MovieChat Forums > Life of Pi (2012) Discussion > Story is totally pro-atheism

Story is totally pro-atheism


It shows religions (and believing in Gods) are only wishful thinking to hide from the brutality of the material world.
"ADULT PI :So which story do you prefer?
WRITER: The story with the tiger. That's
the better story.
ADULT PI: Thank you. And so it goes with God."
With the storm representing Christianity and the island representing Islam (Iam quite sure there is a metaphor of Hinduism as well but iam not familiar with that ), the movie (or novel) views religions negatively with a critical eye and totally dismisses them.
Iam a muslim myself, so though i don't like the message of the novel, it is still an excellent thought provoking one.

reply

I didn't really get a lot of a religious feel out of it, it could still happen without religion.

________________________________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAIJ3Rh5Qxs

reply

I didn't really get a lot of a religious feel out of it, it could still happen without religion.


Yes, what happens in Life Of Pi may be considered as parallel to religion, not exactly the same thing.

In the first part of the story, Pi bounces around and doesn't take any one religion seriously.

But while alone on the boat, as a vegetarian dealing with cannibalism, the tiger and the flying fish and the meerkats and all that stuff was something Pi NEEDED to survive.

I think the implication is that religions may have started in moments of necessity, as Pi experienced. And then later, others followed the same path, less out of necessity than just to have something to follow.

reply

Iam a muslim myself


So no rationality there

So which ones go to heaven and get the 72 virgins in your view (where do all these virgins who never existed come from...)

The sunnis who suicide bomb *beep* women and children OR
The *beep* who suicide bomb ssunni women and children

ALLAHA ACKHBAR

reply

Iam a muslim myself


So no rationality there

So which ones go to heaven and get the 72 virgins in your view (where do all these virgins who never existed come from...)

The sunnis who suicide bomb *beep* women and children OR
The *beep* who suicide bomb ssunni women and children

ALLAHA ACKHBAR

reply

Iam a muslim myself


So no rationality there

So which ones go to heaven and get the 72 virgins in your view (where do all these virgins who never existed come from...)

The sunnis who suicide bomb *beep* women and children OR
The *beep* who suicide bomb sunni women and children

LOL imdb thinks the non sunnies are pop

ALLAHA ACKHBAR

reply

You're absolutely right.

"And so it goes with God," exactly means that God is fantasy (as the Tiger in the boat is), and only created because it is preferable to facing the truth. Both God and Richard Parker are useful lies that help people cope with a life that holds pain too difficult to face without the lie.

This is the meaning of the film. And, of course, many of the folks arguing here are religious people raised with fables that don't allow them to face reality unfettered. They will never see the fable in religion even though this film nails the lie.

The film "Life of Pi" is a Trojan Horse film.

reply

"And so it goes with God," exactly means that God is fantasy (as the Tiger in the boat is), and only created because it is preferable to facing the truth.

Incorrect, or at least, incomplete.

If you are familiar with Descartes, you will understand the dualistic nature of perception. There is an external world which you perceive with your senses, sight, smell etc. And there is an internal world of thought, emotion and personal sensation.

You have decided that only the external world is real and that everything within your mind is imaginary. But if you truly open up your thoughts and logic, you can easily see this is not the case.

Everything you THINK you know about the outside world comes via your senses. And your senses are not perfect nor omniscient. They get things wrong. Moreover, everything you see, hear, smell, taste etc. is processed through your internal mind. It is ALL "imaginary".

Think about that word "imaginary". It is based on the concept of "images". You have never experienced the "reality" of a tree. All you have are images of trees processed by your mind. Visual images, touch images, smell images etc. Your understanding of a tree is entirely imaginary. And so it goes with God.

Both God and Richard Parker are useful lies that help people cope with a life that holds pain too difficult to face without the lie.

You miss the deeper, philosophical meaning. You are quick to notice the "lies" others tell themselves. But you are slow and even blind to recognize the "lies" that you tell yourself to reassure yourself about the world.

One of the lies you tell yourself is that there is no God. You have no way of knowing there is no God, but you keep telling yourself anyway. Why? Is it to justify that you don't go to church or pray, as you were taught to do as a child? Guilt avoidance? Is it to prop up a false assumption that science explains everything in the universe (when obviously it doesn't). Other reasons, perhaps?

Whatever it is, it is obviously a very important lie that you tell yourself. Ask yourself why the denial of God is SO important to you that you feel the need to go online and argue about it? You obviously believe very deeply in the absence of God. What benefit does that provide you? Think about it. Seriously. You don't have to tell me the answer but you should be able to answer for yourself if you have any hopes of understanding your own mind and life.

This is the meaning of the film. And, of course, many of the folks arguing here are religious people raised with fables that don't allow them to face reality unfettered. They will never see the fable in religion even though this film nails the lie.


You don't know that. Just because YOU can only see one side of Cartesian dualism doesn't mean other people are not able to see both sides. Both perspectives. Look at the figure below:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Duck-Rabbit_illusion.jpg

Now say whether the figure is meant to depict a rabbit or a duck. The very simpleminded pick one or the other. The more perceptive and thoughtful recognize the image is meant to depict both.

Thus is it with God. Is God an imaginary fable? Or is God a reality which can be found within the mind of most people? The answer is: both.

You spent 2 hours watching the Life Of Pi movie which started out prosaic, but gradually became more and more fantastical. You are arguing that the fantastical things weren't "real". But would you have watched the movie if the "reality" was depicted. Would you have sat through hours of watching a starving kid in a boat, mostly doing nothing?

No you would not. Why? Obviously you prefer fantasy to reality in this case. Or maybe, just maybe, there is more "reality" to be found within the mind than you are willing to admit. There is nothing more "real" than survival. And in this movie, it was "fantasy" that kept Pi alive, not "reality".



reply

"And so it goes with God," exactly means that God is fantasy (as the Tiger in the boat is), and only created because it is preferable to facing the truth. Both God and Richard Parker are useful lies that help people cope with a life that holds pain too difficult to face without the lie.

Your mistake (in understanding this movie) is to call Pi's story a "lie". Labeling the story a "lie" means you think what matters is some sort of confirmation of real world veracity. That's not what this movie is about.

In the end, Pi does not ask the interviewer which story he thinks is true or which story is more believable. You think that is the question, but it is not. Pi asks "Which story do you prefer?". With the rejoinder, "So it goes, with God".

The key concept is not "veracity". It is "preference".

And, of course, many of the folks arguing here are religious people raised with fables that don't allow them to face reality unfettered. They will never see the fable in religion even though this film nails the lie

All you are saying is that you, personally, prefer to not believe in God. Nothing wrong with that.

Where you err is sitting in negative judgment on those billions and billions of human beings who prefer to live their lives believing in God. Naturally, some of them sit in negative judgment on you for your atheism.

Such judgment is narrow minded. Your preference for God or atheism is the product of your genetics and upbringing, neither of which you can control. If you were born with a different brain in a different family you would believe in God, and vice versa for the God believer.

The real dichotomy of life is not who believes and who doesn't believe in God. What matters in regard to strength of character is who tries to force their preferences on others and who doesn't.

Maybe you like strawberry ice cream. Do you try to force that preference on others and get them to see how stupid they are for liking another flavor? Or do you calmly let everyone decide for themselves what flavor they like?

You really can't make the universe a better place with sermons about your preference of whether God exists or not. But you can make yourself a better person by accepting other people without negative judgment.

reply