GOD IS NOT DEAD

[Confused Ape]

But then he wouldn't be a true "Atheist" if he just reevaluated his belief system. Every Christian knows Atheists are just "mad at God," and that's why they refuse to acknowledge He exists.

From the plot synopsis -

God's Not Dead

Ultimately, it comes down to a debate between both Radisson and Josh, who both make compelling points from both sides. Josh questions Radisson, asking why he hates God. After Radisson gives his response, confirming he hates God for his mother's death that left him alone despite his prayers, Josh asks Radisson how he can hate someone that doesn't exist. In the end, every member of Josh's class, including Martin, stand up and say "God's Not Dead", causing Radisson to leave the room in defeat.

Yes, Radisson is that old cliche of a supposed atheist refusing to acknowledge God because he/she is mad at God. What I meant by re-evaluating his beliefs is his coming to realise that he was never an atheist in the first place. This would make more sense to me than his waiting until he's dying before becoming born again because it reminds me of that other cliche - there are no atheists in foxholes.

[Esquilax]

I hope you are doing well today.

Actually, I can't believe I let this pass for so long: what the hell, man?

Why do you keep just dodging points like this? You started a whole thread on this damn movie, telling us what a convincing case for god you think it presents, why are you so averse to telling us anything about it? What are you doing here, by just refusing to take part in a conversation that you yourself started?

I also think I had a pretty good point about whether or not you'd be okay with science books changing if they changed toward your predrawn conclusions, but like all the good points raised in your presence, it ultimately went to waste when you responded with a trite single sentence. Why should we bother responding to you if you can't even bother to sound interested?

More importantly, I could have sworn we had a discussion about rule one before, and the importance of actually engaging with each other here. This is getting a little obscene.

[Faith No More]

Yes, rule one is definitely something you need to work on, Revy.

[Revelation777]

I hope you are doing well today.

Actually, I can't believe I let this pass for so long: what the hell, man?

Why do you keep just dodging points like this? You started a whole thread on this damn movie, telling us what a convincing case for god you think it presents, why are you so averse to telling us anything about it? What are you doing here, by just refusing to take part in a conversation that you yourself started?

I also think I had a pretty good point about whether or not you'd be okay with science books changing if they changed toward your predrawn conclusions, but like all the good points raised in your presence, it ultimately went to waste when you responded with a trite single sentence. Why should we bother responding to you if you can't even bother to sound interested?

More importantly, I could have sworn we had a discussion about rule one before, and the importance of actually engaging with each other here. This is getting a little obscene.

The original post was to suggest to people to go see the movie, not to debate it. In actuality, it would be nice if someone took up my offer and saw if for free and then debated some points - reading reviews do not count for me. Unfortunately, where you live you can't view it. However, if you lived her in the USA I bet you would of taken my offer.

Secondly, I don't mean to just give one sentence replies but there have been a lot of posts to respond to. I also work and have a wife and child to attend to. I would like to post some arguments after this Sunday to get some real good discussion going.

---

I am pro-science but not when others assert their views to make theories as if they are facts.

I have to laugh when any believer of any religion anywhere in the world says this. Are believers capable of accepting science? Yes, but only up and until science points away from their myth and invisible sky parent.

If you accept that there is no such theory as "Thor theory of lightening" or "Ra theory of the sun" or "Allah based gravity" then saying you are pro science is fucking hollow to me, as much as when they do it, because science does not favor any religion or god claim.

If you think you are the only person with a sky parent claim who has ever tried to argue that science matches their book or god claim, you are a fool. I have run into Muslims and Jews, all sorts of sects of Christians, and even recently a Hindu.

Our species has been around for half a million years. If evolution, or any damned science required human concocted fairy tales to understand, only one religion would exist and only one religion would be universal.

Computers, cars, medicine, telescopes, cell phones, were all a result of scientific method. Our understanding of entropy and galaxies or atoms do not require one to be a Buddhist, or Scientologist, or Hindu, anymore that it would require one to believe in Poseidon to understand how a hurricane forms.

I am sorry someone sold you an invisible sky parent story. I am sorry that you buy a book written in antiquity and scientific ignorance. Do not blame us for your baggage or blame us for something we had no hand in writing.

You may accept some science, but you do not like it when it points away from your personal fantasy.

True science doesn't conflict with the Bible. It is the scientists who are hellbent on trying to disprove God by creating more than Science has ever discovered. Apparently, this board is chock full of people who do just that.

---

Since the Tower of Babel, God is not impressed with man's accomplishments.

That would be the time that god was concerned that men would reach heaven if they built a moderately tall building, at which point nothing would be impossible for them. Terrified at the thought of those dirty little humans running around in heaven, god quickly confused their languages to scatter them, then moved heaven into a metaphysical realm and replaced the dome over the Earth with an actual sky. It was god's "man behind the curtain" moment, and it shook his confidence like you wouldn't believe!

Interesting how some take some Bible truth and then add things the text never said while uglify it with errant and critical opinions.

---

I've read the plot synopsis. A story about a Christian who loses his faith and finds it again(...)

...while bleeding to death after being hit by a car driven by a priest, who exults over the victim's deathbed confession. "Sorry about crushing your rib cage and causing you a bloody and painful death, but at least you admitted that I was right all along!"

*May not be 100% accurate synopsis

I don't remember that in the movie and I wasn't distracted by popcorn.

---

If we want to read the OT liberally like the NT Evangelists did, we might take the Tower of Babble as just symbolic prophecy for the Christian faith because for whatever reason you all speak a different language.

I think I understand what you are saying. Why do you dislike Christians?

[Coffee Jesus]

But then he wouldn't be a true "Atheist" if he just reevaluated his belief system. Every Christian knows Atheists are just "mad at God," and that's why they refuse to acknowledge He exists.

From the plot synopsis -

God's Not Dead

Ultimately, it comes down to a debate between both Radisson and Josh, who both make compelling points from both sides. Josh questions Radisson, asking why he hates God. After Radisson gives his response, confirming he hates God for his mother's death that left him alone despite his prayers, Josh asks Radisson how he can hate someone that doesn't exist. In the end, every member of Josh's class, including Martin, stand up and say "God's Not Dead", causing Radisson to leave the room in defeat.

Yes, Radisson is that old cliche of a supposed atheist refusing to acknowledge God because he/she is mad at God. What I meant by re-evaluating his beliefs is his coming to realise that he was never an atheist in the first place. This would make more sense to me than his waiting until he's dying before becoming born again because it reminds me of that other cliche - there are no atheists in foxholes.

It's also noteworthy that his disbelief is self-centered. He's not an atheist because so many poor children die prematurely, or because so many infants suffocated in their sleep. No, only good Christians care about those things. He's an atheist because his wife's death was too much for him.

[Esquilax]

The original post was to suggest to people to go see the movie, not to debate it. In actuality, it would be nice if someone took up my offer and saw if for free and then debated some points - reading reviews do not count for me. Unfortunately, where you live you can't view it. However, if you lived her in the USA I bet you would of taken my offer.

I probably wouldn't have taken your offer because I don't like taking money from people, but I might have gone to see the movie assuming there was a promise of some in depth conversation afterward. That said, it's not like there are any arguments presented there that are new, from what I've read, and just judging by the nastiness of Professor Sorbo's late movie demise, I doubt there are any the reviewers somehow missed. By all accounts, this movie is simply a retread of mean-spirited atheist stereotypes and debunked christian arguments that are, by dint of the film's ideological standpoint, now given air in an environment where they can't be responded to.

If I had made a movie that was identical to this one, only the positions were reversed, and an atheist student showed up a christian professor, who then died painfully at the end of the movie with a pair of atheists standing over him going "well, at least he didn't die a christian. He went to death with a clear head, so let's go celebrate!" Would you be amenable to that? Would you be at all interested in seeing a movie that was nothing more than an extended character assassination of your chosen worldview, motivated by nothing more than making your opponents feel better?

Secondly, I don't mean to just give one sentence replies but there have been a lot of posts to respond to. I also work and have a wife and child to attend to. I would like to post some arguments after this Sunday to get some real good discussion going.

Some arguments would be entirely appreciated, I assure you.

[Esquilax]

True science doesn't conflict with the Bible. It is the scientists who are hellbent on trying to disprove God by creating more than Science has ever discovered. Apparently, this board is chock full of people who do just that.

So what's your position on Genesis? Are you a literalist, or is that all metaphorical? 'Cause the latter position is the only one you can take to keep your first sentence even remotely true.

[Brian37]

Dear Atheist Friends,
I went and saw the movie, "God Is Not Dead." I would like to encourage you to go see it. In fact, I am willing to pay for the price of your movie ticket as well as a guest who is willing to come with you.

Can we criticize it while watching it? Because believe me we will. Asking us to watch any move about a comic book, would be the same to us as pointing out a jet flying over scene in a civil war movie.

Let me spare you. Here is our review.

"A bunch of fantastic claims, naked assertions and selection bias cannot be covered up with music and fancy stage models or computer graphics."

If someone took you to a movie about Allah, would you throw your hands up and go "Damn, this was pretty, nice music, well acted. That does it, I have to become a Muslim now."

[Jackalope]

it reminds me of that other cliche - there are no atheists in foxholes.

That one bugs me to no end.

-- former foxhole resident

[Brian37]

Why do you dislike Christians?

Wow, how self centered. Do you think Christianity is the only religion on the face of the planet?

If you had a friend walking around claiming that the Yankees won the Superbowl, you might not disown them, but you would find it disturbing since the Yankees play BASEBALL.

For most atheists, while I certainly do not speak for all, but for most, it isn't an individual or group we hate, it is what comes out of their mouth that we hate, and our criticism isn't exclusive to Christianity. I also find the fact that people circle around a meteor in Mecca stupidly thinking it was divinely handed down to them by a god. I also find that the Ancient Egyptians claims of the sun being a god stupid. If you rub a fat guy's belly for luck, that is stupid too. If you think you are going to be reborn as a lower life form because of something you did bad now, that is stupid too. If you think Ouija boards work, or vampires exist, or 9/11 was an inside job, most of us would say that is equally as nuts.

So no, we don't hate Christians, we hate religion because of how it causes people to stop thinking, not just you, and not just Christianity. We hate any damned thing on any issue, even that outside of religion, that people blindly spew without evidence.