Critical thought is hard

[robvalue]

My brain's not working very well, but in the meantime:

This is two great guys dissecting and humiliating the movie which may help and cheer you up:

http://youtu.be/Vu0mZe5wZ_Y

Also maybe my logical fallacies section for recognizing the various bullshit tricks:

http://robvalue.wix.com/atheism#!logical-fallacies/cwi1

If any part is troubling you in particular, you could describe it and we can help you carve it up

[urlawyer]

I guess if you truly want to refine your thinking skills and ability to debate religion, ask some specific questions.  What parts of the movie did you feel inadequate to address?  From what I gather from the trailer, the movie was just littered with fallacies and misrepresentations, so just bring up whatever issues you see and others can help you.

I really have to watch it some time. From what I've heard, the arguments which they let the atheist professor make are not all that bad, but they simply let the Christian guy counter them with completely silly emotional arguments which actually don't refute them, and then declare victory. The atheists in the movie are all strawmen who are bad people and/or simply angry at God, but secretly believe. In other words, they are written to nicely confirm all the prejudices of the evangelical moron in the audience.

You hit the nail on the head there. you'll have to forgive me since I am posting as I watch the movie so my opinions continuously are being updated. But the philosophical arguments that are being made at the very end of the movie are completely stupid to say it in the most simplistic terms.
I guess the biggest problem that I had in trying to argue this movie was in the beginning when they were giving scientific premises. I am NOT nor will I ever claim to be scientifically literate and that is where I must defer to my more scientificly knowledged brethren. but when it comes down to it the disbelief in God is all based in science. I suppose that is the entire reason is that I'm having a hard time right now

---

My brain's not working very well, but in the meantime:

This is two great guys dissecting and humiliating the movie which may help and cheer you up:

http://youtu.be/Vu0mZe5wZ_Y

This is actually the video that inspired me to watch the film and was the the foreground of my presumptuous confidence

[Neo-Scholastic]

While the proofs presented in the movie are not ones that I find compelling, the movie made it clear that what Josh presented to the class was not complete. He merely shows that belief in God is not unreasonable. The story of Josh is placed within the context of other stories. Those other stories show how Jesus personally affects the lives of believers. The most important line in the whole movie was the one that I invite you to ask yourself: "What gives you hope?"

[urlawyer]

Update: finished the movie halfway to sober and have concluded the arguments to be faulty beyond definition but still maintain the stance that I have a lot of work ahead of me if I am going to be a productive mind.
Maybe I should have titled this thread "Life is Hard"

[Faith No More]

While the proofs presented in the movie are not ones that I find compelling, the movie made it clear that what Josh presented to the class was not complete. He merely shows that belief in God is not unreasonable. The story of Josh is placed within the context of other stories. Those other stories show how Jesus personally affects the lives of believers. The most important line in the whole movie was the one that I invite you to ask yourself: "What gives you hope?"

Does it bother you that the most important line is an appeal to emotion?

[Neo-Scholastic]

While the proofs presented in the movie are not ones that I find compelling, the movie made it clear that what Josh presented to the class was not complete. He merely shows that belief in God is not unreasonable. The story of Josh is placed within the context of other stories. Those other stories show how Jesus personally affects the lives of believers. The most important line in the whole movie was the one that I invite you to ask yourself: "What gives you hope?"

Does it bother you that the most important line is an appeal to emotion?

It's just a question. How you answer it is up to you. But I think the question deserves an answer don't you?

[urlawyer]

The most important line in the whole movie was the one that I invite you to ask yourself: "What gives you hope?"

I actually thought that was a good point as well. But the question, I realized, was faulty in and of itself.
Hope of what? I feel hope is merely a tool people have come to use as a crutch. It's useful to have hope that, say, your idea will come to fruition thus giving you the motivation to pursue it, but it is not useful to me personally to think I will live forever because it gives me reason to slack off until I die which will end up in me accomplishing nothing.
Therefore, my answer is really that I have no hope except for the continued advancement of human society which is only grounded in the inherent curiosity of man.

[downbeatplumb]

Does it bother you that the most important line is an appeal to emotion?

It's just a question. How you answer it is up to you. But I think the question deserves an answer don't you?

People can be content with all sorts of things.

I am happy with my Adonis like physique and sparkling wit for instance

[Neo-Scholastic]

The most important line in the whole movie was the one that I invite you to ask yourself: "What gives you hope?"

...my answer is really that I have no hope except for the continued advancement of human society which is only grounded in the inherent curiosity of man.

Are you truly content with that answer?

[Exian]

I haven't seen the movie; does he show it isn't unreasonable that humans have the capacity to believe in god because we have faulty logic that needs actively worked on?