/doubt in the existence of (a) god(s) because the evidence to support such an extraordinary claim is inexplicably absent.” – that is what agnostic is, not aetheism. Aetheism is a specific belief. You said right at the start that without religion there would be no aetheism, that’s untrue, without religion Aetheists would still believe that they were created through nature and that after they die there is nothing.

            To humour you, I’l answer your question. No, I don’t believe in Odin.

          • KleppMelk

            Your definition of belief is also wrong. You don’t need belief for instance to accept things based on evidence. But who the hell cares anyway.

            Ok, so you don’t believe in Odin. Cool. Would you say you are an atheist in regards to Norse gods then?

          • Sheechiibii

            My definition is not wrong. A belief is thinking something is true without having proof of it.

            I can’t say for certain that there are any gods, I can’t say for certain that there are no gods, but I am Agnostic with certain religious beliefs. Aetheists are different from this in that they believe that there are no gods, just as others believe there are gods. They draw a conclusion, a belief, something they think is true, the same way religious opinions do this. You can be an Aetheist and be Agnostic as well. You seem to be merging the two together.

          • KleppMelk

            That’s a great definition! Then we can both agree that there are no atheist beliefs, because atheist don’t believe religious claims without proof. Glad we sorted that out. Moving on.

            That’s because the two ARE merged together. And I think you yourself just answered why that is. You said, “You can be an Atheist and be Agnostic as well,” and I absolutely agree, BUT this does also mean that you yourself do not think that belief there is no god is required to be an atheist, as this would exclude being an Agnostic. And as we both can agree that the two are not mutually exclusive, it then has to follow that the only thing required to be an atheist is the disbelief in the existence of (a) god(s). And if you still don’t agree, just check freaking wikipedia. I’m so glad we came to an agreement, and now I’m out.


          • Sheechiibii

            No, Atheists have no proof to back up their beliefs either. They believe that once you die there is nothing afterwards, they have no proof of that, so it’s a belief. They believe that there is no higher power that we were created from, they have no proof of that either, so that is their belief.

            They are not merged, they are two separate things, completely unrelated. Unless that person is both Agnostic and Atheist then the two are completely different. The belief that there is no god/afterlife is required to be an Atheist. Agnostic is someone who doesn’t come to any absolute conclusion. Agnostics say instead ‘we have no proof so we cannot know one way or another whether there is anything or not’ totally different to Atheism.

            You seem to have ignored half of what I’ve said and chosen to select only the parts that help to your argument. I’ll make it simpler: You can be an Atheist and an Agnostic. You can be a Christian and an Agnostic, you can be a Muslim and Agnostic. Agnosticism can go hand in hand with any belief, not just Atheism. Agnosticism is not a belief, it’s the lack of a belief due to no proof. Atheism is a belief, it’s the belief that there is no higher power/afterlife despite there being no proof to support this.

          • Liderc

            How are you not shoving your religion down our throats by disapproving of someone posting publicly about their beliefs?

          • Sheechiibii

            I wasn’t saying you did, but for the bible not to be classed as fictitious it would have to be a factual book, which it is not. Like I have said numerous times (which have gone ignored everytime), many fictional books have lots of real facts in them, often have real people in them, but unless it’s a purely factual account then it’s still classed as fiction. It’s not about what we believe, it’s about what is proven (facts) and what is not. Writing a book about beliefs will always be classed as fiction unless there is proof to substantiate it as facts. Even writing a book about aetheism would be completely fictitious.

          • elvendorr

            And, again, you are continue to completely ignore what the real issue at hand is, which is that Hypable shouldn’t be a place where it’s staff makes religious jabs. Many people consider the Bible is holy scripture, and, out of respect, it should not have been thrown in there with things like Twilight and Harry Potter. As I treat your beliefs with the utmost respect and would never make a jab at Atheist’s beliefs, you should be respectful of mine. If anything, Hypable should remain a place that is free from all attacks against religion, because the only thing that comes of it is a lot of pissed off and offended people.

          • Sheechiibii

            It wasn’t a religious jab or attack. It was a simple statement, it wasn’t an insult, not unless you find it insulting that your opinions aren’t classified as facts. The truth is that being holy scripture doesn’t actually make it any less fictional than Harry Potter or Twilight. I’m not an atheist, as you seem to think, but even if I were, this doesn’t have anything to do with beliefs, the statement is the truth, it’s not his opinion vs yours, it’s the truth in this case. The bible is a fictitious book, the same as any other book written about things that aren’t proven to be real such as wizards and vampires.

          • Elvendorr

            You really don’t get it. It is not about who is right or who is wrong, because clearly me and you have different opinions on the matter. This is about how his statement offended people, and if you do not believe me, look at how many people have commented or thumbed up comments. I am requesting for him not to post things about religion that are only going to upset people. I have a question for you and I would like a yes or no answer. Was including the Bible in his article necessary?

          • Sheechiibii

            Maybe you should ask yourself why it offends people? Should truths be hidden simply because they will offend people? Should we pretend the bible is not fictitious because it might offend people? Should we lie about it? Or just not mention the truth at all, because some people will be offended by it. Or should people just not force their views on others by saying a belief should make something a fact.

            Including the bible in his article was as necessary as including Harry Potter and Twilight, both books also have nothing to do with the main article. It’s an opinion article, if Richard felt it necessary to write it then who are we to say he shouldn’t have? After all he didn’t say anything untrue.

          • Elvendorr

            It is offensive because no one likes to have another’s beliefs shoved down their throats. People hate it when Christians do it, so why is it alright for everyone else to do it. Richard’s article would have been absolutely fine without it.

          • Sheechiibii

            It’s not a belief, it’s the truth. Sometimes people don’t like the truth, but that shouldn’t mean that it should be lied about or covered up.

            What’s more shoving a belief down someones throat? Stating a simple fact or insisting that a fact be forbidden to be talked of because it doesn’t suit your belief.

          • elvendorr

            No, it is yours and Richard’s OPINION that the bible be classified as completely fictitious. It is in my opinion that the Bible can’t be proven either way, and that it is certainly NOT the same type of fiction that Harry Potter or Twilight is, which is exactly what Richard was implying by sticking it in there with them. In my OPINION the Bible is so completely different from other types of text that it can’t be classified as fiction along with fantasy novels.

            Another yes or no question for you. Do you think all people deserve to have their belief’s treated with respect?

          • Sheechiibii

            A book which contains fantasy (like unicorns, walking on water, vampires or wizards) is fictitious. That’s no opinion, that’s a fact. Of course people deserve to have their belief treated with respect. This is not about being disrespectful of a belief though, this is about people taking offense at a simple statement of truth because they choose to believe in it. Would you expect Twilight to stop being labelled fiction because someone believes vampires exist?

          • elvendorr

            Then please respect my belief that the Bible is not at all the same type of fiction that Harry Potter and Twilight are, and please also respect my belief that Richard’s comment was unnecessary and offensive. In turn, I will respect your opinion that you are absolutely correct in saying that the bible is completely fictitious.

            Agree to disagree?

          • Sheechiibii

            Yes I think it’s best if we agree to dissagree. Thank you for being polite and civil :)

          • elvendorr

            You too! :)

          • Liderc

            Apparently you don’t believe atheist should be allowed to post about their beliefs…

          • Liderc

            How did he shove his beliefs down your throat? By saying the bible was fictitious? You know you can just not read the site yes?

          • Liderc

            You keep saying “a lot of pissed off and offended people” but you’re the only person I see complaining. The nice thing about running a website is the writers can say what they want, you don’t have to read it. They don’t force you to believe in what they read, sadly that’s only what you want to do.

          • Liderc

            Your assumption is that “a lot” of people were upset by this. It seems you and like 5 other people have voiced opposition. The other people commented on the article, you know, the article that was posted. You got caught up with one word and spend days defending your religion. I’d say you have a much bigger problem than the writer does. You’ll defend your religion to no end, no matter how much it hurts others who don’t believe the same as you. I’ve read the Bible since I was 8, and I think you’re doing it wrong. You’re supposed to be accepting of others, treat them as you’d treat yourself, ect… You’ve failed on all counts.

          • KleppMelk

            I think some people need to get over the fact that others peoples opinions differ from theirs and that the are perfectly in the right to state those opinions in public . (as long as they’re not threats of violence or death.)

            Your hurt feelings are not good reasons for silencing people who don’t believe the same things you do, nor should they ever be. If it was then why limit that rule to only tooreligion and not to other areas like politics? A person who is unable to believe and find religion ridiculous should be allowed to say so, just like you are allowed to say the opposite, because not being able to say those things hurts just as much, if not more. Richard never said anything wrong, you just can’t get over the fact that he speaks so freely about his belief about your beliefs being a fairy tale. And spare me, saying the Bible is a work of fiction is not a rude comment on believers as people, and is merely a personal opinion on the book it self rather than an insulting comment on the people who take it as fact.

            It’s not the job of nonbelievers to prove holy books are fiction. If you make the claim that they contain fact you need to back it up with evidence. This is called the burden of proof and you don’t get to shift it over to the other side, when you yourself can’t prove you’re right. Until extraordinary evidence is presented then the default and reasonable standpoint to a extraordinary claim is disbelief, not the other way around.

          • elvendorr

            If you had read my other posts, KleppMelk, you would have seen that I have never claimed that I have proof that the Bible is true, in fact I said it can’t be proven either way, which is the only thing we can say for certain.

            You say that everyone has the right to state their own opinions in public. Would that mean it is perfectly fine if I wrote my own article and made a rude little comment stating that all Jews are delusional and going to burn in hell? Of course it wouldn’t be. (And, for the record, I certainly do not believe that).

            Bottom line: I personally do not care what his beliefs on the bible are, but his comment was completely unnecessary to the article and a very low blow. Hypable is for fans to hear news about their favourite fandoms, not have their religious beliefs bashed.

          • Jeremiah

            You just compared what this writer said (the bible is fictitious) to you writing an article and including that you believe “Jews are delusional and going to burn in hell.” Probably the craziest thing I’ve ever read.

            Your religion wasn’t bashed, it’s an opinion piece – an opinion was stated, no insults were given. Just because you take it as in insult doesn’t mean it is one. It’s your opinion that it’s a bash, it’s this person’s opinion that it’s simply a fact. You want them to change their opinion because of your beliefs, which is exactly what is wrong with your religious beliefs.

            I have a novel idea, if you don’t like it, don’t read it.

          • elvendorr

            Jeremiah, you misunderstood me. KleppMelk said people are perfectly in the right to state their opinions in public, and I was merely showing that no, actually, you can’t just put whatever the heck you want out there in public unless you want to upset a lot of people.

            I have never, ever written that I want others to change their beliefs. I have stated what seems like endless times that I have absolutely no problem with Richard’s beliefs. What I do have a problem with is putting it down for absolutely no reason on a public website.

            I have another novel idea. Don’t post offensive stuff about people’s beliefs for no reason whatsoever.

          • Jeremiah

            The fact remains that it’s a small minority who feel it’s “offensive,” aka it’s your opinion, it’s not the majority’s opinion because I imagine thousands of people read this article and maybe 10 people have complained about it here. Do the math. Majority rules. Also, this website is privately owned, I imagine they can post whatever they wish on it. You act like saying “it’s a public place” means anything, it’s the internet, the site is owned by someone I’m sure, aka they can publish whatever they wish on it.

          • elvendorr

            Do you have any possible way of knowing exactly how many people have read this article and how many were offended by it?

          • Liderc

            He probably can’t, but we can assume more than 68 people read this article lol. A quick search on alexa shows this site gets about 700,000+ readers a month, so I’m assuming at least a few thousand read the article by default. That means he’s right, the majority either weren’t offended, or didn’t take the time to comment that they were offended. You’re doing exactly what you’re asking the writer not to do by posting your opinion. You’re posting your opposing opinion here publicly, which is what they did originally in the article.

            Either way, what you’re asking them to do is against everything we as a people believe in, the choice to voice our opinions, whether people agree or not.

          • elvendorr

            Watch what you state as ‘fact’, Jeremiah.

          • KleppMelk

            Threatening people with hell=/=stating the Bible is fiction. One is emoional manipulatin playing on peoples fears of having their flesh burned right of their bones, (this can also be seen as an attac on freedome of speech as it’s an obvious atemt to stop others from saying anything that can be considered blasphemy,)the other is just a non threatening statment of opinion.

            It’s a bit insulting that you think comparing the two is a good argument.

          • Elvendorr

            I don’t think you read my message, KleppMelk. Did I say, ever, that they were equally offensive? No. I said that you can’t just post whatever you want on a website like Hypable without upsetting people, especially when there is no reason for it.

          • KleppMelk

            Actually, I didn’t stay you did either. I pointed out that the first is against free speech while the other is not. The later is actually a human right, and the thing that’s so great about that, is that you get to argue against it as well. But I think I pointed out earlier that your ‘hurt feelings’ are not a good enough reason for trying to silence Richard. Feelings are hurt in the matter of all other topics as well. Your beliefs do not get a free pass just because they’re religious opinions. In fact I think it’s rude to demand that others can not to say anything about the bible being fiction, while religious people are stating left and right all over the place that they believe it’s true that some dude walked on water.

            Richard doesn’t need a reason for stating his opinion in an opinion piece. I am offended that anyone would try to make him apologise at all. He only said what was on his mind for Pasta’s sake!

          • elvendorr

            KleppMelk, whether or not Richard has the ‘right’ to post his beliefs on the internet has nothing to do with what I have been trying to say all along. The comment was not necessary at all, and he should have known it was going to offend people. It was a dick move. If I had made an article myself and added in something along the lines of stating that all Atheist’s beliefs were completely fictitious, sure, I would perfectly in my right to say that, but it doesn’t make it any less dick-like.

          • Liderc

            So your point is that he’s a dick? So he’s a dick because of his beliefs? Can we call you a dick because of your christian beliefs or will you be offended?

            See how this works?

          • Liderc

            Yes, they can post whatever they want. Whether it upsets people or not isn’t their concern. If they choose to post something, they can do it whether it “offends” someone or not. I don’t think you quite understand how this works. You can be offended all you want, it isn’t going to stop someone from posting their opinion, which is what you’re asking them to do. There isn’t some rule on the internet that says “Don’t post offensive things.” It’s actually the opposite, it’s a place where you CAN voice your opinions freely.

          • ed

            Yes it would be wrong to say that as its a personal attack on Jewish people.
            All theories have to be falsifiable only maths works in facts, the irony is that apart from maths only religion claims absolute knowledge, but I can’t disprove the existence of any deity, Yahweh, Zeus, Thor, Hagrid, Peter pan or Santa, we can claim that their existence is extremely unlikely but you can’t disprove any of them with 100% certainty. science is knowledge based on observations, faith is ignoring observations to preserve belief, if you showed me that the bible is true in some or any empirical manor then I would change my mind, I wouldbe really shocked, and really embarrassed but I would still change my mind. Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence, to which none in the history of time had ever been presented.

          • Jesse

            I’m sorry but half the times Christians are silenced is because what we say is apparently hurting the feelings of someone else and not their bodies but their feelings. Plus, there are as many books proving the Bible as true as there are untrue to claim it as fiction is incredibly insulting to Christians, and as you can see I have no problem telling you and Richard that I believe the Bible is 100% true and that you and he are wrong…

          • KleppMelk

            The Bible? 100% true?


          • ed

            What books prove the validity of the bible? Ken Hams autobiography? Kent Hovinds prison memoirs? Great!!
            Observations are what’s required, not books, to which we have no observations proving any existence of any deity in any religion from any period of human history. Your 100% delusional if you think your 100% sure, does knowledge frighten you? Do you intentionally ignore observational science? Or do you decide that the banana man had all the answers? “Closing your eyes and covering your ears to the accumulated knowledge of the last 2000 years” (Tim Minchen) doesn’t advance your claim, it makes you look silly

          • Jared

            Why should he have to apologize for his opinions? Is that what your religion asks of people who don’t believe? You’re asking someone to take back what they believe because it “upsets” you. Sorry bud, the world doesn’t revolve around you or your beliefs and one third of the entire planet believe the bible to be fictitious, learn some facts – you might just be surprised.

          • elvendorr

            Why should he apologize for his comment? Because the way he presented it was disrespectful, rude and completely unnecessary attack on many people’s beliefs. Do you think I want him to apologize for not sharing the same beliefs as me? Of course not, I completely respect his opinions and would never, ever ask someone to change their beliefs because they are different from mine. Am I being outrageous asking him to be more courteous to his readers in the future? Of course I am not.

          • http://www.hypable.com Richard Reid

            Actually we CAN prove the theory of gravity (just like we can prove the theory of evolution). We call them “theories” because we are open to the possibility that someone will find a counter-argument that contradicts it (and backs it up with evidence).

          • elvendorr

            The possibility of a future counter-agrument is exactly why you cannot take theories to be absolute fact. On the other hand, you cannot say it is completely untrue because just because someone in the future MAY disprove it. Richard, I have no absolute way of proving that the Bible is true, just like you have no way of completely disproving the whole thing either. Your opinion is not fact, and it while different opinions are great for things like the rest of your article, you need to present them in a respectful way. I would have thought that you, as a staff, would have been more considerate and sensitive to the wide range of your readers.

          • elvendorr

            Labelling a religion’s holy book as “completely fictitious” when a massive amount of people do believe in it, or at least parts of it, is most definitely an attack against their religion. Do not pretend it is not.

          • elvendorr

            All I am asking for now, Richard, is to be sensitive and respectful when it comes to people’s religion in the future. If you do not believe in the Bible, that is fine, I respect that. But please show the same respect for others, especially in a public place like this.

          • ed

            your hypocrisy is as “offensive” as that which you are “offended” would you offer the same courtesy to Islamic extremist? Or someone who killed thousand of people because God told him to? I doubt it, so what on earth makes you think your religion, nay! any religion deserves any respect? you can’t just have it, it must be earned, I’m sure your a very kind and considerate person, as are the vast majority of Christians throughout the world, but your religion is heinous, and disgraceful by today’s standard, and even worse by my pluralist standards, and it has all the proof of existence as unicorns, but I respect that that’s what you believe, now respect my opinion of your religion

          • ed

            What are you on about? Offence is subjective you idiot, so if it’s not personal then be offended somewhere else, dont you think as an atheist I’m not offended by your bible? the misogyny? the persecution? the homophobia? The mass genocide? Just because it’s religious doesn’t mean you have some sort of monopoly, no no, Christians have all my respect and I would never attack an individual, Christianity on the other hand is fair game.
            Offence has no meaning it comes with no obligation, offence it’s subjective and there mute in an argument, so come down off your religious high horse, don’t like the fact someone claims the bible is fiction? Go and spend some time on wiki and find out why, then, if you sill don’t believe it waste your life trying to find evidence to support the rigidity of your offence, if not, then keep your offences to yourself.

    • EZ

      I think this is exactly what he was looking for when he said that. In his mind it is fiction and it almost is poking fun of people that believe otherwise. All he wants is a rise out of people and you gave it to him.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1045615098 Riana-Tiana Menezes

        There is a significant difference between ‘poking fun at others’ and mocking them.

        • KleppMelk

          So if someone in their honest opinion says they believe the Bible is fiction, they are by default mocking you?

          How about this: the Bible contains stories about talking snakes, unicorns, oceans that separates to make way for a fleeing people, a man who walks on water, and can also turn it into wine, and in the end dies and walks out of his grave three days later.

          Am I mocking you now?

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1045615098 Riana-Tiana Menezes

            You know I’m curious to know how many of you have actually read the Bible to judge it so literally.

          • KleppMelk

            And I’m curious to know if you’ve read the Tora, the Quran, the Eddur, the Baghavad Gita, the Book of Mormon, or any holy book other than the Bible to actually have an opinion about them.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1045615098 Riana-Tiana Menezes

            No I have not read those books that’s why I am not judging them or commenting on them. I, However, have actually read the Bible.

          • KleppMelk

            Then how do you know that your holybook is superiour and not just equally farfetched to all the houndreds of other holybooks out there? You chide people for not reading the Bible but you yourself havent cared enough about opening the Quran to find out why so many Muslims speak so fervently about it. As if somehow the Bible should be the first priority when picking a mythology to believe in.

            Sorry, but I’m going through the Eddur right now, (norse gods are awesome) your precious Bible is just going to have to wait.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1045615098 Riana-Tiana Menezes

            Excuse me?? When did I ever say the Bible is superior to any other book? If that’s what you understood then I’m sorry for you. My entire argument is that if you don’t know anything about something you have no right to criticize it. I would say the exact same thing for any other Holy Book.
            And P.S you don’t even know me.
            I lived in Pakistan my WHOLE life! So YES I HAVE opened the Quran and the Sunnah (its in Arabic so I can’t ‘read’ it), I even had to study it in school so I know plenty about Muslims and their beliefs. They have my utmost respect, even though I don’t necessarily agree with some beliefs I WILL NEVER go on any website/blog/newspaper and ‘poke fun at them’.

            In the end my point is, in order to live in a civilized society one should RESPECT others beliefs, even if you don’t necessarily agree with them.

          • Larry

            So why don’t you respect this person’s belief that the Bible is fictitious?

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1045615098 Riana-Tiana Menezes

            It is not a belief as much as it is a statement purposely meant to stir up controversy.

          • KleppMelk

            It’s more like a belief that stirs up controversy because some people can’t handle that others think their beliefs are fairy tales.

          • Larry

            So now his beliefs aren’t as good as yours or warrant taking at face value? lol. So where does it end? Until you convert him to your religion? Sounds fun.

          • KleppMelk

            Who says Richard was poking fun? For all you know he could be perfectly serious. Probably knowing his remark would be taken as an insult, but perfectly serious nontheless. I would be serious if I said the exact same thing.

            In order to live in a civilized society you have to respect PEOPLE as individuals with the right to speak freely without the threat of violence. Beliefs and opinions should be scrutinized.

          • Zack

            Shut up and go away, okay?

          • KleppMelk


          • Arthur

            But if I asked you if you believed in the Quran or the Torah you would say “no, I believe in the Bible.” Which, is what you’re saying is being “insulting” here. Why is it insulting to state someones opinion when it differs from yours? If you can state that you don’t believe in the Quran or some other religious book, then everyone else is free to say they don’t believe in your bible.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1045615098 Riana-Tiana Menezes

            Not believing in the Bible, and calling it “completely fictitious are two COMPLETELY different things.

          • Sheechiibii

            Just like saying you believe in the bible and expecting it to not to be considered fictitious are also two entirely different things.

          • Zack

            Unicorns weren’t in the Bible, idiot.

          • Zack

            And I’m not an atheist, I love the Lord with all my heart. You are an atheist and mocking Christians.

          • http://www.hypable.com Richard Reid

            Zack, Job 39:9-10 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow?

            Psalms 22:21 Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.

            Psalms 29:6 He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.

            Psalms 92:10 But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.

            Isaiah 34:7 And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.

            You might want to retract your “idiot” statement.

          • http://twitter.com/20619T Craig Thomson

            Unicorns are dicks

          • KleppMelk

            I was waiting for someone to use the word atheist as an insult, and I didn’t have to wait long.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=673982809 Irfon Pennant Williams

            Well, the dig about the bible wasn’t even needed!

          • KleppMelk

            How do you tell the difference between someone simply stating their opinion that the Bible is fiction and someone mocking it? It seam so me that anyone who dares open their mouth about how they honestly can’t take religious scripture seriously are automatically seen as mean people who are just out to hurt.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=673982809 Irfon Pennant Williams

            Mocking it would be putting it in a list of fictional books and liking it to the fictional books. Giving an opinion would actually mean having a proper debate. Regardless of that , this is not the place for religious debate. This should be a place to debate what things movies get wrong. This has been lost because the writer of the article attempted to be witty (and failed)

          • KleppMelk

            I don’t think he was trying to be funny at all. What you fail to grasp was that Richard was possibly actually quite sincere, but you can’t deal with the fact that he said it so casually. The problem here isn’t what he said, but rather that people thinks it’s a good enough reason to get upset.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=673982809 Irfon Pennant Williams

            Being sincere? how? most atheists will not even think of putting Bible in a list of fictional book. Even though they believe the book is rubbish. This is an attempt at humour. Many Anti-theists use this type of humour. In the end, this was the wrong place for it. If he was being sincere, then he would not have used the bible in that list. He would have thought twice about it. In the end Hypable is a site that is read by many, of different cultures and faiths. The writers should reflect that, and be careful how they word things. It’s all right to think the bible is wrong, it’s all right so say so. But only in the right context, and this wasn’t it.

        • EZ

          Because people who believe in the bible are so full of morals that they would not only not mock others, but never do anything worse to nonbelievers? Please, a side mention in a post is hardly the worst thing anyone will do today.

    • YouYou

      The Bible is obviously a work of fiction written to instill morals and values into its readers. The original writers would be extremely amused if they found that people thought it to be entirely factual.

      • KleppMelk

        It’s also a collection of mythologies borrowed from older religions, that was voted upon and canonised as official Christian scripture a few centuries after the alleged reanimation of the Jesus dude, by a bunch of old men who believed in witches and that homosexuals deserve to be stoned. And I’m not talking about the getting high as a kite kind of stoned here either.

      • Hermione Granger

        Interestingly enough, I went to Catholic school, and this is what they taught us.

    • Phantomfluteplayer

      I agree as well. While I don’t believe everything in the Bible verbatum happened, I know there are facts in there. For instance, Jesus did exist.

      • KleppMelk

        The only text that ever claimed Jesus existed is the Bible, there is no historical evidence outside of that. In fact historical writings mentions nothing about the birth of a half-god king, and the crusifiction and resurection of an wildly importand and influential man, and you’d think they would concidering. The only thing you can say for sure is that there might have lived a person who the Jesus character was basen on around that time, kind of like Joseph Smith, but that’s just speculation. Neither is there any evidence of the city of Nasareth. Most likely the name came from a mistranslation of the word ‘trouth.’

        • http://Hypable.com/ James Bean

          Good to hear that you’ve read every piece of “historical writings” available everywhere on Earth. You are truly an enlightened soul. Truth is, most historians agree on the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by Pontius Pilate. Read a book, specifically these ones. Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, The Historical Jesus in Recent Research,

          • Zack

            James, can you just edits Richard’s comment in his post? Its hurting a lot of people and Hypable isn’t a place for religious debates where feelings will just get hurt!

          • Liderc

            So stop commenting then?

          • KleppMelk

            So reading two books will totally make the possibility that a demigod ones walked the earth, died and resurrected, a reality?

          • Phantomfluteplayer

            If you would just listen to what people are saying, you would see that what we are claiming is that Jesus THE MAN existed. We are making no historical claims on his deism, only that Jesus the MAN existed. The historical texts claim that Jesus lived and died. I will agree that the Bible and texts based on the Bible are the only ones who claim Jesus was resurrected though.

          • KleppMelk

            Well, I have no problem believing that could be possible, as I’ve said earlier it’s perfectly plausible there was a dude the character of Jesus is based on. The name Jesus was quite common and executions happened after all. But how you get from there to he’s the son of some deity out of many and possessed supernatural powers… I just don’t buy it.

      • MeMe

        I agree, well said.

      • Slynt

        To choose to believe something doesn’t make it true.

    • Leah

      Agreed. Attacks on religion are nearly as bad as attacks on race. Hypable, it would not kill you to edit out that one little part seeing as it is upsetting so many people. It is not necessary whatsoever to the rest of the article.

      • Warner

        I bet tens of thousands of people read this article and only what maybe a couple dozen commented about it being “insulting”? I’d say you’re the minority.

        • Leah

          Did you look at how many thumbs up the first comment received? More than any other in this entire page.

          • Sarah

            63 people… vs thousands that read it. Do the math.

          • Leah

            Have you contacted every single person who read this article and asked them whether or not they found the comment offensive? Do you think that every single person who found the comment rude and uncalled for commented on this page? Obviously not, Sarah. Maybe the majority of people couldn’t care less, but it doesn’t change that a lot of people WERE upset.

          • Liderc

            So why should they be concerned that a handful of people were upset? People shouldn’t voice their opinions because feelings might get hurt? What are we 8 years old?

    • http://twitter.com/ClaudioCatino CCMASTER_01

      No, but most people do.

    • Sheechiibii

      I don’t see what the huge problem is with calling the bible a work of
      fiction? It’s not composed of facts, therefore it’s fiction, it’s
      stories. There’s nothing wrong with believing in them if you want to,
      but that doesn’t mean they can be labelled as fact in the real world
      unless they are found to be true. It’s no different from any fiction
      story really, some people do honestly believe that vampires exist –
      should all vampire stories stop being labelled as fiction because some
      people believe they have truth in them?

  • Kristen

    Yes!! I’ve always wondering about the whole knocking out thing. They do it soooo much! I’ve always checked out elevators as well to look at how they would escape them. The Hackertyper thing is pretty funny. The only thing I don’t agree with is the child birth one. I don’t think it ever looks pleasant on TV or in movies. Does not make me want to have a kid for sure!!! Also, I LOVE MY BEST FRIENDS WEDDING!!

  • SeanV23

    I agree with the unconscious knockouts and the computer hacking, but I draw the line at My Best Friend’s Wedding. I love that movie! Just to be clear, Julia Roberts doesn’t sing “I Say a Little Prayer” at the reception. In fact, she doesn’t sing the song once in the entire movie!

  • http://www.facebook.com/erikd1 Erik Davison

    What about the fact that in movies, lighting and thunder always happen at the same time? Have filmmakers ever been in a storm before??? Unless you are right next to lightening, thunder always sounds a few seconds afterwards

  • http://www.twitter.com/matsemann08 Matsemann08

    Shooting bullets into water and killing people under water.
    Bullet’s that hit water break almost immediately like it was concrete and just broken metal pieces sink down. You would be safe a couple of feet under.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002255052909 Remy Quist

    Explosions in space make it cooler. It’s so undramatic to destroy a ship and it just being a piece of scrap afterwards without fire and explosions.
    Humanoid Aliens, yeaahh just cheap moviemaking. But the Silence as picture? No, I think the silence are pretty good for an alien! Atleast they are not just a human with strange clothing. They have a special head.

  • http://www.facebook.com/isak.kohaly Isak Kohaly

    Great article!

  • http://twitter.com/SlySound Brett H

    To be fair, humanoid aliens IS possible.

  • KleppMelk

    I first thought the title said “religious things movies always get wrong.”

    Potato potato.

  • http://twitter.com/WonderlandChaos Chazlyn

    Humanoids in Space: Research “The Uncanny Valley”. Basically it means that the closer that something is to human, but isn’t exactly human, the more uncomfortable the viewers become. Sometimes this effect is used on purpose, sometimes not, but I think Humanioids in Space qualify at times as “on purpose.”

  • http://twitter.com/Merina2 Merina

    Thank you so much for this – loved it, absolutely hilarious, especially the childbirth part!

    But I disagree about the bible being a piece of fiction…that was a bit unnecessary, mate :P

  • http://xyue-mayx.deviantart.com/ Dreamer

    The child birth one ALWAY got to me. It has just increased since I saw my cousin give birth two years ago. We were all waiting with her in the room and just to give you an idea: right before she had to start pushing, her husband put on his shoes. Yeah. Child birth is bloody. AND it takes a long time. Usually it’s at least 3 hours. My cousin’s was 12. The computer hacking one always made me laugh too but I love it :)

    Great piece Richard. The Bible thing was a bit controversial but I made me laugh.

  • http://twitter.com/Tygridia Tygridia

    I’d add when in films the policemen are watching a recording from a security camera and they can zoom x100 in HD to find out that the murderer’s face was reflected on a car window. Com’on, guys, you can’t do it, it will be pixeled as hell!

  • Ricky

    guys, Richard’s page itself says he suffers from “delusions of Grandeur”
    so other than a HUGE ego, and bit of occasional fun trivia (I didn’t knew that about elevator shafts or getting hit unconscious-) i dont think we should pay much care to what richard say,

    unless we want him to think he’s more important than he really is.

  • Pete.

    ‘One does struggle to find a good expression for illustrating one’s torn vagina.’ XDDDDDD

  • MM

    I’d like to point out that Star Wars takes place in a galaxy far, far away and that rules that apply to us might not apply to Star Wars…

    • http://www.facebook.com/stephen.mcgowan.39 Stephen McGowan

      space is space.

      • Musician

        It could be a region of space with different physical laws. The same physics don’t necessarily apply in all regions of spacetime.

        • http://www.hypable.com Richard Reid

          The same laws apply to the Universe as a whole, I’m afraid.

  • http://twitter.com/larry411 Larry Richman

    Then there are the ubiquitous scenes in cars with the driver looking at the passenger long enough to get into 20 accidents within one conversation. Or one, really, since they’d be dead.

  • http://www.facebook.com/peggy.ruiz1 Peggy Ruiz

    OMG Richard! Please write more for Hypable! Love your opinions and facts.

  • L C

    As this is an opinion article, I have no problem with you putting the Bible in any list you wish. It tells me that you don’t understand a few things (at the least, a book that is considered holy scripture by one of the world’s largest religions should not be placed in the same category at fantasy novels written so recently…even if you consider it fantasy yourself) but it’s okay.

    So you believe evolution. That’s fine, it’s your opinion and following that reasoning you’re correct in your conclusions. Dr. Richard Dawkins may be a role model…he’s the most consistant atheist I’m aware of. Google him, or just his quotes, and see if what he says agrees with you. Google concepts like Fourth Trimester abortion, which last I checked he is in agreement with. Food for thought.
    But thank you for expressing your opinion. The freedom of speech and religion is a wonderful thing.

    • http://www.hypable.com Richard Reid

      This has nothing really to do with my article, but Professor Dawkins has never advocated abortion in the Fourth Trimester. He’s always maintained that the mother’s life is paramount yet the law is there to protect unborn infants against unnecessary termination. Furthermore, he has often illustrated that from a moral-philosophical point of view, it is questionable to perform abortions once the foetus has developed a central nervous system (which is how the body feels pain and suffering), which occurs before the 20-week legal maximum.

      I’m not disputing your criticism against me whatsoever (and will gallantly defend your right to make it) but simply pointing out incorrect statements attributed towards Professor Dawkins.

  • http://www.facebook.com/luigi.barrazacardenas Luigi Barraza Cárdenas

    I HAVE seen a hatch in an elevator. A friedn climbed up, we have pictures.

  • http://www.facebook.com/JesseB.72 Jesse Barrow

    It is incredibly offensive to Christians to call the Bible a work of fiction by him saying just the Bible and not saying any of the other religious texts it means that it wasn’t just poking fun, and even if he had said the other religious texts I would have been offended for them this has no place on hypable. I come here to read movie, tv, and books reviews not to see religions insulted. Hypable wasn’t made for this guys… :(

  • Musician

    Guys, it’s Richard. He trashes things whether he hates them or loves them. Don’t freak out about the Bible comment.

  • Guest

    to be fair, for the Humanoids in Space item, most special effects people aren’t really constrained by lack of creativity – more lack of budget really (that’s why all the klingons in the original Star Trek were just people painted brown – their budget was horrible, they even used salt shakers for medical scanners)

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=673982809 Irfon Pennant Williams

    Expositions in space happen because it’s cool

    Humanoid aliens because they are usually played by a human

    In fact most of these are just the stuff the film ignores to make it cooler. A silent battle in Star Wars would be very boring.

    And BTW, saying the bible is fictional isn’t funny or witty, it’s just mean spirited.

  • Nick D.

    Guys, the bible is a collection of stories. The earliest of those stories were passed down from the Sumerans to the Babylonians, changed back and forth, then the Jews adopted some of them during their time in Babylon, collected them, rewrote them, added new and different versions, and put them (later) into their Thora. Centuries later, Christians adopted some of those stories, made their own version, left out what they didn´t need, added what they found suitable, and created something we call the Bible out of a bunch of millenia old stories, based on their personal preferences and feelings, back in the 3rd century. I´m sorry, but I laugh out loud whenever someone claims the Bible to be anything but a bunch of stories.
    There is, however, no doubt about the fact that those stories contain a) lots of good advise how to live in peace with your neighbours and family, b) retellings of actual happenings, though, by nature, changed through the millenia in countless ways one can only imagine (just watch both FOX News – aka Bullshit Mountain . and The Daily Show to get a perfect picture how the same story changes if told from different perspectives), and c), lots of stuff that seemed to be a good idea to include AT THAT TIME, but has since lost a bit of its relevance, like the stoning of animals who shit themselves, or what else. Also, science made a lot of stuff kind of obsolete. And no, science is not a believe. That´s why it´s called science. What science has proven is called fact for a reason. Beacause it is. Fact.
    HOWEVER: No one will hinder you to believe that God created those facts. Where is the problem in admitting that the natural laws science has discovered where created by God? Where´s the problem in believing that God created DNA? That God created Evolution as a system for his creations to adapt to an ever-changing world? If you want to believ in something, why not believe in something that actually makes sense to, lets say, educated people?
    Sorry for the rant, but I just can´t stand this anymore.

    • http://twitter.com/dreamfall31 Kevin Slechta

      *slow clap*

  • lisol18

    Mention the word “bible” ONE time in an article, and that’s all anyone focuses on! Relax people, it was a joke. It was also quite true…
    Anyway, that picture used for “Humanoids in Space” scared the hell out of me, so thank you for that, Richard… D:

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1455462014 Lauren Humbard

    See, I’ve always wondered about that whole explosion in space thing. My question (not a scientist so bear with me, oh ye illustrious scientific types): Wouldn’t the oxygen in the space ship/transport/thing getting destroyed contribute to some sort of explosion?

  • Jay

    1. I’ve witnessed childbirth, twice, it is gruesome. I don’t want to see it on TV ever.

    2. American’s care about religion FAR too much. Looked at other developer nations people, don’t let a bunch of stories govern your lives.

    3. Why do you all care if this guy thinks The Bible is fiction? Religious types are very defensive about their religion. Almost over compensating.

  • AngryWhoFan

    I hover over a picture of a Silent from Doctor Who and It says OOD? OOD? FOR REAL?

  • sarahleigh

    Ahahahaha Richard look at what you started! You should definitely do more of these.

  • Sheechiibii

    I don’t see what the huge problem is with calling the bible a work of fiction? It’s not composed of facts, therefor it’s fiction, it’s stories. There’s nothing wrong with believing in them if you want to, but that doesn’t mean they can be labelled as fact in the real world unless they are found to be true. It’s no different from any fiction story really, some people do honestly believe that vampires exist – should all vampire stories stop being labeled as fiction because some people believe they have truth in them?

  • http://twitter.com/Fluffsy S.J.

    OMG Richard can your next edition of this include how hollywood makes absolutely no effort what so ever in researching countries that are NOT America and UK? :D ex: Middle East countries ; we dont ride camels and live in tents in the deserts for god’s own sake!

  • guest

    Something to add to the list: Whenever a spaceship gets hit and the systems go offline, the artificial gravity is always the last thing to go, even when all power has been diverted to life support.

  • Turkey

    Why can’t T just be Time of exlosion?

  • Fabiana

    I especially agree with childbirth. Also, they skip the part where the placenta is taken out, the last part of labour conveniently omitted (and when it has trouble coming out, its pathological, really bad).

  • KK

    It took me a good 10 min to get to the ACTUAL article comments

  • Dany

    Hypable is supposed to be a pop culture website. If I want religious jabs, I’ll go somewhere else. Personally, I may agree with what you say Richard, but I just don’t think Hypable on the whole is the place for jabs. You’re a representative of a larger whole, put this on your own blog. I would rather see no religious content, positive or negative, on a “news” outlet. If Hypable is striving to be a news source for fandoms, this small situation takes away credibility, “opinion piece” or not. It just shows that the staff here isn’t very professional.

    • elvendorr

      Well said, Dany.

  • BenBowler

    In the context of a rocket launch, the “T minus Time” is the time before launch, e.g. “T minus 3 minutes and 40 seconds”. The last ten seconds are usually counted down aloud “10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, Lift off!” After a launch, most countdown clocks begin to show Mission Elapsed Time, which is typically shown as “T plus.” The picture to the right shows “+ 00:00:07″, approximately seven seconds after liftoff.

  • http://www.facebook.com/alicia.potter2 Alicia V. Perez

    Also hailing an NYC cab. No amount of whistling or some strategic hand-waving is going to get you a cab. It’s all about location, location, location (i.e, you’re more liking to get a cab on the an avenue than a street, in uptown, on an intersection.)

  • SonickedYou

    I actually enjoyed this article. To the truth behind movies!

  • VictimOrPerpetrator

    Is it really so far fetched to believe that sentient life can only evolve in certain conditions (similar to those we have on our planet)? I don’t think so, that’s why I believe it’s plausible that humans could have a lot in common with races from other planets.

    Also, I can’t believe how worked up people get over the Bible…

  • http://fakepolystyreneman.tumblr.com/ Jason

    Yeah. Jesus (pun intended). Holy Darwin. Mega Newtons, Richard. That was -like- sooo unprofessional of you. How dare you make fun of the Bible. You know, because stoning people to death for adultery isn’t anymore ridiculous than vampires that sparkle and all.

    I really just wanted to poke a few jabs at Richard. I have nothing else really to say. Actually, I do want to say the time argument T Minus versus T Plus is just point of perspective. It depends on how you look at it. I think because the assumption is that you only have 4 minutes to “live” (even though the good guy almost always escapes in time and does live anyhow) the assumption is that the thing is going to blow up and kill everything/one in sight and therefore time is actually counting “down” to ones imminent demise. Therefore it’s Time minus four minutes. Meaning once that four minutes is over you’re dead. Also clocks count down so you’re subtracting time not adding it. Time plus x minute would indicate that there’s an additional 4 minutes on top of the initial time. Take soccer for example they call it “added time” because you get 90 minutes plus added time for injuries and other delays.

    That’s it. Great post Rich, you had me laughing.

  • Slynt

    Love the sniper shot at the bible :-)