Any good anti-theist movies/documentaries =ut there

[Kjertesvein]

I'm looking for any good/critical movies or documentaries from the agnostic/atheist point of view looking into religion? Both scientific and fictional works.

• One which isn't really a pun against any religion, but still got much heat was The Life of Brian. I belive most of you have seen it so I'm not going to walk too much around the bush.
  Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

• I recently got blood on my teeth after watching De Syvdødssyndene ("Seven deadly sins") were a Norwegian goes out to commit all the cardinal sins in order to wake up God's wrath. The program is a mix of seriousness, humour and moral questions being delivered. The show have got alot of good reviews and awards. Any Scandinavian should watch it. It's freaking hilarious.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Every episode(8): History, statistics and facts are presented about Christendom as Kristopher Schau, the host, takes on the task of violating each and every cardinal sin several times. They focus on one country a time and sinfull infividuals too(mostly from America). Plastic surgery, living life as Elvis, circumcision(become jewish in Israel), drag queen in Las Vegas and prostitution in thailand(which failed) are among some of the (craziest) things Kristopher put himself up with. In the end, exorcism is preformed. Kristopher then goes ahead and sterilisate himself to save humanity from "himself".

Back in 2007, alot of Christians went berserk and demanded that the program to shut down. Lots of company's (Coca cola, Disney) pulled out of sponsoring the TV series. However, those company's who stayed made massive profit as ratings of the TV docu series stayed high. Among other things, blasphemy was a common synonym for the show among Norwegian Christians.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Kristopher hampering with gods work in Hollywood.

Thanks because I really need some gifts ideas.


~Wille

[Elfdude]

Bill Maher religulous. While he gets some of his wrong the one thing he does get right is why it's important not to tolerate it. Richard Dawkin's movies are great. "Penn and Teller's BullSh!t" has a few anti religious episodes. Sorry, that's all that comes to mind, I've never really invested in that stuff because it tends to draw a lot of negative attention where I live. They didn't even show religulous in theatres here (I had to see it in nebraska lol).

[Manco]

Any good anti-theist movies/documentaries =ut there

I'm looking for any good/critical movies or documentaries from the agnostic/atheist point of view looking into religion?

Would you please not lump anti-theism and atheism/agnosticism so casually together.

[MathiasOfAthens]

I love that movie (life of brian).

[Banfred]

anti-theist movies

good

Religulous? Sure, its so bad, God CAN'T exist in the same world as it. Only a deceiving lying smug bastard like Maher could make something so .

And Richard Dawkins?! Really? Satre is rolling in his grave. There are TONS more respectable atheists than that pseudo-scientific charlatan.

Would you please not lump anti-theism and atheism/agnosticism so casually together.

/thread

[Elfdude]

Religulous? Sure, its so bad, God CAN'T exist in the same world as it. Only a deceiving lying smug bastard like Maher could make something so .

I'm glad you have a knee jerk reaction but are you actually willing to debate these points? If so you're going to have to be more specific.

And Richard Dawkins?! Really? Satre is rolling in his grave. There are TONS more respectable atheists than that pseudo-scientific charlatan.

Wouldn't a fake fake be a real? In that case you just called Richard dawkins an honest scientist. Which is a good point because he is.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Cheap demagoguery.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Wouldn't a fake fake be a real? In that case you just called Richard dawkins an honest scientist. Which is a good point because he is.

Lol

Lol nº2

Satre is miles ahead of Dawkins. Both are trash, but Satre is still the softer, better and less fragrant part of the trash bin.

Dawkins is honest when he admits his fanatical and illogical scientism. At least.

[Elfdude]

They're both very well respected scientists as much as you want to hide from that fact. Dawkins is far from hostile and rather even tempered about the entire thing. He presents his arguments in a dispassionate logical way. He admits god could exist but his real issue with religion is its constant need to replace fact with superstition. Nothing more. Your opinion of him is jaded and cynical.

[Banfred]

They're both very well respected scientists as much as you want to hide from that fact.

Do you even KNOW who Satre is?! I am absolutely appalled, this whole new atheist movement; complete ignorance of your philosophy's cultural legacy. Its like dismissing Mozart while fawning over Justin Bieber. Dawkins "meme theory" is pop science at best and has contributed jack to science besides playing up the tired old "conflict thesis", which drives away future scientists thinking science is anti-religion, which it is not. Because of this, his position of being a Professor for the Public Understanding of Science has done nothing but HURT science.

He presents his arguments in a dispassionate logical way.

He calls his opponents "faith-heads", calls himself a "bright" while non-atheists are "dim", and parents who teach children religion are child abusers. How the hell is this not emotive?

He admits god could exist

But equates it with believing in the "great Juju under the sea", playing up on trying to black face believers as cavemen.

Your opinion of him is jaded and cynical.

And you live in denial.

I'm glad you have a knee jerk reaction but are you actually willing to debate these points? If so you're going to have to be more specific.

In the section where Maher interviews Dr Collins, the head of the Human Genome project and a christian evolutionist, he looks flustered, giving the impression that even smart Christians are dumb when discussing their faith. Too bad that the "documentary" didn't bother stating that they misled Collins and pulled a fast one on him.

The e-mail:

Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 7:02 PM
To: Metcalfe, Heidi
Subject: Bill Maher Interview Request - Dr. Francis S. Collins
Thank you for taking the time to speak with me earlier.
I wanted to detail the project for you further and now I have the most up to date information.
Ideally, we would like to secure an hour or so of Dr. Collins' time in DC on either January 25th or 26th. This interview does not necessarily need to be at the Institute as we have decided to focus on "The Language of God". The interview will likely be in the same vein as his interview on the Colbert Report - but as I"m sure you are aware, Bill has a unique style and wit. Also, as a documentary film, we are approaching this project as a journey toward understanding during which it is crucial to consult experts from a variety of fields.
Dr. Collins' explanation of the human genome and its relationship to his faith will express a key point of view on the subject. We are very hopeful that he may have some time to sit down with Bill during the 25th or 26th. We will do our best to work around his schedule.
We are in talks with distributors and intend on a theatrical release internationally. Please let me know as soon as possible Dr. Collins'
availability and contact information so that we can secure the interview.
Thanks so much!

Best,
Chelsea

However, instead of discussing how he reconciles faith and science, he decided to have the vast majority of the interview talk about historical study of the OT and NT:

"I thought my interview with him was going to be about the so-called controversy between science and faith, and whether someone could both believe in God and evolution. I was willing to discourse on that. But in a rambling discussion, Maher migrated into other territory where I am hardly an expert (like the historicity of the Gospels). As you could see, that was the part he chose to include, though he presented a very limited excerpt.
If Maher were seriously interested in hearing a discussion on this topic, he might have lined up an interview with someone like N.T. Wright.
So yes, I felt a bit misused. But I guess no one would claim this was an attempt to find the real truth."

Do you honestly think it is honest in having an expert in a completely different field try to defend a position he is not well versed in taped and then use that tape to attack that position?

Wouldn't a fake fake be a real? In that case you just called Richard dawkins an honest scientist. Which is a good point because he is.

I am not responding to this brain fart.

[Elfdude]

Do you even KNOW who Satre is?! I am absolutely appalled, this whole new atheist movement; complete ignorance of your philosophy's cultural legacy. Its like dismissing Mozart while fawning over Justin Bieber. Dawkins "meme theory" is pop science at best and has contributed jack to science besides playing up the tired old "conflict thesis".

Yes, sorry, I was mistaken when I said both are scientists, I meant both are scholars. As for dawkins, his Meme theory isn't his only contribution. His major contribution is the popularization of genes as responsible for evolution. As for the Meme theory it's rather new so it's contribution remains to be seen. Dawkins didn't come up with the idea he simply explored it.

He calls his opponents "faith-heads", calls himself a "bright" while non-atheists are "dim", and parents who teach children religion are child abusers. How the hell is this not emotive?

I agree with him that teaching religion to children as many parents do amounts to little more than brainwashing. Further having them reject facts in favor of religious superstition denies them the tools they need to learn and grow especially in science. Unless of course you think teaching children that the rock formations they observe were all layed down in the great flood which is why there's fossils in them 6,000 years ago. He deals specifically with extremists and his only beef with moderates is that their presence legitimizes the insane and idiot's claims.

As for faith-heads anything we call the religious is somehow an insult. The religious people seem to forget that insults are all in YOUR interpretation, if you don't recognize their legitimacy they can't insult you. In this case religious are projecting a negative connotation onto a rather benign terminology. It's like people who yell and carry on about saying happy holidays.

As for his rallies, yes that's what the purpose of a rally is.

But equates it with believing in the "great Juju under the sea", playing up on trying to black face believers as cavemen.

This is something that religious people can't seem to understand. Science doesn't use words to insult people, the purpose of using these words is because that is quite literally what religious belief is. Leprechauns and Unicorns are from a scientific perspective equally as likely as god or any conception of him.

And you live in denial.

If that helps you deal with this.

In the section where Maher interviews Dr Collins, the head of the Human Genome project and a christian evolutionist, he looks flustered, giving the impression that even smart Christians are dumb when discussing their faith. Too bad that the "documentary" didn't bother stating that they misled Collins and pulled a fast one on him.

Dr. Collins bases his faith on irreducible complexity and the telological argument not to mention fine tuning. All of these ideas are pseudo-science at best. I'm sorry but people are quite capable of ignoring the implications of their knowledge. Many of the ideas that lead him to his 'conclusion' from atheism to theism are absolutely ridiculous. So no, Dr. Collins is a great geneticist I'll give him that but his belief is based on little more than him pretending.

The e-mail:
However, instead of discussing how he reconciles faith and science, he decided to have the vast majority of the interview talk about historical study of the OT and NT:
Do you honestly think it is honest in having an expert in a completely different field try to defend a position he is not well versed in taped and then use that tape to attack that position?

Dr. Collins is a christian. His early childhood he was 'nominally' a christian. He has had more exposure to christian dogma than any class he ever took on genetics. You cannot tell me he doesn't understand what he believes in. Well you can, but it only goes to prove a wonderfully delightful point that christianity only survives in the margins of science, were collins to be aware of what he was supporting perhaps he wouldn't be so quick to support it. I must wonder if after the interview he did any research on what he believed or rather was too concerned that the interview didn't turn out the way he wanted it to. Anyways, essentially yes, he is a good scientist and yes he is religious. How does he do that? Well he's ignorant about his religion.

I am not responding to this brain fart.

Humorless I see. Buck up guy.

[black-dragon]

science is anti-religion, which it is not.

Not explicitly (well, depends on how seriously you take your religion), but religion and science are two diametrically opposed methods of obtaining knowledge (or trying to). If we can just take random things by faith, then why bother with science? And if the ultimate judge of truth is science, then why bother with faith?

One general question though: who is this 'Satre' that has been mentioned? A typo of 'Sartre' or someone completely different?

[B5C]

Here are some great movies:
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/brief-history-disbelief/

Jonathan Miller visits the absent Twin Towers to consider the religious implications of 9/11 and meets Arthur Miller and the philosopher Colin McGinn. He searches for evidence of the first ‘unbelievers’ in Ancient Greece and examines some of the modern theories around why people have always tended to believe in mythology and magic.

So few representatives of atheism provide a compelling and earnest account for unbelief, let alone with the lucidity and intellectual vigor of Jonathan Miller. He is sincere and moving in this attempt to explain and understand the origins of the truth of disbelief of religious superstition and faith.

The Four Horsemen
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/four-horsemen/

The Root Of All Evil?
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-root-of-all-evil/

[Banfred]

You're using an incorrect definition of faith, a modern misconception, not one based on centuries of Biblical studies and completely foreign to the world of the OT and NT. The word for "faith" in the NT is pistis. "As a noun, pistis is a word that was used as a technical rhetorical term for forensic proof". It is not blind guessing.

[black-dragon]

You're using an incorrect definition of faith, a modern misconception, not one based on centuries of Biblical studies and completely foreign to the world of the OT and NT. The word for "faith" in the NT is pistis. "As a noun, pistis is a word that was used as a technical rhetorical term for forensic proof". It is not blind guessing.

What exactly is 'forensic proof', in the context of religion?

EDIT: I just googled 'pistis' and everything there leans toward the definition based on 'modern misconception'.

[Banfred]

What exactly is 'forensic proof', in the context of religion?

As in belief is based on evidence and reason instead of blind following. Trust in the trustworthiness and validity of a statement or position.

EDIT: I just googled 'pistis' and everything there leans toward the definition based on 'modern misconception'.

I found this easily:
http://www.truthortradition.com/modu...e=News&sid=692

That pistis means trust, confidence in, or assurance, can be checked in any good Greek lexicon (“lexicon” is a word scholars use for “dictionary.”). For example, Friberg’s Analytical Greek Lexicon has “confidence, faith, trust, reliance on.” Vine’s lexicon says, “firm persuasion,” and Bullinger’s lexicon says the same thing. Thayer’s lexicon says, “conviction of the truth of anything.”
When the people of the first century got the letters of Paul, for example, they did not say, “What is pistis?”, as if Paul had invented a new word. Pistis was in common use in the Greek language, and had been for centuries. It is in the writings of the Greeks, including Aristotle, Plato, Herodotus, etc. The first definition of pistis in the Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon, sold in college bookstores to students of ancient Greek, is “trust in others.” That is why we say pistis means “trust.”
When the Greek New Testament was translated into Latin, fides was the natural choice as a translation of pistis, because fides means “trust, confidence, reliance, belief.” The Bible was then read in Latin for hundreds of years. As the English language developed, our English word “faith” came from the Latin word fides. There should be nothing mysterious about pistis, fides, or faith. We know what trust is. Merriam-Webster defines it as “assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something.”
If both pistis and fides mean “trust,” how did “faith” come to be defined in our culture as “firm belief in something for which there is no proof” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition)? To understand this, we must remember that a dictionary definition is only a record of how people are currently using the word in their speech and writing. This is why dictionary definitions change as time passes.
What happened to change the definition of faith from “trust” to “firm belief in something for which there is no proof” was: (1) people started to use “faith” as “belief in something for which there is no proof,” (2) that usage was put in the dictionary as a definition of faith, (3) people who did not know what faith was looked it up in the dictionary, saw that definition, and used it that way. This process continued over time until now almost everyone thinks “faith” is “belief in something for which there is no proof.” In fact, that definition of faith was used in the popular television medical series, “House,” in April 2006.

http://www.apocalipsis.org/difficulties/blindfaith.htm

In the above passage the word believe is translated from the Greek word pisteuo meaning to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing). The Greek word for faith is pistis, meaning persuasion, i.e. credence; moral. conviction. Biblical faith usually first comes to us through preaching (Rom 10:14), in other words we need to know certain facts to believe in before we can have faith. We must give mental assent to these facts before we can become a Christian. It is no accident that in the West a Christian is often called a believer.

Faith must have evidence to have faith in, otherwise it would indeed be 'blind' faith. The disciple Thomas demanded physical evidence of the

resurrection of Jesus before he would believe it (again pisteuo is used here). He wanted to feel the mark of the nails and the spear wound in the side of Jesus. Jesus gave him the evidence he wanted and only then did he believe in the risen Jesus.

Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21 but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22 reject every kind of evil. -

1 Thessalonians 5:20-22

Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep - 1st Corinthians 15: 6

Are basically saying to the reader "heres some witnesses, go see them if you dont believe me

http://tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html

-------------------------------

This is simply false. I take it you've never studied greek very in depth. Either that or you've been told something explicitly wrong and believed it. Religion is not about forensic proof or evidence, the concept of backing up your claim with evidence is a modern invention not a bronze/iron age tradition. Frankly whoever told you this is simply silly.

Hmm. All flash no substance. Please give some support to your position, that faith mentioned in the NT meant blind faith or go back to your Lincoln logs.

As far as science being anti-religion. Science is not anti-religion. However science does not recognize any religious ideas as being true since they must first be testable which they are not because they are based on metaphysics which is a nice way of saying they're probably imaginary.

That is just fantastic.

The idea that the two don't conflict in certain domains though is simply false and I'm not sure who told you that they didn't. You cannot reconcile science with a christianity (for example) without either denying the literal meaning of the bible or the literal meaning of the science. This of course doesn't mean that god is wrong but the religion itself either cannot be accurate, must be a metaphor or must be simply false.

I am not a creationist so you are wasting your time or are attempting to change the subject. Nevertheless, we are getting off topic.

Humorless I see. Buck up guy.

I'd laugh if it was funny.

I agree with him that teaching religion to children as many parents do amounts to little more than brainwashing. Further having them reject facts in favor of religious superstition denies them the tools they need to learn and grow especially in science.

Twisting the subject yet again. The point is, is this not clinging to emotive terms in describing taking your child to church as the same as beating them with a stick?

Oh and by the way, my parents raised me as a traditional lutheran and I had no problems with science. Fancy that? My "religious superstitions" had no effect on my ability to "learn and grow especially in science". Perhaps you're one of those who thinks the "faithheads" can't do science? Which is it?

Unless of course you think teaching children that the rock formations they observe were all layed down in the great flood which is why there's fossils in them 6,000 years ago.

Red Herring. YEC =/ All religion. Logic fail.

He deals specifically with extremists

Because he would get his ass chewed out by a theist who knows what he's talking about. Maybe that's why he pretends ignorance of the existence of William Lane Craig. You know, the same guy that gave that drunk Hitchens a thrashing a while ago.

As for faith-heads anything we call the religious is somehow an insult. The religious people seem to forget that insults are all in YOUR if you don't recognize their legitimacy they can't insult you. In this case religious are projecting a negative connotation onto a rather standard terminology. It's like people who yell and carry on about saying happy holidays.

Faith-head is standard terminology?

[Helm]

As in belief is based on evidence and reason instead of blind following. Trust in the trustworthiness and validity of a statement or position.

Would subjective evidence count?

[black-dragon]

As in belief is based on evidence and reason instead of blind following. Trust in the trustworthiness and validity of a statement or position.

You're full of it. I found this easily:
http://www.truthortradition.com/modu...e=News&sid=692
http://www.apocalipsis.org/difficulties/blindfaith.htm

Is basically saying to the reader "heres some witnesses, go see them if you dont believe me

http://tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html

I really don't see the difference. They're just telling us to have some weird 'trust' in God. Same concept, different words. Multiple times in the Bible is the word 'faith' used in a context that can only refer to an irrational 'trust'. e.g. God punishing the Israelites because a few of their scouts didn't think that God could overcome the tribes that he was commanding them to attack.

And anyway, if you claim that religion is based on logic and reason, then how come the Bible contains little of either?

[Elfdude]

*snip*

Lets see what truth and tradition is. Oh it's a christian website funny that. Further they don't make any point that pistis means forensic proof they make a good argument that pistis means belief which again states nothing about proof. You are hilarious, can't even check your sources?

Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Oops, blessed are those who have NOT SEEN and yet HAVE BELIEVED. I don't know how you missed that. Tektonics, oh good another christian appologetics website. Forensic proof, lol.

He appealed to the evidence of the wonders and signs performed by Jesus; he appealed to the empty tomb and he appealed to fulfillment of OT prophecy.

None of these amount to forensic proof or physical evidence because none of these can be verified beyond peter's observation. Which is to say his testimony does not satisfy the burden of proof by any measure whatsoever. While peter is providing evidence for the believe the evidence he is providing is his own opinion and interpretation of the events or what preachers and pastors and etc do today.

Hmm. All flash no substance. Typical elfdude bullcrap. Please, elfdude, give some support to your position, that faith mentioned in the NT meant blind faith or go back to your Lincoln logs.

All you accomplished was the rationalization of faith. You did not evaluate that rationalization which would fail to pass muster as proof by any definition. Which means we can dismiss this evidence which means the faith is blind, ignorance just leads them to think that it is not.

I am not a creationist so you are wasting your time or you are pathetically attempting to change the subject. Nevertheless, we are getting off topic.

I don't think I accused you of being a creationist, that was in response specifically to your idea that science isn't anti religion which I agreed with in part but it would be intellectually dishonest to deny the conflict between the two.

I'd laugh if it was funny.

Aww, I'm sorry did I hurt your feelings?

Twisting the subject yet again, elfdude. The point is, is this not clinging to emotive terms in describing taking your child to church as the same as beating them with a stick?

Uhm no, Dawkins describes the abuse as mental abuse of the children not physical abuse. Nice strawman and exaggeration there though.

Oh and by the way, my parents raised me as a traditional lutheran and I had no problems with science. Fancy that? My "religious superstitions" had no effect on my ability to "learn and grow especially in science". You're full of crap yet again! Or perhaps you're just a stuck up bigot who thinks the "faithheads" can't do science? Which is it, elfdude?

Neither, I was also raised lutheran as well. At the same time I do find fundamentalists abhorent and consider what they do to their children to be abuse.

Red Herring. YEC =/ All religion. Logic fail.

It does not equal all religion but perhaps it might be important to consider the opponents of Dawkins who are christian fundamentalists, almost everything he says negative about religion is in direct reference to christianity. So no, it's relevant and not a fallacy as much as you'd like it to be.

Because he would get his ass chewed out by a theist who knows what he's talking about. Maybe that's why he pretends ignorance of the existence of William Lane Craig. You know, the same guy that gave that drunk Hitchens a thrashing a while ago.

William Lane Craig is a good speaker I'll give him that but being practiced for a formal verbal debate is far different than a scientific debate. Were Craig to publish a science article with his views they were summarily be torn apart as they were after the debate by others. As far as Hitchens goes meh.

Faith-head is standard terminology? Maybe for sophist morons such as yourself. Typically, intelligent rational people don't label entire peoples as idiots.

Faith-head has nothing to do with being an idiot.

[Elfdude]

You're using an incorrect definition of faith, a modern misconception, not one based on centuries of Biblical studies and completely foreign to the world of the OT and NT. The word for "faith" in the NT is pistis. "As a noun, pistis is a word that was used as a technical rhetorical term for forensic proof". It is not blind guessing.

This is simply false. I take it you've never studied greek very in depth. Either that or you've been told something explicitly wrong and believed it. Religion is not about forensic proof or evidence, the concept of backing up your claim with evidence is a modern invention not a bronze/iron age tradition. Frankly whoever told you this is simply silly.

As far as science being anti-religion. Science is not anti-religion. However science does not recognize any religious ideas as being true since they must first be testable which they are not because they are based on metaphysics which is a nice way of saying they're probably imaginary. The idea that the two don't conflict in certain domains though is simply false and I'm not sure who told you that they didn't. You cannot reconcile science with a christianity (for example) without either denying the literal meaning of the bible or the literal meaning of the science. This of course doesn't mean that god is wrong but the religion itself either cannot be accurate, must be a metaphor or must be simply false.