"Life Of Pi" - Atheist Propoganda?

[Azariah]

I read the book years ago so my memory might not be very good, and haven't seen the movie, but the boat isn't around when Pi tells his story, is it? Doesn't it get abandoned somewhere or destroyed or something?

I honestly don't know. I've been wanting to see the movie ever since I saw the previews. It looks very entertaining. However, if there is no evidence (such as the boat being abandoned in some unknown location) then all we have is Pi's "word". Should we place our faith on the word of a stranger? Is the person giving their testimony using his own imagination or are they telling us the facts?

Janine Driver has a pretty good book out called "You Can't Lie to Me: The Revolutionary Program to Supercharge Your Inner Lie Detector and Get to the Truth" and there are other methods a person can use to discern whether a person is lying, telling an imaginative story, or if they are really telling the truth. Sometimes, though, it is hard to discern if the person BELIEVES they are telling the truth.

[mfbukowski]

However, the story of animals in the boat can be shown to be false (thus proving Pi to be a liar). For example, if people were murdered on the boat, then their would be forensic evidence to verify such. Just as their would be evidence if a tiger or other animals had been on the life boat. If no evidence for animals exists, this lowers (if not destroys) Pi's credibility. If blood or some other physical evidence is found which points to foul play (murder) then it not only lowers his credibility but proves him to be a flat out liar. Doesn't matter how interesting his story was. Of course, if he admits the story about the animals was purely from his own imagination (fiction) then one could see it as a coping mechanism the boy employed to justify his actions (survival instincts).

But none of these are the facts of the story.

The whole point of the story was to present the idea that, given a story with two interpretations and no other facts available. which would you pick?

You are presuming we get to get on the boat and examine it for further evidence. The entire point is that that is not an option.

And none of the evidence we are given points to him being a "liar". Incidentally bananas DO float.

[mfbukowski]

I honestly don't know.

Then why are you making stuff up?

[Azariah]

Then why are you making stuff up?

Why are you being so hostile? I am not making stuff up. I am simply offering another opinion and contributing to this thread. As a matter of fact, this thread has motivated me to download the kindle version of the life of Pi so that I may read it for myself and be able to contribute to this thread in a more informed manner. Again, no need to be rude to me simply because my viewpoint may differ from your own. Perhaps, after reading the book my viewpoint may change.

[bluebell]

Why are you being so hostile? I am not making stuff up. I am simply offering another opinion and contributing to this thread. As a matter of fact, this thread has motivated me to download the kindle version of the life of Pi so that I may read it for myself and be able to contribute to this thread in a more informed manner. Again, no need to be rude to me simply because my viewpoint may differ from your own. Perhaps, after reading the book my viewpoint may change.

It's a really good book. I couldn't put it down.

[mfbukowski]

I honestly don't know. I've been wanting to see the movie ever since I saw the previews.

I am not making stuff up.

You speak about a movie in detail and then tell us you have not seen it, and then say you are not making stuff up.

What would you call that? I do not mean to be rude- it just is not consistent.

Then you issue statements on another thread that it is "false" that God exists etc- without offering us any arguments for any of it

What am I supposed to think? You definitely sound a tad trollish to me.

Edited November 29, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Azariah]

You speak about a movie in detail and then tell us you have not seen it, and then say you are not making stuff up.

What would you call that? I do not mean to be rude- it just is not consistent.

Then you issue statements on another thread that it is "false" that God exists etc- without offering us any arguments for any of it

What am I supposed to think? You definitely sound a tad trollish to me.

I have not spoken of the movie "in detail" (perhaps you should take your own advice and "stop making stuff up"). I spoke the truth when I said I had not seen the movie. I have, however, seen the previews. Now, going on the limited information that was available to me at the time, I offered my limited opinion on the matter. I am now reading the book on my kindle and will offer my opinion again after I have finished reading the book.

There was nothing "trollish" about my comments. I simply offered an opinion. If this offends you then by all means put me on ignore.

[mfbukowski]

I have not spoken of the movie "in detail" (perhaps you should take your own advice and "stop making stuff up").

This is what I was commenting on.

However, the story of animals in the boat can be shown to be false (thus proving Pi to be a liar).

How do you know that?

[Azariah]

This is what I was commenting on.

How do you know that?

If the boat were available for inspection. If the boat were "lost" and unrecoverable then this would not be an option (obviously). However, as anyone who has ever had a pet knows, animals shed and presumably relieve themselves. If one animal "ate" another (as in the story) there would be evidence (blood, a carcass, etc). Likewise, if a murder had occurred, there would be evidence (assuming the boat was recoverable). If the boat was lost and unrecoverable, then we would only be left with Pi's testimony. Whether Pi's testimony were true or false would depend on the consistency of his story. Body language can also help an interrogator ascertain the truth. But, since this is a work of fiction, there is no way to know if Pi is telling the truth or making up a fantasy as a coping mechanism.

[Azariah]

Speculation on my part: I am of the opinion that this is exactly what the author of this piece of fiction intended. He doesn't want to flat out tell us that Pi is lying, telling the truth or coping mechanism from Pi's imagination. I think the author wants us to come to our own conclusions.

[mfbukowski]

Speculation on my part: I am of the opinion that this is exactly what the author of this piece of fiction intended. He doesn't want to flat out tell us that Pi is lying, telling the truth or coping mechanism from Pi's imagination. I think the author wants us to come to our own conclusions.

I think it might be a challenge to recover evidence from a lifeboat after it had capsized a number of times and been through a storm at sea or two, but that's just me I guess.

But what you are saying above was a little different than your first statement

However, the story of animals in the boat can be shown to be false (thus proving Pi to be a liar).

Saying that it was "speculation" is quite different than saying that it can be "shown to be false" when it cannot be so shown- there is no evidence that it is false or that Pi is in fact a "liar"

Even the one bit of evidence attempting to show inconsistency in the story (the bananas ) is incorrect. They float.

Edited November 29, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Azariah]

I think it might be a challenge to recover evidence from a lifeboat after it had capsized a number of times and been through a storm at sea or two, but that's just me I guess.

But what you are saying above was a little different than your first statement

Saying that it was "speculation" is quite different than saying that it can be "shown to be false" when it cannot be so shown- there is no evidence that it is false or that Pi is in fact a "liar"

Even the one bit of evidence attempting to show inconsistency in the story (the bananas ) is incorrect. They float.

I don't believe I ever mentioned "bananas". If I did, then my memory must be failing me.

Let's not forget the the story of Pi, is a work of fiction. So, ultimately, it is the author of this story who determines if Pi is in fact, lying, telling the truth, or something else. In a way, it's kind of like the story about Gulliver's Travels. The story, of course, is fiction, but, in the story did Gulliver believe his stories were true? I think the same question could be asked of Pi.

[mfbukowski]

I don't believe I ever mentioned "bananas". If I did, then my memory must be failing me.

Let's not forget the the story of Pi, is a work of fiction. So, ultimately, it is the author of this story who determines if Pi is in fact, lying, telling the truth, or something else. In a way, it's kind of like the story about Gulliver's Travels. The story, of course, is fiction, but, in the story did Gulliver believe his stories were true? I think the same question could be asked of Pi.

Only if you were also a fictional person in the story.

Of course you could ask but that would be destroying the purpose of the competing stories.

The point of the book is about epistemology and how we know things are true and how we choose to see them.

"Bananas" refers to an evidential point brought up at the end of the story. You will see what I mean later.

Edited November 30, 2012 by mfbukowski

[changed]

The whole point of the story was to present the idea that, given a story with two interpretations and no other facts available. which would you pick?

That was the main beef I had with it - that there were no other facts available - and comparing this to God. There are always other facts available, and I think a better message to propagate would be one that encourages study/pondering/experimenting on the words/testing/seeing what fruits come from what teachings - it's not about taking someone else's word for it, it's about going on the journey for yourself, gaining the experiences that allow you to come to the same knowledge as those who have gone before...

Th author is an agnostic? perhaps that is the fault of agnostics, that they are unwilling/unable to go on the journey themselves? forever sitting on the fence without understanding they can hop off and go personally explore both sides of the coin themselves.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

note about child appropriateness - the book was worse than the movie, when you read the book you get a pretty in-depth image of the animals killing and eating one another, which is one thing for animals to be doing this, but the imagery is pretty vivid... then in the space of a couple of paragraphs, all of that very vivid imagery that had been developed in detail through several chapters suddenly changes from animals to people - and it feels as if you have just spent hours reading the brutal ugly details of a boy watching his own mother brutally murdered... even though you did not spend hours reading a book about people killing one another, suddenly, you did just spend hours reading a book with all the gory details of people killing one another... kind of tricky way to get a bunch of really ugly stuff into your head for a bit.... I was surprised it was rated pg.

Edited December 1, 2012 by changed

[mfbukowski]

.... I was surprised it was rated pg.

The movie left much of the gore out, and the last story was told briefly in little detail.

[Nathair/|\]

[Nathair/|\]