I was born with Cerebral Palsy with moderate Spastic Quadriplegia and I tried out to play the role out of Greg Heffley back in Janurary 2009 when I was 13 years old.
I also called the author and illustrator of the books Jeff Kinney and he told me that kids with Cerebral Palsy with moderate Spastic Quadriplegia were welcome to audtion to play the role of Greg Heffley.
My audtion got 3½ stars out of 5.
But I like Zachary Gordon in the lead because he also loves the books series and he plays the role of Greg in a similar way that I would of if I won the role 4 years ago.
hey cyrus this is ricky from comicon, i tried emailing you a couple of times regarding my email problem for confirmation on the site, so i ended up getting an email just to confirm to become a member you and all of the crew were great to hang out with i hope you guys end up coming back out to california i'll show you some good spots to hang-ricky
I agree with a great many things you said in your response but I think you are misrepresenting Atheism and stereotyping Atheists (I think that's part of the reason you don't want to be labeled as an Atheist). Atheism is a position on a single issue; do you believe that a God/Gods exists? Atheism is not a philosophy or a world view, it is the byproduct of a philosophy/world view. There are Atheists that do believe in guiding alien races. Many more consider themselves Skeptics. In Skepticism, the time to believe in something is when we have evidence for that thing (most of us do this for 99% of everything in life). This is the best way we have to find the truth.
Why you are an Atheist:
Atheism, in general, is the lack of belief in God. Allow me to explain, a claim is being made:
A God/Gods exists.
You either believe that claim or you don't believe that claim. Here are four typical responses to this question(of course, there are more):
Yes, I believe that.
I don't know.
No, I don't believe that.
No, God/Gods do not exist.
By saying I don't know, you are still rejecting the claim being made. Here is an alternate example: imagine a court room scenario where the claim is "Person G is guilty". If the jury said "I don't know", then the court would rule Person G not guilty. Here are the same responses with their associated positions:
Yes, I believe that. (Theism)
I don't know. (Atheism)
No, I don't believe that. (Atheism)
No, God/Gods do not exist. (Strong Atheism/ Anti theism)
Degrees of certainty:
As Penn Jillete said, Agnosticism answers a question of knowledge not belief. By saying your an Atheist, you don't automatically claim absolute certainty that there is no God/Gods. In fact, Atheism, in general, makes no claims. Atheism, at least for skeptics, is a tentative position waiting for evidence. Also, I disagree with your statement that Atheists don't find supernatural claims worthy of study and attention. Skeptics actively want to find out if these supernatural claims are true but continue to find no evidence.
Bitter, angry Atheists:
I understand why some Athiests are like this. They are often engulfed in extremely religious cultures that consistently push their beliefs on others and belittle those who don't believe. That said, being defensive, angry and full of contempt is not a requirement for Atheism. Neither does one have to actively condemn other people's beliefs. You can believe what you wish to believe but if you want me to share that belief, you have to have good reasons.
It's only a matter of time in any given discussion involving agnosticism before the "down-talking expert" commentator archetype shows up. Yes, there are some strong feelings on this matter. Why? I always am reminded of a gay friend of mine who used to get INCENSED over bisexuality, insisting that there was no such thing and people are either gay or straight. He wasn't alone.
No one defines this character trait like the atheist who absolutely refuses to understand the position of the true agnostic, who refuses to acknowledge that such a position even exists, because he himself has chosen such a rigid (and often rather angry) stance. I mean, who else attacks a person on their own podcast for how they define their beliefs? You can find lots of back up in the history of philosophy and, of course, on the internet, for this popular position, but that doesn't make it so.
Agnostics (at least in my position) truly don't believe or not believe the EXISTENCE of a god or gods or guiding alien race or whatever, but aren't willing to condemn those who do out of hand either. Only in a proceeding empirically fashion (such as in regarding politics or social engineering) do we regard spiritual life and theories as absolutely not part of the discussion, because there's no other way to advance the discussion and make things better for everyone, and not just the dominant belief-led majority (at any given time).
As a scientific culture, we're incredibly primitive still. We don't even really understand consciousness. How do we measure the experience of illumination? Do we choose to deny it because there's no empirical evidence suggesting it's real and therefore pay no real attention to it until this definition of proof comes along? You see, I don't. I find it ALL fascinating and completely worthy of attention and study. I just don't necessarily drink the proffered kool-ade either, although I'm willing to face an internal and unmeasurable truth if it comes along and forces me to acknowledge it.
If I have outright disdain in a spiritual sense, it's towards organized religions, whose evolutions (snicker) you can trace with ease throughout the centuries and it's hard to take but so seriously based on their various inconsistencies. But I disagree with Penn Jillette entirely when he says the best way to become an atheist is to actually read the bible. That's the best way to decide the bible is probably just a book and not sacrosanct in any way, but that's just one group's way of thought-forming god and has nothing to do with whether or not a higher being actually exists any more than Scientology being bullshit proves it either.
So, if it makes you feel better, define me into a meaningless corner, if it makes you feel better. The difference between us may be minor to you, but it's the defining leap into modern critical thinking to me. Being able to acknowledge how little we know (and how poorly we're even capable of measuring it at that) is how we open ourselves up to whatever else might be out there. Or maybe not. You don't know either so please, try not to explain how sure you are that I'm wrong and wasting my time. Perhaps you can learn to live with the divide between us without belittling me. Sure would make for a better world right now, and that's the only thing that really concerns me.
Hey Cyrus, thanks for the great time at the SD pub crawl. I didn't get to see you dance though. Next year. And since I remember you saying how much you love Catholic weddings, you have an open invitation to mine. Bring knee pads.