So is God Dead?

I just saw the movie “God Is Not Dead”.  I thought it was pretty good.

The premise is that in a college introduction to philosophy class, the instructor starts out by making all the students sign a statement that “God Is Dead”.  Now this is not that far fetched; similar things actually have happened in college classes, although not as clumsily as this instructor did.

One student would not sign the paper, and accepted as the only acceptable alternative the challenge to prove that God exists, or suffer poor grades in the class.  It worked in the movie, although in real life it was probably not the way to handle the situation.  Unless, of course, God moved him to deal with it like he did, because of the positive results for the Kingdom of God which resulted.  And the “costs” to the student which realistically would have happened, are a worthy sacrifice to God.

I would have handled it differently, unless God led me to do it this way.

The instructor started out by showing a list of famous philosophers and asking what they had it common.  Turned out, they were all atheists, and so was the instructor.  Ok.  Then he went into his spiel that God was dead.  At that point, I would have raised my hand, and said something like “Excuse me sir, but how did God die?”  The response would have likely been one of:

1) He never existed.  In this case, my response would be “if He never existed, there is no way He could have died.  It’s a rule; in order to die, you must be alive first.”

2) I don’t know.  In this case, my response would be “Oh?  Where’s the body?  Was an autopsy done?  No body?  How do you know He is dead, wait, did YOU kill Him?”

3) Something condescending which did not answer the question.  In this case, my response would be “Sir, obviously you know more than we do, which is why we come to you to learn.  But when you make a statement of fact which contradicts out current view, you must be able to prove to us that we are wrong and that your statement is true.”

Basically, to get him to realize that his belief is only a belief, and that to try blackmailing the students into believing the same thing is illegal, immoral, and probably fattening.  If he “needs’ that viewpoint to be accepted by all his students, then he must attempt to prove it to the satisfaction of all of them.  And if he can’t do it (which he can’t), then he must abandon it as a requirement to do well in the class.

The student, quite accurately, starts off with the statement that if cannot be proven that God exists.  And then makes a good case why it is reasonable to believe in God.  The instructor responds with a quote from Steven Hawking which “punctures his whole argument”.  No it didn’t; the quote was silly.  Hawking may be brilliant, but in this quote, he came to a conclusion based on his beliefs, not on Science.  The student though, responded with “I don’t know”, which caused the instructor to belittle his efforts.  Of course, next week he proved the quote to violate the laws of logic.

In the movie, this was dealt with as a contest between the student and the instructor.  The instructor behaved in a manner which in the real world left him (and the college) wide open for legal problems.

Still, the film was quite entertaining, and provided fresh glimpses into the validity of our faith.

 

 

 

d

Advertisements

34 thoughts on “So is God Dead?

  1. Unfortunately, you seem to forget one thing: This is a Christian movie. That thing only happened inside a Christian’s head. The movie takes some of the nonsense from Christian chain letters, but real life is a little bit different…

    – Most philosophy professors really don’t care what you believe. The point is to think about things, to make arguments for and against things and not to simply accept an opinion just because the person is your professor. The typical philosophy professor is not somehow an atheist priest who wants to convert you.

    – “God is dead” is a quote from Nietzsche and it’s not about god as a person. You could look at it as a statement, that there is no need for religion anymore. Taking it literally and answering it thus would probably not get the result you are hoping for. Instead, a good philosophy professor would probably first help you to understand the statement, the context and its intent before trying to refute it (which may or may not be possible).

    – Actually the assignment would be quite easily done: Convincing most of your class mates that god exists in a country where religious people are the majority isn’t really a horribly difficult task.

    – Most Christians aren’t able to accept “I don’t know.”. How often do we hear “You don’t know how life started, thus god.” from your fellow Christians? A scientist instead will tell you “We don’t know.” and wouldn’t try to conclude anything from it. Scientists tend to be quite happy with “We don’t know” – because it gives them a reason to find out. Not knowing isn’t a bad thing – but claiming to know when you don’t, is.

    Personally, I think the film provided insight into the mind of some Christians and it’s not a beautiful view. full pf prejudices, almost like a Christian chain mail letter coming to life, a persecution complex in action.

    • I did not forget it was a Christian movie. I watched it; I liked it; I would have handled the, admittedly unlikely, scenario differently. Probably.

      What “nonsense” did this take from “Christian chain letters”? What IS a “Christian chain letter”? I’m a Christian, and I’ve never seen one.

      You are absolutely right about most philosophy instructors. Most is not all, though. I doubt there is really one as extreme as this one, and even if there were, he would probably have “crossed the line” and gotten swatted long ago.

      Words have meaning (or at least they should). If someone makes a pretty statement which is intended to state something different than the words actually say, one can admire it, but must be willing to be taken to task about the discrepancy with the “real” meaning.

      I’m not sure it would be as easy to convince “most” of a college class to be certain enough that God exists and would object to being dismissed, that the actions against them threatened by the instructor would be risked.

      Actually, Christians are more comfortable with “I don’t know” than are “scientists”. The basis of Christianity is the faith in “things not seen”. We accept things which on the surface appear silly, because those things speak to us deep inside. I am as annoyed as you when a Christian states a belief as a “fact”, or tries to “prove” his view using invalid logic. The Scientist is the one who can come up with a theory and then present that theory as “fact” without being able to prove it. Science should be clear about what is “fact”, i.e. provable by experiment or valid logical reasoning, and what is theory, i.e. fits all known facts but has not yet been proven.

      I did not see anything wrong with the minds of the Christians portrayed in the film. Some of the non-Christians did not come off well, but that was necessary to the story, and a sane person would not have any thought that the individual actions of any character were true of a whole class of people.

      • Lucky guy, seen more than one. For example, the story of the philosophy teacher who tried to bully his (christian) pupils was in one of those (probably in more than one). Nobody was ever able to confirm the story, because it was pretty vague (probably not by accident).

        Most is never all, but of course, it doesn’t make sense to talk about extremes. I am sure that there are sadistic mass murderers who think that they are doing god’s work – but of course we don’t refer to these when talking about Christians because they are as representative for Christians as such a guy would be representative for philosophy professors.

        And while there probably stupid scientists as well, I’m afraid you have a strange image of science. A very simplified explanation would be, that science looks at the facts, then formulates a “hypothesis” to explain them and then tries to falsify them or confirm it by testing its predictions, slowly elevating them to “theories”, if they don’t fail and predict acceptably, modifying the hypothesis if needed.
        It’s not about prove, but evidence and confirmation, And no good scientist will ever claim to know the full truth or have the perfect “fact”. Look at the theory of gravity, for example: If made predictions (how bodies move, from small pebbles to planets), was falsifiable, etc. And it worked for a long time, until scientists found out that the predictions weren’t quite correct for certain conditions. Thus, the theory was falsified – still good enough to be used for everyday stuff like moving things on earth, but not good enough for stuff when reaching the speed of light. Thus, another hypothesis had to be created there and now this hypothesis makes predictions that can be tested, etc. If you as a scientist, for example, about the origin of life, “We don’t know, we only have some vague ideas, not even theories” will be the honest answer.

        Scientists accept things that seem silly, too, that’s not a bad thing per se. And no, I don’t agree that christians are comfortable with “I don’t know”, because they always want to insert “thus god” into that space. “How did life originate?” “I know! I know! Must be god!!!” “How did the universe start?” “I know! I know! Must be god!!!”.”Who took the cake?” “I know! I know! Must have been Satan!!!”.

        Unfortunately, if you look around in the web for reactions to that movie (and other stuff)… Yes, enough people do believe that the content of the movie was very realistic and happens every day. Enough Christians really love their persecution complex, sorry. But it’s always nice to meet the other ones who don’t fall for that stuff.

      • I don’t visit Christian web sites, so perhaps that is why I don’t get the chain letters. Or perhaps they are only sent to non-Christians :-). I get my news from conservative sites; ones which provide the links to the actual articles, not the conspiracy ones.

        You are right about good scientists and about the proper progression of science. However, a lot of non-scientists are not as rigorous. Take evolution. It is a theory, which has not been proven or disproved, yet some people accept it as absolute fact. “Scientists say it might be true, so it must be true…”

        There probably are some Christians who say “How did xxx? Must be God”. Way back in time, lots of them, but these more enlightened days, considerably fewer. I think that many are like me. I believe some things and have opinions about many things, but I am completely aware that neither belief or opinion is fact, and would discard any which were proven wrong.

        It is sad when anyone takes a work of fiction and accepts it as truth. It does happen. But I’ll bet that far fewer people think that the bad behaviors shown in this film are typical of atheists, educators, blondes and businessmen than is feared by the people who are repulsed by this film.

      • No scientific theory has been “proven”, because that’s not the idea of science – it’s quite impossible. But in case of evolution, many predictions have been tested, many, many different pieces of evidence point to it and, of course, it has been observed in reality. It happens. Chances, that it will be disproven completely are pretty slim. Chances, that it will have to be modified to include new facts, etc. are quite great, of course (probably 100%). For all practical purposes, it can be treated as factual as gravity (which, in case of Newtons version, is also not 100% correct, but works well enough for everyday purposes).

      • Let us not forget, there are 3 “evolutions”. There is micro evolution, where a species changes, generally due to environment. This is the one which has been observed. Then there is macro evolution, where a species becomes a new species. There is no evidence to support this. Then there is the jump to an evolution where nothing becomes something, or not life becomes life.

      • No, sorry, there is only evolution. The difference is completely artificial, created by creationists who had no chance but to acknowledge reality that happened in front of their eyes but tried to still keep their dogma intact as much as possible. There’s also overwhelming evidence for the evolution of species – and yes, of course you can’t watch it, because it takes much time. But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t evidence – genetic, anatomic, fossil, etc. Accepting “microevolution” means accepting “macroevolution” because the only difference is the time. If you change enough details, you automatically get a new species. You can try to disbelief that, but sorry, that means ignoring the evidence and leaving the area of rationality.

        Abiogenesis (“not life becomes life.”) on the other hand has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is about what happens to life, it makes no assumptions about its origins. So that’s a completely different scientific field. Same with gravity: It tells you how matter behaves, how it attracts other matter – but not where it comes from. But that doesn’t make the theory less good. It does, what is was meant to do. Same with the theory of evolution. It explains how life evolves. End of story. Trying to claim that it’s somehow “bad” because it doesn’t even try to explain how life started is simply blaming it for not being something it was never meant to be. A mechanic does his job perfectly well if he knows how to repair cars, even if he doesn’t have a clue where the parts come from.

        And please don’t forget that enough Christians accept evolution. They don’t have to believe in a god that needs to tinker with his creation all the time, like a bad watchmaker who can only make watches that work for a few hours but then need repairs. They simply assume that god started it all and knew where it would lead. Honestly, which good somehow seems… human? The one who knows how all works out just by creating the first spark? Or perhaps the guy who makes life that only works for a few years and then needs to work on it again?

      • There is overwhelming evidence for the evolution of one species into a new one? Wow, I am sure behind the times. The last I heard, no fossil remains had been found of a species “in transition”. Of course, there has been great strides made in genetics since last I studied it, so it is certainly possible that they have found evidence there. I’ve not heard of any anatomical congruences between species which are unequivocally not coincidental, but that does not mean there are none.

        I wonder why the overwhelming evidence has not been widely trumpeted in an attempt to educate those who still think it is unproven. I mean, “overwhelming” should be enough for all but the most extreme religious fanatics with the most tenuous grasp of reality. By definition of “overwhelming”.

        There is one factor which makes extrapolating “macro” evolution from “micro” evolution more difficult, and that is, that when a species changes from one to another, reproduction between species is limited if even possible at all. The new species may be “more fit” than the old, but if reproduction is not reliable, it is unlikely to persist unless a viable population of the new species evolves at the same time. And this pushes the statistical odds way past the postulated very unlikely to nearly impossible.

        To make the distinction between evolution within a species and between species is not “ignoring the evidence”, it is insisting on seeing that evidence. To accept something as absolute without sufficient evidence; that would seem to be at least taking a vacation from the area of rationality.

        I don’t think that any actual Christian accepts evolution, at least not “random” evolution as evolution is taught. Some believe in “directed” evolution, where God uses evolution as His method of creation, in which case it would not really be evolution as the term is defined.

      • Yes, you are behind the times, sorry… Every fossil is one of a species in transition. You are just confusing transition with something that looks like a platypus. Evolution is a slowly ongoing process and not one that jumps from species to species.

        And sorry to say so, but evidence has widely presented. It is taught in school. There are books, etc. Again and again and again. And always it get’s ignored because it is not what some people want to hear. Sorry, but if you really wanted to know about the evidence, it would be easy to get some books on evolution and simply starting reading up on it. Perhaps you expect that someone will come to your door with an easy presentation, but that will probably not happen… You can grow up and start to find out if it’s true or you can hide behind your dogma. It’s your choice.

        And no, that factor makes no sense. Remember, that the changes are small any slowly. There is not a big jump from whale to mouse. So something small changes – but reproduction is still possible, because the change it still small (and any change that hinders reproduction will probably be selected out). So the change get’s inherited. And over time, many other small changes happen, every one of them being to small to make reproduction problematic – but at the end of that chain, you have a different species that can reproduce with itself, but not anymore with members of the original species millions of years before (which may or may not still exist), because every change still allows reproduction with other members of your species, but a million changes prevent reproduction with members of the species that lived a million years ago. There is absolutely no problem with that.
        Evolution of a new species simply takes time. You imagine it happening instantly, but of course, that’s simply nonsense.

        Please. Come out of your shell. Open your eyes. The world is waiting for you. I cannot say anymore, because I’m, not an expert, but I trust in your ability to do the grown up stuff and try to find the truth instead of insisting on a dogma. You sound like an intelligent guy (girl, whatever), so you could inform yourself much better than the level you presented here. You don’t have to believe me. Find out for yourself.

      • I did some searching, and there have indeed been advances in the evidence for the process of evolution. There have been some “frauds” committed in an attempt to “prove” evolution, but sadly, there appear to be MORE fraud, more recently, perpetrated by Creationists trying to disprove it.

        Creationists often “win” debates against Evolutionists, not because they have better support for their position, but because they have a more effective technique (they have to, since their position has no real evidence to support it). The Evolutionist lays out a complete view of their side, and the Creationist merely sticks pins into it, asking questions which the Evolutionist can’t answer (at least not without much research) or stating “facts” which the Evolutionist is not prepared to refute (and which often turn out to be exaggeration, not actually relevant or outright wrong).

        You know, the very technique used by the professor in the movie which started this discussion.

        One reason the theory of evolution is resisted so strongly by some (or at least by me), is that often three separate components are lumped together. The key aspect of evolution, that life changes over time, really is beyond doubt. The evidence to support this can legitimately be called “overwhelming”.

        Often the transition from not-life to life is “folded in” with evolution, which is a mistake, since it “contaminates” the issue. As you point out, there is a separate term to cover this, which is good, because it really is a separate theory. Evolution is a very strong explanation for the CHANGE to life over time; if it attempts to cover the SOURCE of life as well; the weakness of that part has negative impact on the whole theory.

        Probably the most contentious aspect is that the changes to life happened completely at random. Although there is plenty of evidence to support that “evolution” DID happen, I could find none to support that it happened “randomly”. Much of the evolution which occurs “today” is the result of we, humans, causing it to happen the way we want it to, for our benefit or even just for the heck of it.

        The pure Creationist holds that God created everything in six 24 hour days, because that is what the Bible seems to say. I know a few people like this, and they seem quite normal otherwise. Unfortunately, holding to this position is dangerous, since using Genesis 1 as absolute fact may contradict itself (creating light took God 24 hours?) and has a high degree of conflict with Genesis 2 (see my earlier blog “How long is a day?”). If the Bible contradicts itself in one place, that throws serious doubt on the reliability of the whole book.

        A more reasonable position is that of “Intelligent Design”. This does not make the “silly” claim that evolution is “all a bunch of hooey”, but rather that evolution was deliberately guided (presumably by God). If you consider that the “days” described in Genesis were “periods of time of appropriate length”, then the discrepancies between Science and the Bible are much less contentious.

      • Be careful, it is a common misconception that evolution is random. It actually isn’t. Let me try a horrible simplified explanation here and hope that no real expert shows up and kicks me in the nuts for it…

        If evolution was completely random, then, well, I would agree, the chances of us being here were really quite small. You hear that argument from opponents of evolution a lot, for example when they try to tell some story about a plane being constructed by random parts flying around in a storm.

        But, let me repeat that, evolution is not random. Mutations are a basic part of evolution and these are random, but the bigger part of evolution, the one which actually lead to us being here isn’t random at all.

        Mutations are quite normal. They happen all the time. Over millions of years and trillions of living beings, many, many mutations can occour. Many of them are not good and will kill you, no doubt about that. But many are quite neutral and don’t do anything at all. Any some are potentially beneficial.

        BUT that isn’t all. It’s not only about some mutations being beneficial potentially and thus evolution. If there is some pressure onto the populaton, actually beneficial mutations are selected. For example, if you have many bugs, then chances are good that some of them will have a natural immunity against some forms of poison, like a pesticide. But without any pressure, this mutation is quite useless. Now put pressure onto the population, by actually using that pesticide and this mutations gets selected, because it allows the bugs to survive, to procreate.

        So, the process has no guiding hand behind it, but that doesn’t mean it’s random. It’s adaption. The circumstances change and now various traits become more important, thus getting selected and as more and more of this changes cumulate, the species change.

        As I already said, evolution doesn’t try to explain the origin of life. That’s only an attack done by some opponents: “But evolution cannot explain where life actually comes from, thus it’s wrong.”. I have never heard a real scientist claim that evolution even tries to answer that question.

        But no, while of course, pressure can be applied by humanity to force evolution in desired directions (called breeding), most mutations happen naturally (including indirectly influenced by humanity through changes in the environment).

        And no, sorry, there is simply no NEED to assume a guiding hand behind evolution. It doesn’t make the theory better, it doesn’t explain more, it doesn’t allow any more prediction and thus it simply isn’t more reasonable to assume one, especially as one now would have to explain the existence of this guiding hand (don’t forget, that, no matter how unlikely evolution may look to you, this guiding hand would require a very, very, very specific being, which again, is even more complex than evolution and thus even more unlikely – that’s the problem of the fine tuning argument, you only switch the argument of the complex universe the the complex creator behind the universe, explaining absolutely nothing).

      • I guess we have reached the point where we will have to agree to disagree.

        I believe that God exists, and the Bible is partly figuratively, partly specifically, true. The Bible says that God created us (using evolution as the mechanism is highly likely), and absent proof that the Bible is not “the word of God” (that proof has been searched for pretty much since its inception), I’m not going to change that belief.

        For you to try to prove that God does not exist, or me to try to prove He does would be pointless; nobody has managed either to date, and it does not appear that will change any time soon, if ever.

        Besides, what I get from God is too precious to risk, and what I lose from my belief is little missed. In fact, I gave up much of it many years before coming to belief in God because it made my life so much better without it. So if it turns out I am wrong and there is no God, or He does not care what I do or don’t do, it is still a win.

        What benefits do you get from your belief system?

      • Of course nobody has. It is impossible. God is not a scientific theory, it’s an unfalsifiable idea. I don’t want to sound condescending, but god is the same as invisible flying pink unicorns here. Of course we cannot disprove them – but that doesn’t make them a 50:50 chance. Until someone showed me something much better than “you cannot disprove them” I will simply assume that they don’t exist, even if I have to consider myself technically a unicorn-agnostic.

        Why do I have to get something out of it? I go where the evidence lead me and accept it. No reason to get something out of it. I don’t chose my world view based on what feels better for me. Truth is not very likely dependent on what I would prefer to be true. But at least I don’t feel a need to discriminate against gay people, so perhaps I get some less prejudices out of it – but perhaps that’s just a prejudice 😉

      • It is good to not discriminate against gay people or any people for that matter. A true Christian can disapprove of an action without discriminating against people performing the action. Not a high percentage of Christians OR non-Christians can live up to that ideal though. This is particularly unfortunate of the Christians, since that is what they are instructed to do.

      • Well, the problem is, that the “true” Christian is just a variant of the true Scotsman fallacy. The bible isn’t definite, there are many different interpretations and you can prove them all equally well (not at all). So trying to tell me what a “true” Christian is like doesn’t make much sense, because the next guy will tell me that a true Christian is totally different – and both of you can only throw interpretations of translations around.

        And unfortunately, I have heard “Love the sinner, hat the sin” and variants of that before – unfortunately, to a non-Christian, more often than not, it looks suspiciously like “Hate the sinner”. Christians seem to have a strange definition of “love” sometimes that borders on abuse. Personally, quite honestly, I don’t love all humans – but even I wouldn’t wish eternal torture for even the worst human being.

      • An unfortunate number of Christians don’t follow the instructions they were given, which is pretty sad. Those that do mistreat any person need to review their reservation in the Kingdom of God to ensure it went through.

        Some “sinners” are mistreated by Christians and justly are annoyed by it. I suspect that some “sinners” aggressively search out “oppression” which was not intended because they enjoy raising a fuss or want to “punish” those who disagree with them.

      • By the way, I’ve written close to a hundred blogs on various subjects, and this is the only one which has resulting in “conversations”, which I thought was the norm of blogs after reading J A Jance’s series about a woman who took up blogging.

        How did you come to find this blog? What led you to reply to it?

      • Cool. Good to know it is not a waste of time filling them out. I guess most of them are not very popular though, since most of my blogs don’t seem to get much traffic.

  2. What an offensively bigoted movie! The intent is clearly to misrepresent atheists and academics. Just revolting…both the creators and fans of this movie should be ashamed. I just read the plot summary and am stunned. Wow, well if this is the kind of ignorance the extremist wing of the Christian right are promoting, at least we can feel confident they aren’t much of a threat.

    • Offensive? Perhaps. Both to Christians for the “evil” attack on them and on atheists for the incredible stupid actions of one who claimed to be one of them. Bigoted? That I don’t see.

      No, it was not intended to, and does not, misrepresent atheists or academics in general. It has one (actually 3) characters who are not at all likeable or reasonable, but “every” story needs a “villain” or two. If you apply this criteria, then I suggest that pretty much every movie and TV show and book and cartoon, etc, can be claimed to misrepresent some group or groups.

      Like all entertainment, it is meant to entertain, and perhaps expose the viewpoint of the people providing it. This is a pretty low key presentation of Christianity; yes the atheist is presented as an extreme case, but no sane person will come away with the idea that all atheists are that viscous and stupid.

      Was it done by Christians? Probably. Was it done by the “extremist right wing”? Please prove that. A threat? Even the “extremist right wing Christian” is not a threat; his religion does not allow him to be…

    • ??? In the first paragraph I asserted that I saw the movie. What evidence can I provide to prove that? And I asserted that I liked it. My likes are my business and need no evidence.

      Is the atheist portrayed an extreme example? Certainly. Does he behave in a way which most atheists don’t? Yes, thank goodness. Is his behavior “impossible”. Sorry, no. There was a case I remember hearing about where a girl was failed in a class because she refused to deny her faith.

      If you are an atheist, you probably won’t like this movie, and that is your absolute right. And you are welcome to tell “everyone” of your opinion. But don’t say the movie is “horrible” and leave it at that. Say it is “horrible” because the acting or script or lighting is poorly done. Or say that it is a “horrible” representative of the average atheist. Or just say that it is contrary to your beliefs and it was intolerable for you to watch.

      • Ah, ok, I did a quick search, but it was a while ago and I did not find it immediately. I’ll research it more later; there are several other comments to go through

      • “There was a case I remember hearing about where a girl was failed in a class because she refused to deny her faith.”

        Stop asserting things and provide evidence.

        “But don’t say the movie is “horrible” and leave it at that.”

        I didn’t. I said it plays off of every atheist stereotype.

        It’s clearly a Christian propaganda piece and nothing more. It’s a horrible rendition of atheists. It’s a steaming pile of stereotypical garbage.

      • Here is one case I found. Not the one I was thinking of, and this is so old that all the links provided are no longer valid, so we cannot tell if the paper she wrote met all the other criteria of the assignment except “can’t use the word ‘God'”..

        http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=1635860

        No, it did not play off of “every atheist stereotype”. Where was the “offense” at even hearing the (allegedly meaningless name God or Jesus)? Where was the “offense” at seeing a cross?

        And the atheist portrayed was so unsympathetic that I can’t see anyone thinking he is typical of atheists. Yes, THIS particular atheist is a horrible rendition of a person. No sane person will think this is typical of atheists. Or blondes, Or businessmen. (Other characters portrayed badly in this flick).

        It is no more stereotypical than probably any movie you really like, where “someone” is presented in a bad light.

        I’ll continue to search for the case I’m thinking of.

        This must be taught in Liberalism 101. If a person says something which disagrees, question their sources. But make any statement without providing a reference.

  3. “No, it did not play off of “every atheist stereotype”. Where was the “offense” at even hearing the (allegedly meaningless name God or Jesus)? Where was the “offense” at seeing a cross?”

    Oops, it left out one or two. *gasp*

    It’s FULL of atheist stereotypes. It’s a bigoted piece of crap propaganda movie.

    “And the atheist portrayed was so unsympathetic that I can’t see anyone thinking he is typical of atheists.”

    Of course he was unsympathetic. He was written that way to come off as an ass.

    “Yes, THIS particular atheist is a horrible rendition of a person. No sane person will think this is typical of atheists.”

    Visit their Facebook page or the numerous Christian websites that say how great this movie is. For crying out loud, are you that freaking blind?

    “This must be taught in Liberalism 101. If a person says something which disagrees, question their sources. But make any statement without providing a reference.”

    It should be taught in critical thinking classes, where assertions have to be backed by evidence for the claim or be dismissed.

    I’m still waiting for the case you mentioned.

    We all know how persecuted the majority Christians are.

    • I guess I am that freaking blind. I just watched the movie. I didn’t ascribe any deep or evil purpose to it; it just appeared to be entertainment with a non-standard type of conflict. I did not go to its Facebook page, and I am pathetically unaware of most Christian websites, especially those who claim this is some great victory for Christianity.

      I spent several hours looking for the case and have given up. Even if I were to find it, I fear that it would not do either of us any good since I seriously doubt it would moderate your opinion of the movie any, and it would not change my opinion of the movie at all. And that is (I thought) the purpose of the discussion.

    • Just curious, what atheist stereotypes were presented in the film which was “full” of them? I only found one, perhaps due to my blindness. Yes, it is stereotypical of atheists to be antagonistic to theists. As with all stereotypes, some are that way; some aren’t, and that is why stereotypes should be avoided.

      But what other stereotypes of atheists were there? That an atheist does not believe in the existence of God? That is not a stereotype; that is the DEFINITION of an atheist.

      That an atheist is prideful, sure of himself, looks down on others with less knowledge or differing opinions? How is this stereotypical of atheists? Isn’t this stereotypical of humanity? That an atheist results in threats when contradicted, uses blackmail/extortion to get what he wants or treats his girlfriend with contempt? Isn’t this stereotypical of poor examples of humanity?

      The character was drawn as an all around creep. Just because he happened to be an atheist is not an indictment of atheists in general, or college instructors in general or philosophers in general or even men in general.

      • Here’s one. You can do the research yourself for more.

        Atheists are atheists because they’re mad at God, not because they evaluated the evidence. The professor isn’t an atheist because he evaluated any evidence, but because something bad happened to him when he was 12.

        There is a lot written about this movie. I’m sure you could Google it and find out for yourself.

      • Good one. Atheists believe there is no God, so how can someone be mad at something which does not exist? The character is not even an atheist. Then there was him pretty much crumbling under the so-so presentation of the freshman student.

        Thinking about it, most of the other characters were stereotypical as well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s