Propaganda Films and Hate Speech

[Astonished]

Yeah, thing is, they do, and every last one of them completely misses the fucking point. So many different denominations (and even non-Xtian faiths) have films made promoting theirs and shitting on alternate interpretations;, alternative religions and of course non-believers. On those occasions where it's not blatant hate speech, it's just inane and piss-poor apologetics.

So, just lie down and take it? Or does anyone have a potential solution to propose?

(bolding mine) 

Is it really propaganda or hate speech if a given religion in fact prohibits their bishops from marrying, for instance, and another denomination correctly points to Scripture acknowledging married bishops ??

It wouldn't necessarily be hate motivating the disclosure, but perhaps just a desire to see more fealty to the bible and more folks eligible for Salvation.

I'd say all Christians are entitled to know which denominations are 'doing it right' and which ones aren't

Still not really the focus of the discussion; non-believers' response (if any is recommended) to hate speech from every direction faith comes from, is, not what they have to say about each other. They're all producing this crap, we don't seem to have an organized antidote as far as narratives go, just speeches, debates and reviews of these piles of shit.

[Rev. Rye]

(bolding mine) 

Is it really propaganda or hate speech if a given religion in fact prohibits their bishops from marrying, for instance, and another denomination correctly points to Scripture acknowledging married bishops ??

It wouldn't necessarily be hate motivating the disclosure, but perhaps just a desire to see more fealty to the bible and more folks eligible for Salvation.

I'd say all Christians are entitled to know which denominations are 'doing it right' and which ones aren't

Still not really the focus of the discussion; non-believers' response (if any is recommended) to hate speech from every direction faith comes from, is, not what they have to say about each other. They're all producing this crap, we don't seem to have an organized antidote as far as narratives go, just speeches, debates and reviews of these piles of shit.

That's the thing about atheism, unlike Christianity, it's not a belief system in and of itself. It's merely a facet of one (one that can be a part of belief systems ranging from communism to Objectivism to secular humanism). The success of those religious films relies on a sort of cultural signalling impulse that's endemic in Evangelical Christianity, something that atheists tend to lack. Christians (at least the type who are the audience of this sort of film) latch onto a film like Old-Fashioned or War Room simply because it reflects (or more accurately, preaches) the sort of worldview they want to push, regardless of said film's actual quality. All such a film needs to get noticed is a sort of preachiness and the right distributor (or a positive shout-out from the Dove Foundation). If we were to make an atheistic counterpoint to said films, let's be realistic: you'd look at the reviews (and Rotten Tomatoes score if applicable) before you'd consider bothering to watch it, wouldn't you?

TL;DR: If you don't plan to suspend your critical thought and fall into cultural groupthink like them, you can't expect to sustain an equal and opposite reaction to those films.

[Astonished]

Still not really the focus of the discussion; non-believers' response (if any is recommended) to hate speech from every direction faith comes from, is, not what they have to say about each other. They're all producing this crap, we don't seem to have an organized antidote as far as narratives go, just speeches, debates and reviews of these piles of shit.

That's the thing about atheism, unlike Christianity, it's not a belief system in and of itself. It's merely a facet of one (one that can be a part of belief systems ranging from communism to Objectivism to secular humanism). The success of those religious films relies on a sort of cultural signalling impulse that's endemic in Evangelical Christianity, something that atheists tend to lack. Christians (at least the type who are the audience of this sort of film) latch onto a film like Old-Fashioned or War Room simply because it reflects (or more accurately, preaches) the sort of worldview they want to push, regardless of said film's actual quality. All such a film needs to get noticed is a sort of preachiness and the right distributor (or a positive shout-out from the Dove Foundation). If we were to make an atheistic counterpoint to said films, let's be realistic: you'd look at the reviews (and Rotten Tomatoes score if applicable) before you'd consider bothering to watch it, wouldn't you?

TL;DR: If you don't plan to suspend your critical thought and fall into cultural groupthink like them, you can't expect to sustain an equal and opposite reaction to those films.

That's why I'm asking the question-is that an appropriate response or should a different approach be taken? Or none at all? But I would think the counterpoint films would have to be aimed at theists and expose them to thinking 'hey, maybe we're not the only ones with good ideas' or 'I guess those people don't deserve to fall into lava while we ascend into the sky'. Rational skeptics don't need their own films for that purpose, we're well-informed enough about this shit and don't need to be convinced that we're on the business end of the theists' sword. But given we can put more thought, creativity and style into even lower-budget things because we have more reason to care and more desire to convey a message clearly and consistently, surely an effort could be made if only experimentally.

[Rev. Rye]

That's the thing about atheism, unlike Christianity, it's not a belief system in and of itself. It's merely a facet of one (one that can be a part of belief systems ranging from communism to Objectivism to secular humanism). The success of those religious films relies on a sort of cultural signalling impulse that's endemic in Evangelical Christianity, something that atheists tend to lack. Christians (at least the type who are the audience of this sort of film) latch onto a film like Old-Fashioned or War Room simply because it reflects (or more accurately, preaches) the sort of worldview they want to push, regardless of said film's actual quality. All such a film needs to get noticed is a sort of preachiness and the right distributor (or a positive shout-out from the Dove Foundation). If we were to make an atheistic counterpoint to said films, let's be realistic: you'd look at the reviews (and Rotten Tomatoes score if applicable) before you'd consider bothering to watch it, wouldn't you?

TL;DR: If you don't plan to suspend your critical thought and fall into cultural groupthink like them, you can't expect to sustain an equal and opposite reaction to those films.

That's why I'm asking the question-is that an appropriate response or should a different approach be taken? Or none at all? But I would think the counterpoint films would have to be aimed at theists and expose them to thinking 'hey, maybe we're not the only ones with good ideas' or 'I guess those people don't deserve to fall into lava while we ascend into the sky'. Rational skeptics don't need their own films for that purpose, we're well-informed enough about this shit and don't need to be convinced that we're on the business end of the theists' sword. But given we can put more thought, creativity and style into even lower-budget things because we have more reason to care and more desire to convey a message clearly and consistently, surely an effort could be made if only experimentally.

The more open-minded probably don't need it. The less open-minded won't even bother to listen.

[Astonished]

That's why I'm asking the question-is that an appropriate response or should a different approach be taken? Or none at all? But I would think the counterpoint films would have to be aimed at theists and expose them to thinking 'hey, maybe we're not the only ones with good ideas' or 'I guess those people don't deserve to fall into lava while we ascend into the sky'. Rational skeptics don't need their own films for that purpose, we're well-informed enough about this shit and don't need to be convinced that we're on the business end of the theists' sword. But given we can put more thought, creativity and style into even lower-budget things because we have more reason to care and more desire to convey a message clearly and consistently, surely an effort could be made if only experimentally.

The more open-minded probably don't need it. The less open-minded won't even bother to listen.

*Sigh* Yeah...that's the Catch-22 about faith.

[Rev. Rye]

To quote Bertrand Russell:

The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt. Even those of the intelligent who believe that they have a nostrum are too individualistic to combine with other intelligent men from whom they differ on minor points.

[GUBU]

I sometimes wonder how long belief in human dignity and inalienable rights will last apart from the religious culture that gave rise to those concepts.

Considering that the two things you mentioned are the children of the Enlightenmebt, the first social or political movement to openly distance itself from religion you're either a worse liar or worse idiot than I previously thought. Which is it Wooters?

[Harry Nevis]

I sometimes wonder how long belief in human dignity and inalienable rights will last apart from the religious culture that gave rise to those concepts.

I sometimes wonder how they get that little gecko to act so well in the Geico commercials.

[Rev. Rye]

I sometimes wonder how long belief in human dignity and inalienable rights will last apart from the religious culture that gave rise to those concepts.

It can be so tempting to just answer this question with Kirk Douglas' famous reply from Paths of Glory:





But I'm not really that big a fan of that mindset and I'm going to explain why, and, hopefully, in the process, I'll demonstrate how a belief in universal human dignity in rights can, in fact, be divorced from the religious culture that supposedly created it (so I have been told, I have not seen it).

I am on the autism spectrum. I know a lot about things, but the world can be a very mystifying place, and it was especially mystifying as a kid when everyone seemed to go along with things that made no sense to me. My life has been a quest to understand what the fuck is going on in the world, whether it's why people can be so monstrous to each other, why people don't like to see other people wearing hats indoors, or, (to use an example from the book I'm currently reading) why someone would think it a good idea to send a ship heavily stocked for years' travel in the unexplored regions of most inhospitable climates on Earth but devote as little space as possible for the possibility of having to go on land. So, I've come to the conclusion that, if I need to know about something, I'll look into it, and frequently, I'll drink deeper than a lot of other people into the Pierian Spring, and whenever I find the opportunity, I'll show my findings elsewhere. If you're familiar with my posts, you'll know I'm quite well-read and sometimes put a lot of details about things that some of us haven't even thought of. 


Why do I do this? It's not just to show off. It's because, on some level, I get the feeling that people might want or need to know about things, because I know what it's like to be left in the dark about something everyone seems to know about. And I don't need the words of some deity to tell me that helping educate people about things they don't already know about is a good thing. There's a reason literally every religion has some version of the Golden Rule: because if we're going to live together, we'll need some way to make sure we can stay reasonably safe. And the Golden Rule (or whatever local variation you can find) is a perfect summation of that principle: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and as the Rabbi Hillel added "The Rest is Commentary; Go and study it!"

Honestly, I would have expected that could easily come from a non-religious worldview, if only because a society where people generally follow the golden rule means people are a lot less likely to wrong you. And honestly, seeing your user name is giving a shout-out to Thomas Aquinas, I have to ask: where is the universal human rights and dignity in passages like this from Aquinas?

Nothing should be denied the blessed that belongs to the perfection of their beatitude. Now everything is known the more for being compared with its contrary, because when contraries are placed beside one another they become more conspicuous. Wherefore in order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned.

If universal human rights and dignity come from a Christian, it is in spite of their religious culture, not because of it.

[Astonished]

You know, this reminds me of Chaplin's speech from the Great Dictator. He only makes reference to the bible once, and the quote adds ab-so-fucking-lutely NOTHING to the rest of it, in fact it stops things dead but he luckily doesn't dwell on that. Such a wonderful, passionate and spot-on speech where the only blemish, the only thing that causes a hard shift and calls into question the motivation, is when religion is inserted.

Religion. Poisons. Everything.