Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

God's not dead

numberwang
Posts: 1,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 1:15:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I just watched God's not dead tonight, and I personally thought it was total crap. I just was wondering what religious people thought about it and what non religious people thought about it, since it has a 82% on rotten tomatos for user reviews. How the hell did that happen?

My personal favorite bit of the movie has to be between the fate of the two main atheists (one getting cancer and the other dying in a car crash), the professor having 0 arguments against god that weren't appeals to authority, and the main character's ending line to his debate-- "How can you hate something that doesn't exist?" Classic.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 3:49:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I haven't seen it and I seriously doubt I would waste my time. From the trailer, it's little different from many of the phony dialogs theists dream up to try to win debates, when it becomes obvious that if they allow the atheists to speak for themselves, they have no hope of wining. It's not hard to win a debate when you get to write all of the dialog for both sides, and that's all that movie is.

But we should understand that it could be the worst movie of all time, and it would still win rave reviews from the Christian majority. All it has to do is suggest that Christianity is true, and that Christians might have some hope of actually winning an argument and they would be burying the movie in joyful praise.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 4:38:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 1:15:50 AM, numberwang wrote:
I just watched God's not dead tonight, and I personally thought it was total crap. I just was wondering what religious people thought about it and what non religious people thought about it, since it has a 82% on rotten tomatos for user reviews. How the hell did that happen?

My personal favorite bit of the movie has to be between the fate of the two main atheists (one getting cancer and the other dying in a car crash), the professor having 0 arguments against god that weren't appeals to authority, and the main character's ending line to his debate-- "How can you hate something that doesn't exist?" Classic.

It's total crap. And I didn't even watch all of it. It's designed to appeal to a limited audience.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 4:45:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 1:15:50 AM, numberwang wrote:
I just watched God's not dead tonight, and I personally thought it was total crap. I just was wondering what religious people thought about it and what non religious people thought about it, since it has a 82% on rotten tomatos for user reviews. How the hell did that happen?

My personal favorite bit of the movie has to be between the fate of the two main atheists (one getting cancer and the other dying in a car crash), the professor having 0 arguments against god that weren't appeals to authority, and the main character's ending line to his debate-- "How can you hate something that doesn't exist?" Classic.

Well, do realise the film IS made for a specific audience. Made by Christians for Christians. So most the negative reviews I see for it don't have a whole lot more justification for it than say a Japanese would for negatively reviewing an American Pearl Harbour film for being too American-Biased and patriotic. It's not going to be particularly historically accurate and the details are going to be bent for dramatic effect etc, which is the case for this film.

I actually thought the acting in the story was pretty good, and the antagonist teacher was somewhat despicable (if somewhat absurd), my favourite scenes were of the black guy who was basically like 'Hakuna Matata' throughout the whole film, heh.
Arasa
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 6:26:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 1:15:50 AM, numberwang wrote:
I just watched God's not dead tonight, and I personally thought it was total crap. I just was wondering what religious people thought about it and what non religious people thought about it, since it has a 82% on rotten tomatos for user reviews. How the hell did that happen?

My personal favorite bit of the movie has to be between the fate of the two main atheists (one getting cancer and the other dying in a car crash), the professor having 0 arguments against god that weren't appeals to authority, and the main character's ending line to his debate-- "How can you hate something that doesn't exist?" Classic.

The movie was more geared towards showing the difficulties that each Christian will face in his or her own lifetime in this modern era. I would certainly agree that the argument in the movie was not persuasive, however I would also state that this same sort of behavior by the professor was the overall attitude and reasoning by philosophers until a man named Alvin Plantinga appeared on the scene. Since then, both sides have been forced to arm themselves with more than what this symbolic professor had equipped himself.

The movie does not provide solid and incontrovertible philosophical ground for Christians, but it puts a foot in the door as viewers are shown that there are philosophical arguments for God. Granted, they were not represented in their entirety, but that is what we get with an easily-distracted target audience.

As for that major line, it does show Christians the number one reason for young adults leaving the faith: The problem of suffering and evil in the world.

August Rasa, a 4:53 mind
Shadow-Dragon
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 6:32:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
As usual, one can expect atheists to get angry because other's want to believe in their own beliefs, and not the views of atheists.

For those who believe in God, it would be a nice movie to watch.
For those who don't, no point in watching it. Most of you will never change.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 6:36:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 6:32:53 PM, Shadow-Dragon wrote:
As usual, one can expect atheists to get angry because other's want to believe in their own beliefs, and not the views of atheists.

For those who believe in God, it would be a nice movie to watch.
For those who don't, no point in watching it. Most of you will never change.

Most of us would not change since there is no scientific evidence.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
Shadow-Dragon
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 6:38:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 6:36:26 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 9/2/2014 6:32:53 PM, Shadow-Dragon wrote:
As usual, one can expect atheists to get angry because other's want to believe in their own beliefs, and not the views of atheists.

For those who believe in God, it would be a nice movie to watch.
For those who don't, no point in watching it. Most of you will never change.

Most of us would not change since there is no scientific evidence.

Well, unfortunately, we all see the same evidence. The only difference is that you atheists interpret in a way that helps you case, and interpret it in your own way.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 6:46:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 6:38:38 PM, Shadow-Dragon wrote:
At 9/2/2014 6:36:26 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 9/2/2014 6:32:53 PM, Shadow-Dragon wrote:
As usual, one can expect atheists to get angry because other's want to believe in their own beliefs, and not the views of atheists.

For those who believe in God, it would be a nice movie to watch.
For those who don't, no point in watching it. Most of you will never change.

Most of us would not change since there is no scientific evidence.

Well, unfortunately, we all see the same evidence. The only difference is that you atheists interpret in a way that helps you case, and interpret it in your own way.

Well, scientific evidence is peer reviewed and reexamined. Where as evidence that supports religion comes from heavily biased sources. On one religious site, they suggested that Jonah could have been swallowed by a whale shark.

In ken ham v. Bill nye, ken ham used the bible as evidence. He tried to say that Kangaroos traveled to Australia. If that were the case, we would see Kangaroo fossils in Asia.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
Idealist1
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 7:05:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 1:15:50 AM, numberwang wrote:
I just watched God's not dead tonight, and I personally thought it was total crap. I just was wondering what religious people thought about it and what non religious people thought about it, since it has a 82% on rotten tomatos for user reviews. How the hell did that happen?

My personal favorite bit of the movie has to be between the fate of the two main atheists (one getting cancer and the other dying in a car crash), the professor having 0 arguments against god that weren't appeals to authority, and the main character's ending line to his debate-- "How can you hate something that doesn't exist?" Classic.

It sounds to me that you are employing the same type of self-serving confirmation bias that you describe in the movie. If it supports your views then it's worthy, if it doesn't then it's not. There's nothing wrong with critiquing a movie, but I didn't see you write a single good thing about it. That sounds about as biased as you claim the movie to be.
Idealist1
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 7:09:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 3:49:06 AM, Beastt wrote:
I haven't seen it and I seriously doubt I would waste my time. From the trailer, it's little different from many of the phony dialogs theists dream up to try to win debates, when it becomes obvious that if they allow the atheists to speak for themselves, they have no hope of wining. It's not hard to win a debate when you get to write all of the dialog for both sides, and that's all that movie is.

But we should understand that it could be the worst movie of all time, and it would still win rave reviews from the Christian majority. All it has to do is suggest that Christianity is true, and that Christians might have some hope of actually winning an argument and they would be burying the movie in joyful praise.

And yet it seems that all it has to do is be pro-creationist in order for all atheists to hate it, which is the exact counter to believers loving it. You can no more remove your own bias (to a movie you haven't even seen) than the believer can, yet you feel justified in criticizing them.
Idealist1
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 7:18:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 4:38:11 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/2/2014 1:15:50 AM, numberwang wrote:
I just watched God's not dead tonight, and I personally thought it was total crap. I just was wondering what religious people thought about it and what non religious people thought about it, since it has a 82% on rotten tomatos for user reviews. How the hell did that happen?

My personal favorite bit of the movie has to be between the fate of the two main atheists (one getting cancer and the other dying in a car crash), the professor having 0 arguments against god that weren't appeals to authority, and the main character's ending line to his debate-- "How can you hate something that doesn't exist?" Classic.

It's total crap. And I didn't even watch all of it. It's designed to appeal to a limited audience.

Yes, it was pretty bad, and the direction of the theme was obvious, but that doesn't justify criticizing the movie simply because of it's message. Despite the poor acting and loaded speeches, it did contain a few good lessons, such as the fact that you should never let yourself be bullied into rejecting what you personally believe, or be ugly towards another person for what they believe.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 7:20:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 6:36:26 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 9/2/2014 6:32:53 PM, Shadow-Dragon wrote:
As usual, one can expect atheists to get angry because other's want to believe in their own beliefs, and not the views of atheists.

For those who believe in God, it would be a nice movie to watch.
For those who don't, no point in watching it. Most of you will never change.

Most of us would not change since there is no scientific evidence.

There's no scientific evidence for morals, so I guess you don't believe in them.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 7:32:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 7:20:14 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 9/2/2014 6:36:26 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 9/2/2014 6:32:53 PM, Shadow-Dragon wrote:
As usual, one can expect atheists to get angry because other's want to believe in their own beliefs, and not the views of atheists.

For those who believe in God, it would be a nice movie to watch.
For those who don't, no point in watching it. Most of you will never change.

Most of us would not change since there is no scientific evidence.

There's no scientific evidence for morals, so I guess you don't believe in them.

Morality is subjective. It basically evolved over the course of human history.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
numberwang
Posts: 1,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 8:02:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 7:05:39 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
At 9/2/2014 1:15:50 AM, numberwang wrote:
I just watched God's not dead tonight, and I personally thought it was total crap. I just was wondering what religious people thought about it and what non religious people thought about it, since it has a 82% on rotten tomatos for user reviews. How the hell did that happen?

My personal favorite bit of the movie has to be between the fate of the two main atheists (one getting cancer and the other dying in a car crash), the professor having 0 arguments against god that weren't appeals to authority, and the main character's ending line to his debate-- "How can you hate something that doesn't exist?" Classic.

It sounds to me that you are employing the same type of self-serving confirmation bias that you describe in the movie. If it supports your views then it's worthy, if it doesn't then it's not. There's nothing wrong with critiquing a movie, but I didn't see you write a single good thing about it. That sounds about as biased as you claim the movie to be.

I don't think my assessment is biased and I wasn't watching it with the intention of being put off or I wouldn't have watched it at all. I would have liked a movie that portrayed theist and atheist arguments on a level playing field actually debating the existence of God (even if they gave it to the theist at the end or debated the atheist side poorly), or at least I would have preferred a plot line that didn't attempt to make all atheists (and non-Christians for that matter) look like generally terrible people whose belief is based only rage against god.

I am not hating on it because it disagrees with me, I am hating on it because it didn't accurately portray any atheist or scientific positions (it strawmanned quite a few), and as a result it didn't actually argue against any of those positions well (and it's possible to argue well from a theistic perspective) and it really tried to make every atheist a generally shitty person. Have you seen it? Anyone watching it objectively would agree.

For example, the professor atheist guy many times quotes famous people saying atheist things and then says "you disagree with Steve Hawking, freshmen?". Thats a clear logical fallacy, and that's pretty much the only argument presented against god.

Also, the theist kid makes the case that because evolution doesn't properly explain the origins of life that atheists are wrong, when evolution and its validity have nothing to do with atheism because atheists are not obligated to believe in anything scientific, nor does the theory of evolution attempt to explain the origin of life at all, just the origin of diversity. So those are a couple more strawmans of atheist positions, which, when combined with the logically fallacious professor douche, completely ignore any real arguments and avoid having a real debate about anything.

As for making atheists look like jerks, the atheist boyfriend dumps his atheist girlfriend because she gets cancer (she gets cancer right after badmouthing Phil Robertson about god, very subtle) and it would get in the way of their dating. Then the same atheist boyfriend goes and insults the faith of his mother who has dementia for 0 reason. Because thats how atheists act right? On top of that, atheist professor verbally abuses his wife (who he dated while she was a student, super, super creepy) with all of his jerk smarmy professor friends because she believes in god, after repeatedly bullying the student who also believes in god (luckily he gets hit by a car, also subtle). I really don't think thats an accurate portrayal of how college campuses are, as I am a college student, and on top of that it'd be illegal to talk like that in a public college anyway. And obviously some atheists are annoying on the internet, but most people are far more polite than that in general and douchiness isn't limited to atheists anyway. So I don't think I'm just pulling any bias out of the air, the movie did seem to make atheists out to be bad people more than it tried to prove god existed.

I don't know what more I really expected, I just wanted to know what theists got out of it. So what'd you get out of it? How'd you like it? What'd you honestly think? I genuinely want to know.

I said nothing good because nothing good jumped out at me; I guess if I had to say something I'd say that the acting was decent and the actual filming was fine. There were a couple of funny bits. But the whole thing really was kind of surreal, some things that weren't the focus, like the 6 year relationship between two college freshmen who were intent on marriage, were completely out of touch with reality in an almost funny way.

I didn't mean to type 7000 characters, but that's cool I guess, lel. I kind of got into this comment as I was writing it.
Idealist1
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 1:58:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 8:02:45 PM, numberwang wrote:
At 9/2/2014 7:05:39 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
At 9/2/2014 1:15:50 AM, numberwang wrote:
I just watched God's not dead tonight, and I personally thought it was total crap. I just was wondering what religious people thought about it and what non religious people thought about it, since it has a 82% on rotten tomatos for user reviews. How the hell did that happen?

My personal favorite bit of the movie has to be between the fate of the two main atheists (one getting cancer and the other dying in a car crash), the professor having 0 arguments against god that weren't appeals to authority, and the main character's ending line to his debate-- "How can you hate something that doesn't exist?" Classic.

It sounds to me that you are employing the same type of self-serving confirmation bias that you describe in the movie. If it supports your views then it's worthy, if it doesn't then it's not. There's nothing wrong with critiquing a movie, but I didn't see you write a single good thing about it. That sounds about as biased as you claim the movie to be.

I don't think my assessment is biased and I wasn't watching it with the intention of being put off or I wouldn't have watched it at all. I would have liked a movie that portrayed theist and atheist arguments on a level playing field actually debating the existence of God (even if they gave it to the theist at the end or debated the atheist side poorly), or at least I would have preferred a plot line that didn't attempt to make all atheists (and non-Christians for that matter) look like generally terrible people whose belief is based only rage against god.

I am not hating on it because it disagrees with me, I am hating on it because it didn't accurately portray any atheist or scientific positions (it strawmanned quite a few), and as a result it didn't actually argue against any of those positions well (and it's possible to argue well from a theistic perspective) and it really tried to make every atheist a generally shitty person. Have you seen it? Anyone watching it objectively would agree.

For example, the professor atheist guy many times quotes famous people saying atheist things and then says "you disagree with Steve Hawking, freshmen?". Thats a clear logical fallacy, and that's pretty much the only argument presented against god.

Also, the theist kid makes the case that because evolution doesn't properly explain the origins of life that atheists are wrong, when evolution and its validity have nothing to do with atheism because atheists are not obligated to believe in anything scientific, nor does the theory of evolution attempt to explain the origin of life at all, just the origin of diversity. So those are a couple more strawmans of atheist positions, which, when combined with the logically fallacious professor douche, completely ignore any real arguments and avoid having a real debate about anything.

As for making atheists look like jerks, the atheist boyfriend dumps his atheist girlfriend because she gets cancer (she gets cancer right after badmouthing Phil Robertson about god, very subtle) and it would get in the way of their dating. Then the same atheist boyfriend goes and insults the faith of his mother who has dementia for 0 reason. Because thats how atheists act right? On top of that, atheist professor verbally abuses his wife (who he dated while she was a student, super, super creepy) with all of his jerk smarmy professor friends because she believes in god, after repeatedly bullying the student who also believes in god (luckily he gets hit by a car, also subtle). I really don't think thats an accurate portrayal of how college campuses are, as I am a college student, and on top of that it'd be illegal to talk like that in a public college anyway. And obviously some atheists are annoying on the internet, but most people are far more polite than that in general and douchiness isn't limited to atheists anyway. So I don't think I'm just pulling any bias out of the air, the movie did seem to make atheists out to be bad people more than it tried to prove god existed.

I don't know what more I really expected, I just wanted to know what theists got out of it. So what'd you get out of it? How'd you like it? What'd you honestly think? I genuinely want to know.

I said nothing good because nothing good jumped out at me; I guess if I had to say something I'd say that the acting was decent and the actual filming was fine. There were a couple of funny bits. But the whole thing really was kind of surreal, some things that weren't the focus, like the 6 year relationship between two college freshmen who were intent on marriage, were completely out of touch with reality in an almost funny way.

I didn't mean to type 7000 characters, but that's cool I guess, lel. I kind of got into this comment as I was writing it.

Yes, I watched the movie, though not until it was released on Amazon, but apparently my take on it wasn't the same as yours, at least not in some important areas. To say you wouldn't have watched it all unless you were willing to be unbiased is an empty statement, as atheists and believers alike seem to love studying each other's materials in an attempt to formulate derogatory responses. I see that a lot even here.

You say you hate the movie because it doesn't accurately portray the atheist view, but that wasn't the theme of the movie. What I saw was a show about a college student who was willing to stand-up to pressure against his personal beliefs. In fact, his own Christian girlfriend dumped him because he wouldn't simply do as his professor demanded. Expecting such a show, whose very title indicates it's theme, to focus on portraying atheists as good-guys is like expecting a western to portray Indians as the heroes.

There were more arguments presented against God than just the professor demanding of the student whether he was disagreeing with Hawking. The professor quoted quite a few scientists and philosophers, and the student rebutted with quotes of his own. It seemed to me that the personal animosity of the professor was meant to be seen as one formed by emotion caused by personal loss and not by rational reasoning. Again, it was not a debate-type movie. It was more about personal feelings.

You say the movie goes out of its way to make atheists look like terrible people, stating that the atheist boyfriend dumped his atheist girlfriend because she got cancer. What about the fact that, as I've stated, the Christian girl dumped her Christian boyfriend for insisting on defending his beliefs, an act which was blatantly narcissistic?

I'm not a religious person, so I can't tell you what religious people got out of the movie. I do, however, believe in a higher intelligence of some kind - not because of any book or religion but because of what I have seen and learned of the reality I live in. But to me the movie seemed to move in a straight line very well indicated by the title and the trailers. In other words, it was pretty much what I expected it to be.

I do agree with you that it was a surreal movie. I wouldn't watch it again, but I did like the lesson it promoted of never sacrificing your personal beliefs to intimidation. I believe that's a lesson that cuts both ways. I just finished watching an HBO series called Generation Kill (which I would highly recommend, BTW), about the first American reconnaissance troops to travel through Iraq in the recent invasion, and there were parts of the show which were extremely atheist, even going so far as to mock the idea of God. At one point a main character even told a military Chaplain that he couldn't attend a morning service because he had a Jewish friend, and he felt obligated to support his Christ-killing culture. You'd have to see it to appreciate how insulting it was.

Anyway, sorry if I got
numberwang
Posts: 1,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 8:53:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 1:58:56 PM, Idealist1 wrote:


Yes, I watched the movie, though not until it was released on Amazon, but apparently my take on it wasn't the same as yours, at least not in some important areas. To say you wouldn't have watched it all unless you were willing to be unbiased is an empty statement, as atheists and believers alike seem to love studying each other's materials in an attempt to formulate derogatory responses. I see that a lot even here.

My response was derogatory in many areas because the movie was weak in those areas in my opinion. But what I'm saying is that I think it was objectively weak in those areas, and that I wasn't just offended by it because I disagreed. The only part that I'd say offended would be the evil atheist archtype, but that was definitely present in the film and could and should have been easily noticed by anyone watching. Maybe religious people wouldn't necessarily think it was wrong, just exaggerated, but it was undisputably present.

You say you hate the movie because it doesn't accurately portray the atheist view, but that wasn't the theme of the movie.

One of my beefs is a lack of a debate, and I do think the debate about god was supposed to be a pretty central theme of the movie. It was made out to be a central theme in the advertising and the whole point is that this kid, against the odds and against the pressure of society, does what he thinks is right and debates god with the professor and wins. I guess I expected more focus on that part, or at least this part to be better produced.

What I saw was a show about a college student who was willing to stand-up to pressure against his personal beliefs. In fact, his own Christian girlfriend dumped him because he wouldn't simply do as his professor demanded. Expecting such a show, whose very title indicates it's theme, to focus on portraying atheists as good-guys is like expecting a western to portray Indians as the heroes.

That wasn't what I said I was expecting at all. I expected a movie that would debate God but favor theists. I guess you're kind of right, maybe I should have expected the atheists to be made out to be terrible people in a Christian movie. But even if I had expected the atheists to be terrible, I'd still think that was way off from reality and I still would think that the movie went way over the top in that respect.

There were more arguments presented against God than just the professor demanding of the student whether he was disagreeing with Hawking. The professor quoted quite a few scientists and philosophers, and the student rebutted with quotes of his own. It seemed to me that the personal animosity of the professor was meant to be seen as one formed by emotion caused by personal loss and not by rational reasoning. Again, it was not a debate-type movie. It was more about personal feelings.


My point is that while the creationist discussed (incorrectly) some scientific theories and presented some evidence (but slightly flawed) for god, the atheist professor presented none. MY point is exactly what I underlined, the atheist quoted people. His literal argument was "Newton/Hawking/Hume said this, how can you possibly disagree with that person?" That's not evidence, that's a logical fallacy. That's appeal to authority. That isn't an argument for or against anything. So while there was a tad of evidence for god, there was absolutely no evidence against.

You say the movie goes out of its way to make atheists look like terrible people, stating that the atheist boyfriend dumped his atheist girlfriend because she got cancer. What about the fact that, as I've stated, the Christian girl dumped her Christian boyfriend for insisting on defending his beliefs, an act which was blatantly narcissistic?

I agree the (really crazy, like blew my mind weird) Christian gf was not a nice person. But do you disagree with my point? Do you think that making the professor verbally abusive in his atheist, making a whole group of professors bully people with their atheism, making atheist ex-bf bully his own mother about god, was any of that really necessary to the plot? I think some measure of it would be necessary; at least the professor would have to not be a nice guy to establish the plot. But the rest of it just seemed gratuitous. The whole role of the reporter who got cancer from being mean to duck dynasty did absolutely nothing for the plot, nor did the role of atheist boyfriend.

I'm not a religious person, so I can't tell you what religious people got out of the movie. I do, however, believe in a higher intelligence of some kind - not because of any book or religion but because of what I have seen and learned of the reality I live in. But to me the movie seemed to move in a straight line very well indicated by the title and the trailers. In other words, it was pretty much what I expected it to be.

Well then we expected different things.

I do agree with you that it was a surreal movie. I wouldn't watch it again, but I did like the lesson it promoted of never sacrificing your personal beliefs to intimidation. I believe that's a lesson that cuts both ways. I just finished watching an HBO series called Generation Kill (which I would highly recommend, BTW), about the first American reconnaissance troops to travel through Iraq in the recent invasion, and there were parts of the show which were extremely atheist, even going so far as to mock the idea of God. At one point a main character even told a military Chaplain that he couldn't attend a morning service because he had a Jewish friend, and he felt obligated to support his Christ-killing culture. You

I do get the message of being a witness of god is a message that believers would get that someone who isn't wouldn't necessarily value. I guess what I expected was like, 50% focus on that and 50% focus on the debating. What it seemed like to me was 50% focus on the being a witness and 50% focus on atheists being bad people. And I don't think most of the atheists being bad people was necessary at all, but that's just me.
Idealist1
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 2:07:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 8:53:16 PM, numberwang wrote:
At 9/3/2014 1:58:56 PM, Idealist1 wrote:


Yes, I watched the movie, though not until it was released on Amazon, but apparently my take on it wasn't the same as yours, at least not in some important areas. To say you wouldn't have watched it all unless you were willing to be unbiased is an empty statement, as atheists and believers alike seem to love studying each other's materials in an attempt to formulate derogatory responses. I see that a lot even here.

My response was derogatory in many areas because the movie was weak in those areas in my opinion. But what I'm saying is that I think it was objectively weak in those areas, and that I wasn't just offended by it because I disagreed. The only part that I'd say offended would be the evil atheist archtype, but that was definitely present in the film and could and should have been easily noticed by anyone watching. Maybe religious people wouldn't necessarily think it was wrong, just exaggerated, but it was undisputably present.

I gave you an example before of a scene where they showed a "devout" Christian as having false views - when the "Christian" girlfriend dumped a guy she had planned to spend her life with simply for standing-up for what he believed.

You say you hate the movie because it doesn't accurately portray the atheist view, but that wasn't the theme of the movie.

One of my beefs is a lack of a debate, and I do think the debate about god was supposed to be a pretty central theme of the movie. It was made out to be a central theme in the advertising and the whole point is that this kid, against the odds and against the pressure of society, does what he thinks is right and debates god with the professor and wins. I guess I expected more focus on that part, or at least this part to be better produced.

If you were watching a movie about the Vietnam War there would be no reason to expect it to include a debate on the morality of war in general. The movie was about a single boy and his struggle over standing-up for what he believed or taking the easy way out. Tell me honestly, would you make the same complaints if he'd been an atheist in a group of Christians?

What I saw was a show about a college student who was willing to stand-up to pressure against his personal beliefs. In fact, his own Christian girlfriend dumped him because he wouldn't simply do as his professor demanded. Expecting such a show, whose very title indicates it's theme, to focus on portraying atheists as good-guys is like expecting a western to portray Indians as the heroes.

That wasn't what I said I was expecting at all. I expected a movie that would debate God but favor theists. I guess you're kind of right, maybe I should have expected the atheists to be made out to be terrible people in a Christian movie. But even if I had expected the atheists to be terrible, I'd still think that was way off from reality and I still would think that the movie went way over the top in that respect.

Maybe you have a valid point there, but you don't go to church expecting to hear a debate about whether God is real or not.

There were more arguments presented against God than just the professor demanding of the student whether he was disagreeing with Hawking. The professor quoted quite a few scientists and philosophers, and the student rebutted with quotes of his own. It seemed to me that the personal animosity of the professor was meant to be seen as one formed by emotion caused by personal loss and not by rational reasoning. Again, it was not a debate-type movie. It was more about personal feelings.


My point is that while the creationist discussed (incorrectly) some scientific theories and presented some evidence (but slightly flawed) for god, the atheist professor presented none. MY point is exactly what I underlined, the atheist quoted people. His literal argument was "Newton/Hawking/Hume said this, how can you possibly disagree with that person?" That's not evidence, that's a logical fallacy. That's appeal to authority. That isn't an argument for or against anything. So while there was a tad of evidence for god, there was absolutely no evidence against.

In all fairness, if anyone tried to make a movie including logical arguments for and against God then it would be hours long and would not be made for entertainment purposes. Before I watch I movie I make sure to watch the trailer if possible and check-out some of the ratings so I know what to expect. What I saw was pretty-much what I expected.

You say the movie goes out of its way to make atheists look like terrible people, stating that the atheist boyfriend dumped his atheist girlfriend because she got cancer. What about the fact that, as I've stated, the Christian girl dumped her Christian boyfriend for insisting on defending his beliefs, an act which was blatantly narcissistic?

I agree the (really crazy, like blew my mind weird) Christian gf was not a nice person. But do you disagree with my point? Do you think that making the professor verbally abusive in his atheist, making a whole group of professors bully people with their atheism, making atheist ex-bf bully his own mother about god, was any of that really necessary to the plot? I think some measure of it would be necessary; at least the professor would have to not be a nice guy to establish the plot. But the rest of it just seemed gratuitous. The whole role of the reporter who got cancer from being mean to duck dynasty did absolutely nothing for the plot, nor did the role of atheist boyfriend.

I think it was wrong to insinuate that the average atheist behaves that way, but believe me, not all atheists are as rational as you are. I've seen groups of atheists gang-up on a single believer, and I've seen the opposite. Some schools really are notable for leaning one way or the other on the God debate, and that professor supposedly had a reputation for it. It only makes sense that he's make friends with others like himself. Still, that is a valid argument you make.

I'm not a religious person, so I can't tell you what religious people got out of the movie. I do, however, believe in a higher intelligence of some kind - not because of any book or religion but because of what I have seen and learned of the reality I live in. But to me the movie seemed to move in a straight line very well indicated by the title and the trailers. In other words, it was pretty much what I expected it to be.

Well then we expected different things.

I do agree with you that it was a surreal movie. I wouldn't watch it again, but I did like the lesson it promoted of never sacrificing your personal beliefs to intimidation. I believe that's a lesson that cuts both ways. I just finished watching an HBO series called Generation Kill (which I would highly recommend, BTW), about the first American reconnaissance troops to travel through Iraq in the recent invasion, and there were parts of the show which were extremely atheist, even going so far as to mock the idea of God. At one point a main character even told a military Chaplain that he couldn't attend a morning service because he had a Jewish friend, and he felt obligated to support his Christ-killing culture. You

I do get the message of being a witness of god is a message that believers would get that someone who isn't wouldn't necessarily value. I guess what I expected was like, 50% focus on that and 50% focus on the debating. What it seemed like to me was 50% focus on the being a witness and 50% focus on atheists being bad people. And I don't think most of the atheists being bad people was necessary at all, but that's just me.

No, it's not just you. As I said before, I think that was your most valid point.l
Cleaverens
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 8:06:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The atheist was a complete scumbag in that movie. He was a biased, self absorbed piece of trash and that's exactly how the movie wanted to portray atheists. The part of the debate on morality just made me sick. Without God there is no reason to not kill and rape each other! Secular philosophy folks that's our best bet.