It's such a pathetic Christian fantasy that almost never happens in real life. This is just as bad as "God's Not Dead". Try portraying atheists HONESTLY for a change, huh?
shareThe trailer looks good, but i really hope now Corbin Bernsen is directing movies himself he get the rights to do a Dentist 3 (or other horror flicks)! :-)
shareHow about a movie where the Christian and the Atheist continue on, and figure out how to make their relationship work despite their completely different perspectives?
You know, about how people with differences in opinion actually do things.
Hidden Secrets (2006) {From the 'God's Not Dead' studio}
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805190/
A Christian film in which Jewish atheist Gary Zimmerman (John Schneider) is 'preyed on' by a pushy Christian girl who tries to convert him using online materials. He doesn't convert to anything and he is also ultimately not treated as or made into a bad guy. She is rebuked for being pushy.
Grace Unplugged (2013)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2349460/
Another Christian film in which obviously secular Frank 'Mossy' Mostin (Kevin Pollak) tries to 'corrupt' Gracie Trey (AJ Michalka) with all sorts of industry stuff to make her the next Britney/Miley. Doesn't work and he doesn't convert to anything. He's not evil in the film, just ambitious. Eventually, they make peace and he has a Christian division of his label that she works for. It's never suggested that this is anything but a profit-making venture for him.
There are others, but those are the ones that pop into mind immediately. I'm Christian and hopeful for everyone, but I like my films a bit more on the realistic side. It'd be nice to see a bit more of what you suggested in Christian cinema. Like you said, most people find ways to get along in real life to some degree, despite differences.
I could see how it would be difficult for a radical, fundamentalist Christian like him to be with a girl who wasn't Christian. I could also see her growing tired oh his shtick unless she was that herself. I think it's pretty emasculating for a guy to be sitting around holding hands, drinking lemonade, and talking about the Bible all the time. As they did actually mention in the movie, there needs to be some risk and tension in life for a sexual, dynamic, romantic relationship to work. It probably works in radical Christian communities, because that stuff is commonplace, but when you come off as a crazy Christian, the stuff between the legs usually dries up for the women.
On the other hand, it can work when the girl is a good, crazy Christian, and the guy isn't (her "bad boy"). He'll have to play ball and go to church, but he can still do his own stuff on the side as long as he's a good husband.
Why do you think atheists 'give the middle finger to god'?. I am an atheist, and my wife is a christian. It is rarely an issue.
shareWhere do you think new Christians come from?
They are non-believers who decide to accept Christ as their savior, so to say it "almost never happens" is specious.
Now if you're talking a hard-core, "I will never believe" atheist, it's more rare but does occur.
No, they aren't non-believers who decide to accept christ as their savior. To say that is where new christians come from is specious.
Most "new" christians are simply children who have been indoctrinated by their parents and their parents' church. Other "new" christians are people from other faiths who switch to christianity because they want to leave their old faith, but are unable to think for themselves so they go to a new place (christianity) that still offers to control their life for them.
I would like to know where everyone, believers and non-believers alike, are getting their "facts" from.
I don't know about giving the middle finger to God, but I've certainly been on the receiving end. Not long ago I was on a message board where there was a discussion about the Bible. Two atheists joined in but rather than simply expressing their opposing viewpoints, they attempted to demean and humiliate the believers on the thread, calling us ignorant, delusional, etc. Even after the other posters gave up on the debate they continued their tirade on and on by bouncing back and forth between each other. I wish it could be a simple "you like coffee and I like tea" matter of opinion, I really do, but when faced with this much hostility it is hard to get the warm and fuzzies about "different perspectives". It is not the differing viewpoints that is the problem (after all atheists' beliefs as well as those of Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, etc., are based on faith; neither side can prove they are right); it is the hostility in expressing those viewpoints, by either side, that is the problem.
BTW, if you Google "list of former atheists" you might be surprised by what (and who) you'll find.
All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.
If you want to look at where the hostility comes from, look at your own posts.
You say that people called Christians ignorant and delusional. Well look at your statement of, "after all atheists' beliefs as well as those of Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, etc., are based on faith; neither side can prove they are right."
That is a completely ignorant and delusional statement to make. Atheism isn't a faith proposition. Atheism is a rejection of your God based on lack of evidence, it is not a statement of faith. So, until you can stop making silly arguments, please expect to be mocked and ridiculed.
Nothing I think is true is based on faith. I have very strong evidence for my world view, but if given an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary, I would be willing to change my stance. I've never met a serious religious person who admits that they might be wrong and would change their stance if given enough evidence. That is why yours is a stance of faith and mine is not.
I don't get annoyed when religious people say that they believe in God, whether theirs is a liberal or a fundamentalist interpretation. Where I get frustrated is when they make intellectually bankrupt arguments for their case(as you have) but imply they're making a valid point.
Thanks. The fact that you were unable to refute what I said without name-calling ("ignorant", "delusional", "silly", "intellectually bankrupt") proves my point about hostility better than I ever could. In my opinion, anything we believe but can't prove, belief in the fidelity of a spouse, belief in the future, belief in God, belief in no god, is an act of faith. You disagree with that. That's fine, that's your right. I disagree with you; that's my right. The difference is that I choose to be civil about it.
All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.
I'm sorry friend, but it's not name calling when I'm stating a fact.
You made an argument that was completely void of logic and fact and expect to have equal ground, I refuse to let that happen. You can believe whatever the hell you want, I don't care but you don't get to make bankrupt arguments and expect me to take them seriously. You can label your stance any way you want, but you are then trying to equate atheism(which is something you apparently know nothing about based on your definition) to your faith, which is silly.
I have clearly shown you what your stance is and what my stance is, and why your stance is faith and mine isn't, yet you're still going to make the same argument?
Why not? You are still making yours.
And you are right, I have no personal experience as an atheist so I have to rely on the words of people a whole lot smarter than I am. In a 2006 interview with author and Oxford professor Alistair McGrath, he stated "I persistently make the point that the evidence available is not—by itself—sufficient to bring us to a secure position of belief or disbelief. So if you arrive at either of those positions, you do so as a matter of faith. Atheists find this very threatening and they often get very angry" and in response to a question about Dr. Richard Dawkins, "When I take people through his arguments, it becomes obvious to them that atheism is a faith, instead of a certainty supported by scientific argument. But until I have done that, they have not realized that it is a faith that, like Christianity, also has its fanatics and fundamentalists". Since Professor McGrath was a self-described "aggressive atheist" who later embraced Christianity, one would think he knew what he was talking about.
The Random House Dictionary defines atheism as "the doctrine or belief that there is no God."
Last year, the U.S. government declared atheism as a religion (more in line with one of Merriam-Webster's definitions of religion as a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith) for tax purposes, similar to that of other non-theist groups like Buddhists and Taoists.
Also last year, there was an article in USA Today stating that "Dozens of gatherings dubbed "atheist mega-churches" by supporters and detractors are springing up around the U.S."
Think what you like, but some nameless, faceless stranger calling me ignorant doesn't make it a fact.
All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.
"Since Professor McGrath was a self-described "aggressive atheist" who later embraced Christianity, one would think he knew what he was talking about. "
Completely untrue. It's actually more likely that he never correctly understood what he was if he can now come to that conclusion idiotic conclusion. Even if I eventually somehow became a religious person, I can never make a fundamentally stupid argument as that Professor. It's a completely ridiculous argument to make.
According to your worldview then, EVERYTHING is a matter of faith. Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we aren't in the Matrix? If you say no, you're taking that on faith that we aren't?
Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you weren't created 1 second ago with all prior memories up until that point? If you say no, then you are saying that you have faith that you've actually experienced all of those events.
Again, you are starting that you believe in God, you admit you can't prove him. That is what makes your position FAITH. I am saying that because you unable to provide me any convincing evidence, that I am rejecting your claim. There is no FAITH involved in my stance, it's a rejection of your claim.
I don't claim to know there is no God, I say there is not enough evidence to convince me of one. Again, no faith involved. If you were to show me convincing evidence for a God, I would admit there is a God, but you have even said yourself you can't prove one exists.
"Also last year, there was an article in USA Today stating that "Dozens of gatherings dubbed "atheist mega-churches" by supporters and detractors are springing up around the U.S."
Yes those people are dumb but it still doesn't make it a faith based position. We don't have one book that we all read. We don't have the same moral standards and don't say that any of our worldview is because of revelation.
"Think what you like, but some nameless, faceless stranger calling me ignorant doesn't make it a fact."
You're finally starting to make sense. You're exactly right, you aren't ignorant because I call you ignorant, you're ignorant because of the arguments you make.
Again, you are starting that you believe in God, you admit you can't prove him. That is what makes your position FAITH. I am saying that because you unable to provide me any convincing evidence, that I am rejecting your claim. There is no FAITH involved in my stance, it's a rejection of your claim.
Completely untrue. It's actually more likely that he never correctly understood what he was if he can now come to that conclusion idiotic conclusion. Even if I eventually somehow became a religious person, I can never make a fundamentally stupid argument as that Professor. It's a completely ridiculous argument to make.
Yes those people are dumb but it still doesn't make it a faith based position.
"You must be a hoot a dinner parties. If someone were to tell you they visited the Grand Canyon but didn't bring along pictures or video to prove it would you automatically reject that claim, too?"
Oh man, you were making such progress, then you come back at me with this gem. Leave it to the mind of a religious person to equate visiting the grand canyon to......saying that there is an all powerful all knowing supernatural deity that created everything and that supernatural power came to earth born of a virgin,walked on water, was killed and then came back to life to die for the "sins" of humanity and that if I don't obey and worship this supposed loving God I will be tortured forever in a different plane of existence? You surely can't be dumb enough to think that those two claims are similar and thus needing the same kind of evidence?
But to answer your question, if you could provide no evidence that you visited, kept changing your story about your visit(as the religious keep changing their reasons), and started making wild claims then yes, I would start to consider that maybe you never went.
"Wow, oh wow, I had no idea that I was conversing with the smartest person in the world who can so easily reject the opinions of others as idiotic or dumb if they happen to disagree with your own."
No, it's pretty simple. You tried to post words from someone who use to be an atheist but is now a believer. I'm saying that the persons argument is fundamentally wrong and that I'm not sure if they understood what atheism was. If I were to post words from someone who use to be a Christian and is now an atheist, would you be impressed? I'm not saying that the Professor is a moron for now being a believer, I'm saying that their a moron because the argument they made is complete nonsense and if the reason they were an atheist is because they had "faith" that God didn't exist, then they were mistaken about the stance of atheism.
^ This!
I am the equal and opposite reaction!
Most "new" christians are simply children who have been indoctrinated by their parents and their parents' church.
Citation needed.
Other "new" christians are people from other faiths who switch to christianity because they want to leave their old faith,
Citation needed.
but are unable to think for themselves so they go to a new place (christianity) that still offers to control their life for them.
Once again, citation needed.
I really, really doubt you are thinking for yourself here. Seems to me you are just drooling out a bunch of mindless cliches. You represent athiests quite well.
Most "new" christians are simply children who have been indoctrinated by their parents and their parents' church.
Citation needed.
You made the assertion. Citation needed. Also a citation needed that children are "indoctrinated" rather than educated.
Where do you think new Christians come from?
They are non-believers who decide to accept Christ as their savior, so to say it "almost never happens" is specious.
Atheists dont believe a god exists. We give the middle finger to people who misrepresent us.
shareIt is pathetic. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of atheists once believed in god. The few that go the other way is a mere pittance in comparison. I myself was indoctrinated into christianity from a very young age. I even attended christian school up until my parents couldn't afford the tuition when I graduated 8th grade.
I guess the fact that the world is slowly but surely leaving religion behind frightens them so they resort to misleading movies like this.
I guess the fact that the world is slowly but surely leaving religion behind frightens them so they resort to misleading movies like this.
As opposed to the upfront mainstream movies that typically portray the Christian character as the villain?
@ Priat the problem is you are using FACTS in your post. You even use that exact word.
It's clearly more reasonable** to focus only on the rare anecdotal "allegedly hardcore atheist who was really just an agnostic until he had a real experience with The Holy Spirit and got born again" scenarios...
** reason-able, haha...
- - -
Chipping away at a mountain of pop culture trivia,
Darren Dirt.
My ex sister-in-law went from being an atheist to a hard core Catholic. Of course, like most religious hypocrites, she wasn't all that concerned with Catholic doctrine. She wasn't too bothered by the fact that she was obtaining a divorce while studying her catechism.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for Wales?
Maybe your brother was a bad person so she just wanted to get away from him? I don't see how that makes her the villain.
shareGood idea. I'd love to see honest movies about Mao or Stalin.