MovieChat Forums > The Unbelievers (2013) Discussion > Cringe-inducing

Cringe-inducing

posted 10 years ago by Make85
37 replies | jump to latest

I really appreciate the work of Dawkins and Krauss, but I found the document very difficult to watch. One constant argument by the believers is that atheism is just another religion. That of course is not true. The Unbelievers however painted an image of Dawkins and Krauss as some atheist Jesuses with a massive following. The constant cuts to clapping audiences and people praising the stars of the film for changing their lives, made even me feel uncomfortable.

The film didn't seem like a biography of Dawkins and Krauss; what led them to their current paths etc. It didn't really give the religions any say - even to be debunked by Dawkins and Krauss. It really felt like a complete circleje... back-patting fest. I felt like I was watching a documentary about Justin Bieber, made by a 13-year old girl.

It's not like atheists need any more assurance regarding the correctness of their views of the world. However, if the purpose of the film is to make people question their faith, it fails hard at it.

[–] EuropeanMoviesFan 10 years ago

You probably went to see it with a different expectation. I haven't yet seen, and even before reading your comment, I know (knew)that this documentary is not really one to give religions any say or even have debates against them. As the documentary says, it is about Dawkins and Krauss "travelling countries to speak publicly about the importance of science and reason in the modern world." Atheists don't necessarily need assurance regarding their view, as you say. But there are probably many, like myself, who really admire these two atheists, among many others, who love to see their work (as you mentioned), tours, books, etc. I would never have imagined that this documentary would have been about their biographies or what led them to their current paths...I don't know what made you think the documentary was going to fit your expectation when the synopsis, and the pre-view, which I saw, claearly suggests something else. I am looking forward to buying the DVD.

[–] Make85 10 years ago

If I had any expectations, they were about the documentary being more intelligent, considering its subjects. In reality though I had no idea what it was supposed to be about, as I viewed it from television.

[–] barkbarkwoof 10 years ago

Yes, it was no more enlightening than a Cult of Dusty video and far less entertaining.

[–] vilafire 10 years ago

Well, I agree to some extent but the truth is you can already find very in-depth coverage of both Dawkins and Krauss on YouTube. This indeed feels like a victory lap, a very well earned victory lap, and an affirmation. Don't get caught up like so many skeptics and atheists do in what something could be perceived as but take it for what it is.

[–] Sawyer_Lost 10 years ago

How does it feel to be that scientifically illiterate? Does it hurt?
Take a biology class, high school level will have to do for you.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan

[–] twent4 10 years ago

You really don't sound like someone who detests religion. You also don't sound like someone who should be using technology if you don't believe science provides definitive, concrete results.

Don't reap the benefits of something you don't trust.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] joey-tribbiani 10 years ago

You three sound like a bunch of high school kids or Richard Dawkins when he refers to many of the countless individuals he has lost debates against.

He's (Jon_Death) right.

Any scientist in research will tell you the same. There are countless counter arguments to evolution in genetics and also the problems with astrophysics either through technology or mathematics (via inability or innacuracy) are a multitude.

But don't let that stop you viewing the internet like a bible.

Maybe... do your own scientific research and come to the same conclusion that Dawkins, is, wrong?

Or then again, that's far harder than reading his basic basic unscientific books or endless videos.

Real science, would scare you guys. If it's not the maths, it would be the language but if it's not that - it would be having your hardcore dogmatic (religious) beliefs questioned.

[–] gfaraj 10 years ago

"Any scientist in research will tell you the same. There are countless counter arguments to evolution in genetics and also the problems with astrophysics either through technology or mathematics (via inability or innacuracy) are a multitude."

If this were true, anyone who can write a paper explaining these countless counter-arguments to evolution and astrophysics would be receiving a Nobel prize. I wonder why that hasn't happened. You see, Science is self-correcting, unlike religion. We shape our conclusions based on new evidence, instead of shaping the evidence to fit our conclusions.

Sorry, but you deserve to be ridiculed.

[–] joey-tribbiani 10 years ago

Why would they receive a nobel prize for an argument?

You do realize that evolution has many many flaws? Yes there is evidence but there is evidence for many things that support a theory that doesn't mean it is the truth. You do realise that?

Evolution is shaping the evidence to fit a conclusion.

I do think you need to read some actual academic papers and not salivate sexually over "I *beep* love science" or a Dawkins video.

[–] clerlic 10 years ago

Could you mention some flaws in evolution?

Ignore list:
crat33, Jrdmln, USArmyCaptain, Guitar_King

[–] Speedwheels1718 10 years ago

The theory of evolution has more evidence and we understand it better then the law of gravity. A scientific theory is the highest level of acceptance and evidence from the scientific community.
You and that other person who said there is just as much evidence that does not support evolution are flat out wrong. I don't know if it's projection or ignorance that you would say the theory of evolution is "shaping the evidence to fit the conclusion"
What academic papers are you talking about? I'm pretty sure your 'evidence' against evolution would inc,due things like a developed eye or we only have found one Lucy, or we have not observed evolution in the real world, or there have been many forgeries, or we don't know how the first organic life formed. If those are some of your arguments against evolution, I again would say you are flat out wrong because all of those besides one are backed by mountains of evidence from credible peer reviewed science. The other one does not have to do with evolution but abiogenesis.
Dawkins is explicit in this video to follow the evidence where it leads, to not take truth from just someone's words, even his. There are many things we don't know in science and new evidence in evolution could change things around dramatically. Dawkins and the rest of the scientific community is open enthusiastically to that notion. That is science. I don't know where you have these notions Dawkins just has some arguments and that he is not open to being wrong. I don't know how you can come to that conclusion unless you have maybe only seen his work from this movie. Even then a central theme was to question authority.
Where does your knowledge of evolution come from?

[–] joey-tribbiani 10 years ago

Let me teach you about science first because I think you're lost.

A theory is something presented. So then you find something and you try and prove that theory exists. Then you can find other things to conclude that theory. Continual evidence leads to solidifying that theory.

That is not truth. Counter arguing and finding flaws in theories, even with evidence is common. Widely common. Supporting theories is a common practice in science not because they want to prove the theory but disprove.

What's the point in publishing numerous papers otherwise?

Whether you like it or not. Whether you have made a messiah of Dawkins or not - Science is about disproving via questioning. Dawkins is basically preying on the weak minded who don't understand Science.

Isaac Newton presented this idea of continually questioning by the way.

You need to read up and stop finding your celebrities in youtube videos to give yourself a faux perception of intellectuality.

[–] gfaraj 10 years ago

That's one of the most inaccurate descriptions of Science I've ever read. You know nothing about the scientific method, and yet you think you're qualified to "teach" anyone, let alone assert that evolution is bull*%#@.

Let me explain how Science actually works. There are no proofs in Science, since it's an inductive process.

A hypothesis (not a theory) is proposed based on an observation. The hypothesis is required to be testable. Scientists then proceed to rigorously test the hypothesis via experiments and gathering of evidence, and if it passes enough tests and passes peer reviews, it is now considered a theory. If the hypothesis doesn't pass at least one test, then it can be discarded or changed to fit the observations.

A scientific theory is the highest form of scientific knowledge. It's not a hunch or an educated guess. It's an explanation that has endured the rigorous tests of hundreds of scientists. If new evidence suggests that the theory is wrong, again, the theory is discarded or adjusted.

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. "God exists" isn't even a valid hypothesis because it isn't testable.

Hopefully you'll stop spreading your stupidity on the internet. Be responsible and read before you state your incorrect opinion as fact.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gfaraj 10 years ago

You have mental problems. Seriously, seek help ASAP as a precaution to the people that are close to you. They are in danger. Your delusion is incredible to me.

Please read, you fuc@&%! tool:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

God damn this is retarded.

[–] joey-tribbiani 10 years ago

As Joey broke the belief that gfaraj had, he started to scream and shout. He was in denial. He was angry. He was suffering. For the church of Dawkinsism with the videos of bad lighting and badly written books in juvenile writing (at the behest of the publisher, because real science is for intellectuals) wasn't good enough for somebody who needed an identity. That identity was atheism and Internet Yob who believes if one person does something, everybody like that person does it, helped estranged and dysfunctional children to find an abusive hooligan identity through the internet when modern parenting could not.

Joey wins.

Hail wikipedia and internet blogs written for commercial benefit. The extent of gfaraj's abilities.

[–] gfaraj 10 years ago

The only thing you broke was the record for idiocy on the internet. Congratulations, joey-tribbiani. Your user name is apt.

[–] joey-tribbiani 10 years ago

It's fascinating how some theories in science are apt.

Like you learn your lack of argument but ability to ridicule and abuse from Dawkins.

The funniest thing I ever heard from Dawkins was "He's not worthy of debating because he is a good debater."

LOL. Like saying, he's not worthy of teaching me tennis because he's good at tennis :oD

Oh bless you and and your search for identity. Bless you to rebel with cowards.

[–] frode-hauge 10 years ago

You should follow your own advice and read up on science before entering into another discussion about it. You are doing the equivalent of discussing geography from the perspective of someone believing the earth is flat. Get used to being dismissed, it will happen a lot.

[–] joey-tribbiani 10 years ago

Oh the amazing earth is flat retort.

I gasp! Oh!!! How many times has that been given as a retort by the minions of Dawkins? A million? 10 million? Hundred million times?

I am sure I have lost count completely.

Being dismissed doesn't happen a lot by the way.

Atheism is nothing without a God. It's a never ending rebellion against puberty issues. I mean, God is a projection you use for unfulfilled desires during puberty.

SCIENCE! :oD

[–] westdrop-1 10 years ago

Wow. You are the most stupid person on the internet

"Looks like we're shy one horse" "No. You brought two too many"

[–] joey-tribbiani 10 years ago

You sound like Dawkins. Full of insults but has the rhetoric of a kindergarten science book filled with abuse by a angry toddler.

[–] clerlic 10 years ago

>The funniest thing I ever heard from Dawkins was "He's not worthy of debating because he is a good debater."

>LOL. Like saying, he's not worthy of teaching me tennis because he's good at tennis :oD

It's not like saying that, it's more like saying "he's not worthy of teaching me tennis because he's only good at manipulating the tournaments so he only gets weak opponents and hence seems to be an above average player." Tennis is a poor comparison anyway.

A good debater isn't necessarily right, he might only be good at using the debate rules like limited time in his favor by asking vague questions or questions, answers to which could be easily misinterpreted in his favor, or other kinds of constructed questions with the purpose of making the opponent look silly instead of getting the answer, which is probably already known anyway.

Ignore list:
crat33, Jrdmln, USArmyCaptain, Guitar_King

[–] prizm4 10 years ago

"I laughed so loud so much at this post that I have to thank you for giving me the biggest joke."

Oh my goodness...gfaraj gave you accurate science definitions for hypothesis and theory and you call it a joke. You are defending religion to the point of shunning valid education. You should really start questioning your beliefs and see if they truly hold water. If the best evidence you've got for your religion is to mock the alternatives (evolution, etc), then you don't have much to stand on.

[–] joey-tribbiani 10 years ago

They're not definitions.

They're taken from the Dawkins school of how I re-define things and then get my minions to pass them around the internet. It's called simplifying definitions so you can sell books to a generation of people fed a sub-standard High School education.

Read some books on government policy and the changes in education and you;'ll see why.

[–] Brendan3 10 years ago

I agree.
I admire their writings and their arguments... but I have much less respect for them as people after seeing this documentary.
There was so little about their actual arguments presented and absolutely nothing about their background.
But there was an hour of them being cheered and thanked by crowds and celebrity friends.

There was a lot of praise and adulation for them in this film, but nothing about them.
They should be ashamed of this film as it serves only to inflate their egos and does nothing to advance their cause.

[–] Hancockenstein 10 years ago

non-religious people arguing with each other. this thread is f'cking hilarious.

[–] janus_keinaerts 10 years ago

I'm guessing we can watch this short display of sheepish sycophancy instead, then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EphcacBt-Mk