What do Atheists think? - Det sjunde inseglet (1958) Discussion

[–] t-a-hall 17 years ago

In Kierkegaard's terms, I would think that both Knights of infinite resignation and knights of faith would be moved by this film, while aesthetics wouldn't. Knights of infinite resignation could well be non believers. The film certainly centres around Block, but many other characters are examined. I would be interested to know what you thought of Squire Jöns who, like you, does not believe in any afterlife (although he may have once).

reply

[–] ProkhorZakharov 17 years ago

I am an atheist, and I was touched by the film, because I have a huge fear of nothingness. I act all nonchalant about it on the outside, like Jöns, but on the inside (in my head), I go through all the same "freaking out" as Block. So I feel a deep connection to both of those characters. They are like the two aspects of my personality. I am constantly thinking, "Oh I wish there was an afterlife, I wish that I won't have to go into nothingness after I die! But I can't believe in anything supernatural, I'm just not physically capable of believing in it!"

In fact, the exchange between Jöns and Block while they watched the witch burn was exactly like what goes on in my mind on a regular basis: "Nothingness! NO! Nothingness! NO!" That really hit close to home. I had never before seen a film that dealt with these things that are so relevant to me and which I deal with every day, so I really appreciated this film. It was also emotional for me.

reply

[–] prosit3 17 years ago

Haven't seen this movie but I just want to comment:

Prokhor, the way you describe it, makes me think that you do actually believe in an afterlife, but with nothing in it.

I think there are two kinds of "atheists", one are those who only believe that God doesn't exist, and another who know that God doesn't exist.

Those who believe think, "well you can't see God anywhere and it should be obvious he doesn't exist because of all the wars and this and that and bla bla". You seem more to believe in one thing because the other makes less sense.

The second kind understands why God doesn't exist. In his world, much is and everything can be explained without the work of God, there is no need for one to fulfill his understanding of life.

I mean, the first kind, or a bliever, may have Einstein himself explaining the whole universe and why a God as you see it does not exist. You may remember everything and know that he said it, but unless you have an insight of it you won't understand what it actually means.

Surely you are aware of laws of phsyics and particles and everything, but I don't think you understand what it actually means for your daily life and eventually death.

I'll defenitely watch this movie, mostly because I like good movies, but I highly doubt it will have an impact of any kind.

reply

[–] moss_ryder-1 17 years ago

I don't think you understand atheism at all. You are trying to describe atheism in terms of theism, which is like discussing hair-color variations with a bald man.

You seem to be confusing atheism, antitheism, and agnostisism(sic).

Atheists simply do not believe in the existence of gods, not if they should or could exist.

reply

[–] RetainersAreHot 16 years ago

Would't thinking if they could exist be in coorelation with denying existence completely

reply

[–] dmichl 12 years ago

Exactly. Atheists simply do not believe the claim that a god exists. (Because evidence is lacking.)
That is not the same as a) believing that God doesn't exist or b) knowing that God doesn't exist.
If somebody makes a claim and I don't believe it to be true, they don't get to say that I assert it to be false.

reply

[–] staucody48 17 years ago

Technically, you can't "know" God doesn't exist, just like you can't "know" he does, because you don't "know" everything, and the existence of God is perpetually in the category of things no one could ever know. The only way you could "know" if God exists or not is if you "knew" everything- which would make you... God!

reply

[–] troxteca 17 years ago

This is funny...Technically?

you can't "know" God doesn't exist, just like you can't "know" he does....

(This is an ego statement and the ego blocks the way.)

God's existance is perpetualy in the category of things no one could ever know....

(HA!!!! Ego again...)

The only way you could "know" if God exists or not is if you "knew" everything- which would make you... God!

(Now this is good, no sarcasm, i mean it.)

To ascribe male or female qualities to the UNBORN,IMPERSISHABLE, EVERLASTING and UNCHANGING TRUTH is folly.

Ever read "The Little Prince?"

Little quote for ya..."Here is my secret, it's simple, it's only with the heart that one can see rightly, what is essential is invisible to the eye."

or another quote...from somewhere out there...

"You can only see the TRUTH with logic, once you've found it without."

there are many ways to see the TRUTH, one for every being that was, is, or ever will be, but the quickest, most efficient means is through D E V O T I O N.

reply

[–] m-slovak79 15 years ago

you can't "know" God doesn't exist, just like you can't "know" he does....

(This is an ego statement and the ego blocks the way.)

how is this a 'ego statement'?

i don't think it's ego at all. it's pretty much true. as far as science is concerned you cant really prove or disprove the existence of God.

p.s. me personally, i believe in God (i am a Catholic but to be honest i have not been to church on a regular basis in about 10-12 years or so. ill be 30 ears old in about 3months). and there is just to much stuff that happens in the world for there to be just 'nothing' when we die. just some thoughts ;)

---
My Vote History ... http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=11026826
---

reply

[–] garretthalbert 15 years ago

Of course the old you can't prove I'm wrong so I might be right defense.

Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

I can't prove there is other planets, stars, cellestial bodies etc etc. but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Just think about it for 10 seconds and you should realize you are wrong and you just can't handle the fact that Life is all there is and when you die you simply become a part of this amazingly complex universe on a particle level. How about instead of ruining life and saying ah but I'll go to heaven in the afterlife, you just kill yourself now? That makes sense right? You don't know if you kill yourself that you wont go to "Heaven", right? Right?!?!

reply

[–] CastAFew 15 years ago

I think that often when people self-apply the word "atheist", they are anti-religionists first, and then atheists as a by-product of that. The rest of us who walk around with our eyes and ears open, ingesting information and forming opinions, don't require such definitive, and often wrongly-used, labels. I'm quite content not knowing whether a vast and complex hidden world exists. I'll still try to live well and be happy and treat others with respect. So as a guy-who-is-not-a-theist-but-finds-it-fascinating, I loved the movie. Squire Jons is possibly one of my favorite film characters of all time, and much of the dialog is superb as well.

"Ryu-san, you don't quite look your character's age."

reply

[–] nettwench 12 years ago

That's where I am exactly! It's the reason that I call myself an agnostic - because how can I be SURE of knowing anything? It's like when you watch "2001" - it's a great mystery! But for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I just can't technically bring myself to say "there is no God." As far as how most people conceive of god, I don't believe in that. But it does amaze me that humans seem genetically pre-determined to invent some kind of supreme being, or spirits that inhabit the world. My take on it is that it's just the force of our own subconscious, which we can't recognize as a separate and distinct part of ourselves while consciously living life - more like the Jungian theory of the collective unconscious. But that is completely my own opinion!

Ssssshh! You'll wake up the monkey!

reply

[–] mrpinbert 8 years ago

I "can't know" that god exists the same way I "can't know" that a planet inhabited entirely by red unicorns does not exist.

But I can make a fairly safe estimate.

Zardoz (1974) has spoken!
My top 100 http://www.imdb.com/list/ls079512886/

reply

[–] Trouter2000 17 years ago

I am an atheist, and I was touched by the film, because I have a huge fear of nothingness. I act all nonchalant about it on the outside, like Jöns, but on the inside (in my head), I go through all the same "freaking out" as Block. So I feel a deep connection to both of those characters. They are like the two aspects of my personality. I am constantly thinking, "Oh I wish there was an afterlife, I wish that I won't have to go into nothingness after I die! But I can't believe in anything supernatural, I'm just not physically capable of believing in it!"

In fact, the exchange between Jöns and Block while they watched the witch burn was exactly like what goes on in my mind on a regular basis: "Nothingness! NO! Nothingness! NO!" That really hit close to home. I had never before seen a film that dealt with these things that are so relevant to me and which I deal with every day, so I really appreciated this film. It was also emotional for me.

Ever consider reading Lee Strobel's 'The Case for the Creator'? Its made many believers, and you may find it an interesting read. In the very least it is well written.

Its a document written by an atheist who couldn't believe and eventually, through research and historical sources found real evidence to believing. He has written a few books, including also 'The Case for Christ', detailing the historical accuracies in calling Jesus Christ the son of God.

Anyway, just thought you might be interested.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] manwithear 17 years ago

I've never read this book, but will definitely do so. I am an atheist but would readily listen out some proof of the existence of god although I really doubt it will be enough to convert me. I do not believe in god not because I think the existence of an omnipotent/benevolent being is impossible, but because I do not think that the chance of there being a god is enough for me to seriously worry. Is it possible that somewhere in the eternal nothingness a "god" spontaneously appeared and created a little science experiment (ie. our universe)? Technically, yes. Could this god be the sole commander of everything? I don't know, maybe yes. Should people care and waste their lives caring more about the afterlife rather their present lives? Possibly yes. Is the chance of all this happening infinitesimally tiny (eg. 1:(infinity-1))? Definitely yes.

reply

[–] nettwench 12 years ago

I think if you put aside the "god" question, and look at the irrational and destructive behavior that many many religions inflict upon their followers, it is very easy to say no god exists, and especially does not exist as a reason to justify hate, torture, bigotry, murder, sexism - you name it! Some religions are better than others in this regard - they do seem like a kind of glue to stick society together, an idea or culture that can include everyone. But I look at Catholicism or the Muslim religion - repression of women or gays, mass torture, violent jihads and crusades, and say we could do without that! And I know they do good things too - Catholics are very charitable - but after condemning people to get aids by opposing the use of condoms? Highly destructive and irrational. We don't have to populate the world - birth control should be accepted. It would save women's lives, too.

Ssssshh! You'll wake up the monkey!

reply

[–] o-t-t-o 17 years ago

We're going ever-so-slightly off-topic here, I fear, but here goes...

If you're after evidence, like I am, read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. He rips all the alleged evidence of a "Creator" to very small shreds indeed. It's an entertaining read, too.

Also, it should be obvious to one and all that inventing a creator (as an explanation for our existence) is unhelpful. All it means is you're stuck with an even more complex existence to explain. Evolution says nothing of the very beginning of existence (for it is a real mystery) but it does a really good job of explaining how we got so complex; it's a similar process to technological development: It happens step-by-step, by trial-and-error.

reply

[–] eerwicker 17 years ago

o-t-t-o

Not a believer myself (as I've said previously on these boards), and I'm pretty much with you on the practical question of the origins of life and the universe and all that.

But at the same time religion is a part of human history, it is soaked into our culture, our society, our emotions. It has obviously brought a great deal of comfort to people's lives. And if there had not been that comfort to lose, we would never have had a chronicle of doubt and loss like the Seventh Seal, which came at the start of Bergman's apostasy. The power of Bergman's statement tells us how painful the loss of faith can be.

Faith, obviously, has made for wonderful art for centuries - Michelangelo, Titian, Dante, Milton, Bosch, Bach, Blake... right the way through to Messiaen, Taverner, Dennis Potter, gospel choirs, Tom Waits, Nick Cave (to give just Christian examples, cos I'm not as well versed as I would like to be for other faiths).

So it is a difficult question: you and I are both aware that that the cherished beliefs of millions of people are false. We are also aware that many rules laid down by those faiths (relating to the questions of sexual equality etc) are religious model for their moral and social organisation.

So what do we do? We are faced with faith, contrary to available evidence; a nasty. meaningless void; or the lame metaphysical, mathematical fudge offered by the likes of Paul Davis.

Personally, I'd say accept our godless universe as it is - and love it and enjoy it - but appreciate the wonderful things religion has given us; they are part of our search to understand that universe, and ourselves. I think Bergman is as important, in this respect, as Da Vinci or Chaucer or any of those people I mentioned earlier. Tolerance is obviously the key... And while I don't think it's a good idea to actively seek out an atheist utopia (history tells us this doesn't pan out so well) we should at least keep creationism out of schools..

reply

[–] o-t-t-o 17 years ago

Hi eerwicker,

Well spoken. I mostly agree, but:

Secularisation of the arts has fostered diversity and freedom of expression. Imagine what the artists you line up could (nay, would) have achieved, if they were unrestrained by what was acceptable to those that commissioned their "faith art"...

I don't think the choice is between faith, Paul Davis :@) and a nasty meaningless void. Your personal acceptance (and love and enjoyment) of our godless universe is the one I subscribe to as well.

Take care,

Otto

PS: The consolation aspect of faith is dealt with thoroughly and devastatingly (as well as entertainingly) in "The God Delusion". I think you'd enjoy it.

reply

[–] nettwench 12 years ago

I will have to read that. Sometimes it would be nice to have that consolation, but it's not something I can make happen!

Ssssshh! You'll wake up the monkey!

reply

[–] da_rosco 17 years ago

so well said sir.

Rosco Milosco

reply

[–] nettwench 12 years ago

I would have to agree with you on the cultural riches brought to us through belief in religion - but I believe it's just a format, a construct or story on which to overlay the human experience of transcendence and "religious" experience. I believe that most of the Ten Commandments or the Golden rule, or the principles laid out by Jesus are for the most part very supportive and kind and rational ways to approach life. Great inspired thinkers all - it's difficult, however, to define the actual source of that inspiration - it seems to come from outside of them. I believe it is within them, a part of the human "soul," which is a very mysterious concept.

Ssssshh! You'll wake up the monkey!

reply

[–] nettwench 12 years ago

So rational. but religionists think Dawkins is the Anti-Christ! An atheist could not be elected president of the US. That sucks!

Ssssshh! You'll wake up the monkey!

reply

[–] Phil_man1010 16 years ago

I can't believe people can actually take Lee Strobel seriously. The man is either an utter moron or a downright charlatan. He just lies about biology, history, everything...what a world!

Anyway, I am essentially an atheist, I have some room for deism sought of, and I found it moving. It deals with the human condition perfectly.

reply

[–] nihilistic_tyranny 15 years ago

"Ever consider reading Lee Strobel's 'The Case for the Creator'? Its made many believers, and you may find it an interesting read. In the very least it is well written.

Its a document written by an atheist who couldn't believe and eventually, through research and historical sources found real evidence to believing. He has written a few books, including also 'The Case for Christ', detailing the historical accuracies in calling Jesus Christ the son of God. "

Don't be fooled by these horrendous books.
Trouter2000, lay off.
I'm onto you're game.
You're not converting anyone here.

I actually READ the Case For Christ, back when I was still in the throws of agnosticism, and it just didn't make sense to me.
I strongly dislike books like this, that present evidence that's supposed to make people believe, and is extremely slanted to force us into coming to the author's conclusion.
I find it mildly offensive to my intelligence.
And to be swayed by a book like that...
That is true weakness.

"It's made many believers."

That fact alone makes it dangerous to the impressionable reader.
Not because it's a threat to us atheists, but because it's so slanted.
The same goes for the liberal media.
You have to take these sorts of things with many heaping tablespoons of salt.
It is my personal opinion, however, that this book is far MORE slanted than the media, and that's saying something.

Yes, I know I sound like every other angry atheists, which agnostics and Christians love to hate, but does anyone think WHY we're so angry?
Because we're sick of the lies, and we're not going to take this sh*t anymore.

So go forth and read some Bukowski or Nietsche.
At least they have something to say to the reader, rather than bombarding him/her with biased "facts."

Gay people...robots in disguise!

reply

[–] Virgil_Hawkins 12 years ago

Ever consider reading Lee Strobel's 'The Case for the Creator'?

If it's anything like the arguments he presents when speaking, it's not worth reading.

We are eagles of one nest, The nest is in our soul

reply

[–] davidkuten 17 years ago

I definitely agree with you, here, and feel that you've voiced something that most supposed atheists refuse to acknowledge: nothingness is a terrible is the strongest sense of the word. This movie presents this truth and for that reason I consider it an insightful work.
That said, I believe that many films (Woody Allen's 'Crimes and Misdemeanors', for instances) have been able to present this truth AS WELL AS develop an interesting plot, develop characters, etc. Honestly I was bored by most of the movie even though I found the content intellectually rich. I can read about the implications of atheism. In a film I look for character development. That's just me.

reply

[–] fnord-12 17 years ago

David, I have a very strong disagreement with your statement about nothingness being terrible. Who says it's terrible? When I'm asleep and feel nothing, is that terrible? Before you were born, and felt nothing, was that terrible? Many eastern cultures look at Nirvana, or nothingness, as the ultimate in peace. As an atheist, I am not afriad of nothingness in the least. It sounds like you may be projecting your own fears on everyone else in the population. I see where you're coming from, but please don't generalize.

reply

[–] nettwench 12 years ago

No, I get that - it's not "nothing," but the human terror of "nothingness," a scray black hole of nothing!

Ssssshh! You'll wake up the monkey!

reply

[–] bajparry 17 years ago

ProkhorZakharov, your post suggests to me you would find Epicurus' philosophy most useful.

from "Principal Doctrines"
II Death is nothing to us, because a body that has been dispersed into elements experiences no sensations, and the absence of sensation is nothing to us.

from "Letter to Menoeceus"
Death is no concern to us. All things good and bad are experienced through sensation, but sensation ceases at death. So death is nothing to us, and to know this makes a mortal life happy. Life is not improved by adding infinite time; removing the desire for immortality is what’s required. There is no reason why one who is convinced that there is nothing to fear at death should fear anything about it during life. And whoever says that he dreads death not because it’s painful to experience, but only because it’s painful to contemplate, is foolish. It is pointless to agonize over something that brings no trouble when it arrives. So death, the most dreaded of evils, is nothing to us, because when we exist, death is not present, and when death is present, we do not exist. It neither concerns the living nor the dead, since death does not exist for the living, and the dead no longer exist.

:)

"Find out what to think next!"
-Chris Morris, "Brasseye"

reply

[–] MConley7 16 years ago

That's very buddhist-like (just an observation, not a comment). I am a person who was raised Roman Catholic, though I have renounced it many ways; I don't go to church, I challenge the dogma when I can, and I abhor the way past and present christianity goes about its business.

That said, I would never consider myself an atheist; I believe in the Idea of God, even if I don't know what that idea means. I have seen in the posts on this particular board a certain distaste for all things religious, and that scares me a bit. It means people are more ready to renounce something that has brought good and bad rather than search for what was good about it; if someone can believe (or know) in evolution, then can't we see there is an evolution of a central idea in human thought (i.e. God).

Much of the scientific rancor (led by Richard Dawkins and others) forgets that God is an idea that has changed and been altered by the hands of many men--we can either discard the idea out of hand (as many have done) or we can observe it with a curious eye and see what it really means. In my mind, we must further the idea, rather than destroy it--destroying it, in my mind, parallels the holy war the christians took upon themselves against paganism, the remnants of what they saw as a decadent and knowledgeless age (the library of alexandria is just one of the many casualties). Will we do the same now, tearing down the bastions of old religion, and breaking it so that it could not be understood on its own terms?

Yes, they were ignorant, yes they were wrong, and yes, the church responds to change like a glacier crawls, but that does not mean there is nothing worth our meditations in christianity. Religion is a network of symbols, and to see these symbols as aspects of LITERAL truths is to forget that these symbols are METAPHORS. As such they respond to things-in-themselves that are beyond form, and beyond the knowledge of their day.

It has become apparent to me, and perhaps to whoever reads this, that I have some issues with religion that are hardly cleared up. I know not what to believe. One thing I am sure of, however, is that the Idea of God is important, and must not be cast aside as worthless and a product of sheer ignorance. In this sense, in the question we are presented by the Idea of God, I think Bergman has struck the mark so dead on that this film is a masterpiece among masterpieces. The question is handled delicately, evenly, and he never provides an answer: he leaves such answers for the audience to articulate, in themselves and of themselves.

reply

[–] nettwench 12 years ago

I find your comments very compelling. I am not one of those atheists who is irrationally dead-set against any and all religion - just the abuses of the intolerant mind-set attached to some of those religions. I know people of faith who are very rational people, so I have to respect their belief. How do I know their experience isn't real? The fact is that I don't. But I do abhor the disrespect in some of the christian culture toward atheists. As I said previously - an atheist is not going to be president of the US anytime soon! Unless his faith is something of a sham, just for political reasons!

I know I'm responding to comments that are years old, but I can't help myself, these questions interest me!

Ssssshh! You'll wake up the monkey!

reply

[–] nettwench 12 years ago

Fascinating - what a rational human being! I do think it can be difficult at times, though, to completely banish the experience of irrational and psychological terror of death. It's so much a part of being human. That's what makes this movie a classic.

Ssssshh! You'll wake up the monkey!

reply

[–] groznij 17 years ago

I'd just like to tell you how I have come to terms with the inevitable "nothingness" of death. I realized the meaning of the word. Nothing. Think of it as a perfect vacuum. A vacuum is a vacuum when seen/spoken of subjectively, but the vacuum itself is, truly, nothing. And why would nothing be bad? Nothing is nothing. Are you angry that we only have limited time alive? Well, tough luck. It won't matter when the Big Nothing greets you. Therefore it's nothing to think of.

reply

[–] nettwench 12 years ago

It's the pure "existentialist's" dilemma! When you realize, I mean really on a physical, emotional, and spiritual basis confront the frightening aspect of actually "ceasing to exist," or nothingness, it is one of the most terrifying experiences you can have. It has happened to me once - and I was absolutely shocked at the experience of complete and absolute terror I felt! Like a near-death experience or something. So just because you're an atheist doesn't mean you can't fear that! And if it comes as a result of questioning your faith or a loss of faith, I'm sure it would be an even more difficult experience. So I totally get that in this movie. It still applies, regardless of your beliefs.

Ssssshh! You'll wake up the monkey!

reply

[–] zubutix 12 years ago

I see that you wrestle with the "nothingness" in your comments. I have to say i have embraced the idea of "nothingness" meaning my brain will shut down and therefore i wont know that i am in the "nothingness". So its only something to fear now but you will no give a sh*t about when it happens - so really nothing to give a sh*t about now either. :)

I know thats not always easy, but when i think of it today i feel no fear of it. I did before, but not anymore, and the comment previously ("Letter to Menoeceus") really put words into what i feel about it now.

Im sure you read it, but here goes again:

"Death is no concern to us. All things good and bad are experienced through sensation, but sensation ceases at death. So death is nothing to us, and to know this makes a mortal life happy. Life is not improved by adding infinite time; removing the desire for immortality is what’s required. There is no reason why one who is convinced that there is nothing to fear at death should fear anything about it during life. And whoever says that he dreads death not because it’s painful to experience, but only because it’s painful to contemplate, is foolish. It is pointless to agonize over something that brings no trouble when it arrives. So death, the most dreaded of evils, is nothing to us, because when we exist, death is not present, and when death is present, we do not exist. It neither concerns the living nor the dead, since death does not exist for the living, and the dead no longer exist."

And just to put it out there - i never believed in a god, and i value my life NOW while im alive.

Take care, and dont think too much! ;)

____________________
"If only you could see what i've seen with YOUR eyes"

reply

[–] ObservationBlogger 12 years ago

Very nice, honest post. Thanks for sharing.

My 120 favorite movies http://www.imdb.com/list/Uvw_F2_GMx8/
What are your favorites?

reply

[–] nirvanarulez 17 years ago

I wasn't as much affected by the thought of an afterlife, but rather the use of life when not religious. Many religious people, whenever I state my opinions, ask that if there is not an afterlife, what is the point of this one? I always quote this movie: "This is my hand. I can move it." This movie just gave me better wording for whatever already present existentialist ideas I had.

reply

[–] Sandy__Denny 17 years ago

"Many religious people, whenever I state my opinions, ask that if there is not an afterlife, what is the point of this one?"

Christians tend to be platonic, but there are many versions of theism that do not require that brand of metaphysics and its inevitable implications.

reply

[–] Philly22 17 years ago

I'm an atheist, and I love this film. I will have to prepare myself to death, too, atheist or not.

Top 20; favorite movies:
http://www.ymdb.com/phille/l24694_ukuk.html

reply

[–] ajmalfait 17 years ago

Very well said.

reply

[–] kataglottisma 17 years ago

Also, I think this movie touches us Atheists not only because of the subject matter of death, but more profoundly because of the final victory over death as Antonius Block manages to rescue the family of strangers. For those of you who are interested in philosophy, I suggest viewing this final act from a viewpoint of Levinasian ethics - the key idea being that as far as our own egoism goes, there is no hope, only the infinite darkness or whatever of death. But in selfless ethical action for the other we may truly conquer death. Block may lose his chess game, but he is the true winner of the match. At the moment of his death, Block knows he has given life to others. It is significant that the woman he himself loves perishes with him, as do his friends. He is only able to rescue a family of strangers. Giving of yourself, ultimately even giving your life, to help a stranger - this is what ethics is all about. Perhaps there is no God, but there is goodness and meaning.

reply

[–] pacscistaff 17 years ago

Excellent post.
My hope is that when I die it will be a dreamless sleep that I never wake up from. What sucks the worst is becoming like trash that others have to burn or bury. I almost wish people disappeared when they died, but I think the police would hate that. :)
I don't wish for a fairy tale place to live after I die. I suppose that makes me an atheist. I guess I don't need what a lot of other people do. My idea of peace is stillness and quiet, not some heavenly kingdom.

http://aacssucks.com/

reply

[–] nettwench 12 years ago

I think life was so hard and brutal for many people, especially if they were poor, or serfs, or ill, that the only way to get through another day was to think about a happier place later. Of course then they had to make suicide a crime or sin, so you wouldn't be tempted to just kick off the planet into the good life! I don't know what the Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu idea of heaven is - except for the suicide bombers getting virgins! Who the hell thinks sex with virgins is going to be good sex??!

Ssssshh! You'll wake up the monkey!

reply

[–] nettwench 12 years ago

Wow - you nailed that one, I think!

Ssssshh! You'll wake up the monkey!

reply

[–] nettwench 12 years ago

Wow - you nailed that one, I think!

Ssssshh! You'll wake up the monkey!

reply

[–] anthony_the_dark 17 years ago

Well, i'm athesit, and I was touched by the movie: I think I could relate with that "search for an answer" feeling and, in the end, that's not something that atheistic and theistic have in common?

reply

[–] pacscistaff 17 years ago

That undiscovered country of Death. I don't trust anyone to know about it. I'll find out when I get there.
The movie was excellent. I've never seen a bad Max Von Sydow movie. :)

http://aacssucks.com/

reply

[–] Morlock-Mike 17 years ago

"I've never seen a bad Max Von Sydow movie. :)"

What about Flash Gordon(1980)? :(

reply

[–] vapaavuori 15 years ago

I'm an atheist mainly because I have gone through the same thingking process that is presented in this movie: the silence of God, the pointless graving and suffering etc.

Death says it quite clearly: he doesn't know an ansver, because He is just darkness and the end of all knowing.

I still think that this movie is quite optimistic. It doensn't give ansvers, but it shows that maybe we can express compassion in a world without God.

reply

[–] Morlock-Mike 17 years ago

Well, this film, by and large, supports atheist belief. Consider the scene where Block is confessing to Death, who he then assumes to be a priest. He speaks of God hiding behind vague promises and not manifesting himself to the human senses. Consider the scene where the soldiers are burning the witch. Jons points out that she, on the cusp of death, is coming to the realization that there is no heaven or hell but rather she is faced only with oblivion. Later when Block losses his game of chess he asks Death to reveal his secrets, to which Death replies that he keeps no secrets and that he is simply unknowing. At the end of the film when Block and co. are at the castle faced with death, Block futilely tries to plead with God when Jons tells him that he could have told him all along that there was no hope in death. I can’t help but believe that this film appeals to the atheist most of all and I make that statement as an atheist myself.

In my opinion The Seventh Seal is a good companion piece to Ingmar Bergman’s latter film The Virgin Spring. While The Seventh Seal offers a more pessimistic view of death (though I am aware that many would argue otherwise) The Virgin Spring, in its conclusion, acknowledges the existence of God.

reply

[–] presto423 17 years ago

The characters are expressing their views. I don't think it's meant to be taken as gospel truth of what the storyteller deems reality. It also can be argued that it supports the existence of God, as Death in the same scene you reference suggests that "perhaps there is no one" while then later in the movie acknowledges that "I am unknowing." The characters are much more multi-dimensional than to be supporters of one particular belief or belief system. It could possibly be that it supports atheism on one issue, and faith in God on another level, then existentialist theory in another context. But at least it's able to make a person think that it supports their views. That is the art of persuasion that partly makes the film great.

reply

[–] b1_bjorn 17 years ago

Being an atheist I felt I had the most in common with Jöns the squire, basically everything except for his endless sea of pessimism.
Watching the movie, it felt to me like Ingemar Bergman was trying to disprove the notion of God. But I realize that he modelled Antonius after how felt about this whole issue himself. What seems to be missing is a protagonist charachter that is an actual believer to even out the views. There were only sinister characters with so-called faith in the movie (priests using scare tactics for monetary gain, flagellant processions and witchunter zealots). Although the time that the movie portrays was a particularly ungodly chapter of human history, and that suffering and pessimism was needed to set the mood of the movie.
I don't know what to think of the movie, I would probably say it's more introspective than moving. There is no definate bad guy (hey, Death is just doing his job!), yet there is suffering and horror everywhere the characters turn.

reply

[–] nihilistic_tyranny 17 years ago

You could call me a patent non-believer.
I was deeply moved by this movie.
Although, I am a huge Ingmar Bergman fan.

Last movie watched:
Mulholland Drive 10/10

reply