Are there any anti-atheist movies? - Paul (2011) Discussion

[–] hadmatter 11 years ago

Left Behind?

I've never seen it, but it certainly looks like anti-atheist crap and it stars KC

I am the sod-off shotgun.

reply

[–] The_Frennis 11 years ago

"The Book of Eli" does a pretty good job of vilifying atheists.

"Trying is the first step towards failure"
- Homer Simpson

reply

[–] yoo 11 years ago

It does? In what way, maybe I remember it wrong.

reply

[–] The_Frennis 11 years ago

They blame the atheists for burning the Bibles because they thought it was the reason for the war or whatever (I've already forgotten what happened), and the main villain (Gary Oldman) is clearly an atheist, and is depicted as being cruel and intolerant. Of course, this is merely my impression, but I felt it was pretty obvious.

"Trying is the first step towards failure"
- Homer Simpson

reply

[–] ralph_2ndedition 11 years ago

Interesting... I never saw 'The Book of Eli' as being pro-religion at all (or anti-atheist for that matter).
It never states that religious books were burned by atheists, it simply says that 'people' blamed religion for the apocalyptic wars and that most religious books were therefore burned.
If anything 'The Book of Eli' hints at how religion - if not handled responsibly - might break us. And given all the atrocities carried out in the names of different Gods everywhere, I'd say that it's not that far off.
As for the Gary Oldman-character, he is definately no atheist, he is however a strong beliver in the fact that religious texts can be wielded as a weapon. My guess - and that's all it is, a guess - is that he comes from a strongly religious family, he might even be the son of a priest.
Even though the story revolvs around the bible Eli is carrying, I always interpreted it as saying that religion without faith is dangerous, while faith - be it with or without religion - is needed for survival of the human spirit.

reply

[–] nerdy88 11 years ago

Your explanation doesn't make any sense.

reply

[–] ralph_2ndedition 11 years ago

And since you can't or won't tell me what about it doesn't make any sense, why should I bother about your comment?

'Your explanation doesn't make any sense - because..... [insert own reasons here]'.

"Racoon, Rog?"

reply

[–] johanmeeren-942-997301 11 years ago

Makes sense to me... Are you religious?

reply

[–] johanmeeren-942-997301 11 years ago

Sorry, this needs to be one post above yours...

reply

[–] pawelzietek 11 years ago

Try reading the post and not imagining it...

reply

[–] sharpnova 9 years ago

Then why don't you "saw" with the smart part of your brain.

If you have one.

spoiler alert you don't

idiofag

reply

[–] onefinnedfish 10 years ago

It never says atheists burned the Bibles, and I always just took Gary Oldman's character to be a bad Christian who wanted to use the Word of God for power, but a Christian believer nonetheless.

reply

[–] SpiltPersonality 9 years ago

No, I can't agree with this. I mean it's been a while since I saw it, but I thought at one point he says something that makes me think he only wants it (the bible) for power even though he didn't believe the contents. I meay be adding my own thoughts tho.

SpiltPersonality

reply

[–] njwilson-1 11 years ago

Scores of horror films that involve the Biblically supernatural. There will invariably be an atheist character - invariably portrayed as pompous, and quite often a scientist or someone scientifically minded - who learns the error of their evidence-demandin' ways... the hard way. It's much the same for non-Biblical horror - the sceptic will always be rude, and will always die horribly.

There was also a film a few years back about an atheist 'stealing' Christmas from small-town America. It had a Baldwin in it. It's an hilarious film that everyone should watch.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

reply

[–] ohilodude 11 years ago

Any serious movie about Jesus

reply

[–] greghannibal 11 years ago

Just because a movie talks about Jesus or the Bible in a positive light, doesn't make it anti-athiest, just like a movie talking positively about evolution, also doesn't make it anti-religion. However film movie seemed to go out of its way to poke fun of religion though it didn't really feel necessarily in a movie about a wisecracking space alien. I'm curious as to why it was even included, maybe someone had a grudge.

Children of IMDB enjoy thinking they have a clue as to how American politics work.

reply

[–] hadmatter 11 years ago

Simon and Nick are atheists. They're also British and looking at American culture from the outside. One of the most bizarre, striking aspects of American culture, particularly to outsiders, is the particular breed of fundie, biblical-inerrantist, anti-science hillbilly Christian that is mocked in this movie.

I don't think it has anything to do with bearing a grudge, I think it has to do with the fact that they're comedy writers. To them, this stereotype is funny and they wanted to make fun of it, and Kristin Wiig's character made perfect sense as a comic foil. Yes, it's a movie about a wisecracking space alien. And she's the sort of person who deeply believes that he is a demon, and falls to her knees singing Amazing Grace when she sees him! That's funny.

We make fun of people who believe dumb things in comedy stories all the time, but for some reason in America, doing it with Christianity is usually taboo. Never mind that the specific variety of Christianity represented here is far from mainstream. Most Christians don't think the earth is four thousand years old and they believe in evolution, but even many of these much more rational Christians are still offended by "Paul". Which seems really weird to me. They appear to miss the nuances of his message.

I am the sod-off shotgun.

reply

[–] greghannibal 11 years ago

My main problem is the differences between groups of "Christians" that most pop culture there are. Which is basically, the casually religious guy who goes to church and then comes home and watches football, or the "freak" who actually practices what they preach. If you're the former, you're a hypocrite, if you're the latter, you're a nutcase.
Also, what do you mean? Christianity is the least taboo religion to make fun of. We get movies like SAVED! which is all about mocking Christians, but make a movie that makes fun of Muhammad, and people start getting violently murdered and all the blame falls on the people who who mad the movie.
Actually, I suppose it's just Islam that;s taboo now. Jews and Christians are regularly made fun of in American media, and no one seems to care if Buddhists and Hindus are mocked.
But there are very few movies where any Christians are portrayed in a positive light, and if they are, the characters aren't real Christians. As stated, Book of Eli is close, though I haven't actually watched it, I just heard it second hand.

Children of IMDB enjoy thinking they have a clue as to how American politics work.

reply

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 10 years ago

Hahahahaha your post is truly laughable and a perfect representation of the typical biased fact-distorting ignorant pseudo-intellectual atheists that plague the web.

"There are very few movies where any Christians are portrayed in a positive light, and if they are, the characters aren't real Christians."

Lets start by pointing out that your assertion that there are "very few movies where any christians are protrayed in a positive light" is factually wrong. There are MANY films where christians are portrayed in a positive light. Pretty much any movie about the average american family where filmmakers don't mock them for praying before dinner or going to church, is a film that portrays them in a positive light. If you want to claim that they aren't real christians becuase they don't apply to what YOU think is a true christian, then I'm sorry, but that would be taking this conversation into an absolutely irrelevant and pointless direction, which would be the discussion of your own, personal, made up, biased, unfounded definition of "christian". Your perception of the definition is pointless; you just can't force your own made up definition on others. I'd rather trust christians about what it means to be a TRUE christian, than an ignorant fact-distorting antitheist. I wonder what kind of stupid and biased youtube video or blog are you taking these ideas from.

The fact that you think that there are "very few" movies where christians are portrayed in a positive light only shows that your thoughts and opinions on christianity are not based on reality or facts at all, far from it, and that applies to the next part of the quote too.

Now, lets talk about the meaning of the overall quote. Apparently, you think that it's impossible to portray a true christian in a positive light, because being a christian (a true christian) is inherently wrong. Your ideas about christianity are laughable and product of an extremely ignorant, slow, biased and easily manipulated mind. Yep, as much as you want to think of yourself as a smart critical person, you aren't, because the youtube videos you watch and the dumb atheist blogs and sites you read have clouded your judgement and filled your head with misconceptions and plain lies. Don't trust sites or videos with a hateful and intolerant agenda, they are never objective, realistic, factual or truthful.

But the worst part is that people like you are the ones claiming to stand for reason, logic, science and whatnot. *Sigh* when will racists, antitheists, sexists, xenophobes and other such scum shut the *beep* up about how smart they are and let REAL smart people do the talking? Sadly, the more ignorant people are, the more opinions they tend to have about subject matters they know sh** about.

reply

[–] Mighty_Emperor 11 years ago

Simon and Nick are atheists. They're also British and looking at American culture from the outside. One of the most bizarre, striking aspects of American culture, particularly to outsiders, is the particular breed of fundie, biblical-inerrantist, anti-science hillbilly Christian that is mocked in this movie.

...

Never mind that the specific variety of Christianity represented here is far from mainstream. Most Christians don't think the earth is four thousand years old and they believe in evolution, but even many of these much more rational Christians are still offended by "Paul". Which seems really weird to me. They appear to miss the nuances of his message.

Indeed, I'm pretty sure that, at one point Paul starts to explain that what he has showed Ruth might invalidated her fundamentalist, Young Earth Creationist take on the Bible but might leave the door open to other forms of God and religion (presumably a less interventionist God, who got the ball rolling and might have done some tinkering early on but has been largely hands-off recently), but he gets cut off. Although I suspect by this point a lot of Christians will have assumed the Christian characters are strawmen for taking a swipe at all Christians, when that really wasn't my reading of it.

__
Let us rate alien sex movies in peace. tinyurl.com/fbcoms

reply

[–] qubit01 11 years ago

"We make fun of people who believe dumb things in comedy stories all the time, but for some reason in America, doing it with Christianity is usually taboo"

Not true. It is, in fact, ONLY acceptable when it is against Christians. For instance, you realize that Jews, Muslims, many Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Bahai, Druze, etc, etc ad infinitum, believe in a god or gods, miracles, supernatural stuff, etc. Yet ONLY Christians are the ones who are consistently and fanatically denigrated for their beliefs. To top it off, the things Christians are most denigrated for, are out of the JEWISH Old Testament, which is not really applicable to Christians except for its historical value, i.e. prophecies etc. of Jesus.

You can fool yourself, but you fool nobody else. You people are not anti-religion, you are anti-Christian.

reply

[–] hadmatter 11 years ago

Not true. It is, in fact, ONLY acceptable when it is against Christians.

Riiight. I guess all these threads on this movie don't actually exist, I haven't read them, and I am not responding to one right now.

For instance, you realize that Jews, Muslims, many Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Bahai, Druze, etc, etc ad infinitum, believe in a god or gods, miracles, supernatural stuff, etc.

Why yes, thank you. I do realize that, because I live on Earth and have at least a couple of brain cells to rub together.

Yet ONLY Christians are the ones who are consistently and fanatically denigrated for their beliefs.

...and now you've lost me, because that's simply not true. Christians are not "consistently and fanatically denigrated for their beliefs", at least not in the mainstream pop culture under discussion. There are people who scornfully denigrate every belief, but there is certainly no coordinated persecution of Christianity underway.

To top it off, the things Christians are most denigrated for, are out of the JEWISH Old Testament, which is not really applicable to Christians except for its historical value, i.e. prophecies etc. of Jesus.

Cool. Then stop using the old testament to keep gay people from getting married. What's that sound? Crickets? The hollow silence of Jesus never saying anything about homosexuality? Hello?

You can fool yourself, but you fool nobody else. You people are not anti-religion, you are anti-Christian.

I'm anti-sticking-your-nose-into-my-business-and-trying-to-justify-it-with-the-bible.
Nobody is keeping you from practicing your religion. And you have no right to be protected from other people having opinions about your religion, or expressing those opinions. Your religion is not unassailable, and if you feel that it is unfairly singled out, that's just because it is the largest and most powerful religion in the country and it keeps a stranglehold on American politics. If you're going to try to run the country like a theocracy, you're going to have to deal with high-profile responses to your high-profile interference.

I am the sod-off shotgun.

reply

[–] Lokisgodhi 11 years ago

Of course not.

Jesus pulls into the driveway in his crappy old rusted pick-up truck. He unloads the lawnmower and cuts the grass. Then he waters it and the flower beds. Eats a burrito for lunch and smokes a reefer in the potting shed. Dumps the grass cuttings in the garbage, loads the lawnmower back into the truck and drives home.

Who'd pay good money to watch that?

ohilodude wrote:

'Any serious movie about Jesus"

reply

[–] stephen-brailsford 11 years ago

Offhand I can only think of one. Knowing, bloody awful film it is too

reply

[–] gregorik 11 years ago

You won't find pro-Christian films "making fun" of atheists becasue Christians are not like atheists, period.

---
"Don't just DO something, STAND there!"
Pastor Charlie Bing

reply

[–] hadmatter 11 years ago

You won't find pro-Christian films "making fun" of atheists becasue Christians are not like atheists, period.

First of all, if you're actually attempting to imply that Christians don't make fun of people who are different from them, then you are simply a liar. And not even a very good one. Christians make fun of people all the time.

And to narrow things down to the topic in question: people who believe in magic that cannot be proved with any evidence, are not really in a good position to make fun of people just for not believing in magic that cannot be proved with any evidence. What would be the point? How would that work? "Ha ha, look at that jackass, only believing in what he can see and touch!"?

I am the sod-off shotgun.

reply

[–] gregorik 11 years ago

"Christians don't make fun of people who are different from them"

True Christians don't. Most folks who claim to be Christian are either not, or are very weak ones.
That said, your violent anti-Christian stance echoes the film's own.

---
"Don't just DO something, STAND there!"
Pastor Charlie Bing

reply

[–] hadmatter 11 years ago

True Christians don't. Most folks who claim to be Christian are either not, or are very weak ones.

Your No True Scotsman fallacy is obvious and sad. You do not get to decide who is a Christian, and neither do I. People get to make that choice for themselves.

That said, your violent anti-Christian stance echoes the film's own.

I said that Christians (like all human beings) actually do make fun of other people. This is the truth.

I said that Christians believe in something that cannot be proved with empirical evidence. This is also the truth.

Nothing in my statements is either 'violent' nor 'anti-Christian'.

So, would you like to try again, and tell the truth this time? Or shall I just assume that this was your last shot, because if all you've got to make your point is one lie after another, I think we're done here.

I am the sod-off shotgun.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hadmatter 11 years ago

So you are so desperate for attention that you're following me around to look stupid in multiple locations? Your self-pwnage knows no bounds.

Of course, if you had a lick of sense, you would know that everything I said here was true. But like the rest of your brethren, there is not a clear thought to be had among the lot of you.

However, I would like to thank you for your support, since you have actually agreed with me that your little Christian friend here used a logically fallacious argument that was both obvious and sad.

I am the sod-off shotgun.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hadmatter 11 years ago

Um, actually that is called a "mistake", blade. That's being unaware of a typographical error, which is rather different from telling outright lies and then repeating them ad nauseum, even after being shown the truth.

Considering that I had typed that same basic sentence several times, it's pretty unremarkable.

I am the sod-off shotgun.

reply

[–] evan_chester 11 years ago

I don't think calling people bitch is very christian.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=8578799

reply

[–] quone24 11 years ago

lol talkin about bein a "true" christian and then calling someone a bitch. or are you just one of those "weak christians" you were talking about? epic fail

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hadmatter 11 years ago

Blade is a contender for the worst debater I've encountered on these boards. One of his favorite tactics is to refuse to respond to meaningful posts until he succeeds in frustrating his opponent; when the opponent eventually (inevitably) calls him a "name" (such as stupid, idiot, arsefaced troglodyte, creatard, etc) he will then claim the moral high ground because he has been called a name! He insists that only 12-year-olds do this.

Of course, that's pretty much all Blade is capable of doing, himself, which makes it really damn funny when he tries to be indignant and act all mature.

I am the sod-off shotgun.

reply

[–] gregorik 11 years ago

"Nothing in my statements is either 'violent' nor 'anti-Christian'."

All I will say is that we both know that's not the case. You need to look deeper at things.

---
"Don't just DO something, STAND there!"
Pastor Charlie Bing

reply

[–] hadmatter 11 years ago

Wrong. I don't need to look deeper, I know my mind and I know what I wrote. Should you choose to bring something entirely different to the table, that's all on you kiddo. Your persecution complex is not my problem, it's yours.

I am the sod-off shotgun.

reply

[–] Korios 10 years ago

True Christians don't.

Ooohh, there it is, the "No True (Scotsman) Christian" fallacy. You might want to take a look at this short article, it might help you in your next debate. At the bottom it has a link to other common fallacies (logical errors):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] flickfix 11 years ago

Not true. Those highly respectable well-known advocates think atheist don't believe in God because Atheist don't want to have that burden of thought, so we can party and drown ourselves in enjoying disgusting sinful acts. They say that all the time, and their followers nod in agreement all the time.

And if you think Christians offering to help us from going to hell, is being nice to us, they are not. I understand form their point of view they are. But they're not. To us, it's the same as telling a girl to undergo plastic surgery, change the way she behave, or no man would lover her.

reply

[–] bagofants 11 years ago

The Rapture http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102757/ kind of fits into the "I-told-you-so" genre.

reply

[–] puschit-1 11 years ago

Aren't most movies like this? Even in movies where relgion isn't even the topic, you'll have this moment where the logical thinking, pragmatic, down-to-the-earth atheist/sceptic turns out to be wrong in the end. BEWARE! MANY SPOILERS AHEAD!!!

Check out "Flatliners" for example. They fail to resurrect Keifer Sutherland for some minutes. Sutherland only awakes after Kevin Bacon, the atheist of the group, loudly asks god to forgive them trying to mess with him (playing god by trying to override death). Some spooky lights later Sutherland awakens.

In the movie "Signs" Joaquin Phoenix is only able to save his son from asthma death after getting back his faith in god (which he previously lost when his wife died horribly). And that movie was about an alien invasion.

Lola rennt (Run, Lola, Run is a modern style movie that runs like an MTV clip. We see 3 versions of 20 very eventful minutes of Lola where small incidences or decidions change the outcome dramatically. In the third and last version, the "happy" one, there is a scene where Lola (a character that certainly didn't come across as religeous before) turns to god and asks for help, "just this one time and only if you exist, please". She then almost gets killed by a truck right in front of a casino and takes that as a hint from god to play there in order to get the money that can save the life of her boyfriend. She plays Roulette 2 times betting on a single number (odds 1:37 both times) and wins two times (odds of that happening 1:1369).
This is not laughing at atheists, sure, but it's one of those cases where the movie suggests you can only survive if you believe.

Just saw the movie "The Rite", it's about Excorsims and the main character is an atheist that just tried to become priest to please his father. For 2/3 of the movie he rightfully questions the methods of the exorcist (Hopkins). It's left open to interpretion if the victims are truly possessed or if they got mental diseases and therefore should be treated differently. But in the last third of the movie it becomes apparent that demons exist for real, the exorcist is taken over by the demon and the protagonist has to take over. And he only beats the demon by converting and confessing he believes in god now.
You can't get more "religion was always right" in the face than this.

I am pretty sure there are many more like this, it's just that I try to avoid them, if possible (although Lola rennt and Flatliners are very good movies otherwise). I also guess that there are many children's movies that work this way. And let's not forget all those horror and natural disaster movies where the sarcastic atheist always get killed and the faithful survive.

reply

[–] curious_fox24 10 years ago

Absolutely agree with you - there are so many movies and TV shows where the skeptic or unbeliever is the one that is wrong with the exact "I told you so" feel. Also, they are usually shown as arrogant a*holes with many character flaws.

How about Battlestar Galactica? That is a perfect example I would think.

reply

[–] danyu100 10 years ago

this is a good point.

it's interesting if you look at it from point of view of anti-atheist = god(s)/supernatural are real with christianity being a subset of that.

so like any movie where someone is shocked by magic being real? there are lots of movies like this. cat's eye is a good twist, i think. it's a pretty common theme for a child to believe there are monsters, in the dark/under bed/ in the closet and the adults don't believe, but it turns out the kid was right, often an adult will die or be maimed for their lack of believe.

how about anything set in the cthulhu universe? as the main horror is that these are barely comprehensible beings that make rational people go insane, right? when pulled off well, i think the modern versions are sometimes more interesting because they have atheist protagonists rather than christian. i mean, i don't know, but i imagine that if you believe in some supernatural stuff it's easier to make the leap to other supernatural ideas, even if they are terrifying. they have the framework of demons and devils to conceptualize the horror, while what does an atheist have? aliens? that makes it more terrifying!

the ninth configuration and prince of darkness aren't anti-aethist per say, but i think they're much more enjoyable "horror' movies if you are one. i think you could even call the ninth configuration the exorcist for atheists. :)

what about the wickerman? the horror of that comes from the main character being a non believer, regardless of being right or wrong.

along similar lines and i can't think of the names of the movies now, but i've seen in quite a few movies with the general plot of an educated white man goes to live with "noble" savages to help them/save them/understand them, but they end up sacrificing him, eating him or just not being noble enough! usually they believe in gods that he doesn't. it's not that gods are real or not, that's not the point, it's that his views prevented him from conceptualizing that other people will believe in things he doesn't like, in the face of his "logic".

to be fair, sometimes the man is christian, but i don't think that matters, the point is that his beliefs, grounded in science or not, are insignificant in the grand scheme of things. in someways that's an atheist view, but i see just as many atheists believe in the myth that religion is "evil" or if no one was religious the the world would be better. this is as much magical thinking as anything religion has given us.

of course, just like with religion people there are just as many kinds of atheist people as there are people. what i mean is that some people frame discussion as criticism or being "anti" some find it pointless, some find it annoying, some find it funny, some thought provoking, and so on with an infinite number of mixtures of these qualities. being anti anything is in the eye of the beholder.

reply

[–] Korios 10 years ago

In the movie "Signs" Joaquin Phoenix is only able to save his son from asthma death after getting back his faith in god (which he previously lost when his wife died horribly). And that movie was about an alien invasion.

You confused Mel Gibson with Joaquin Phoenix, who plays his brother in this film.
The interesting part of this film for me, regardless of how Mel Gibson interpreted the answer to the "Is it possible that there are no coincidences?" primary question is that this premise is not only compatible with a personal god. It is also compatible with pantheism and Jungean synchronicity, the idea that everything is connected with everything else not causally but meaningfully.

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.

reply