Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

I liked it for all the wrong reasons.

The only problem I had with the movie is they had a bunch of boring minor plot lines going on when they should have just focused on Hercules and Superman being complete dicks to Christians (and everyone else in general). Hercules in particular was a riot. The way he was acting in a few scenes started getting into psycho horror movie territory.

Jack Chick could probably sue the people who made the movie, because I felt like I was watching one of his tracts in film format. (Though sadly with less violence)

But then you'd like it all the MORE for all the wrong reasons.

And Christian filmmakers can't do that.  :P

Can't do what?

Pat their heads and rub their tummies at the same time. I've tried to get three different Christian filmmakers to do that, and they've all failed hilariously.

So it's worth watching? I thought it was gonna be a lot like Big Brother just with Herc and a boy band in movie format.

Well I saw for free so it wasn't like I was losing anything, it does feel a little long though. Like I said, they had a few plot lines that didn't really seem necessary.

Like they had a whole thing with a girl who came from a Muslim family and she was secretly listening to Christian scripture. Her character isn't connected to any of the others in the movie and it seemed like it was just put in to condemn Islam along with Atheism.

If you're not a Christian and you're watching it for the lulz and you don't have anything better to do, sure go for it.

I still want to see Exodus: Gods and Kings. Don't they make Moses into an action hero in that one?
 

Exodus Gods and Kings is a lot of fun if you don't take it seriously. BatMoses is a war-hero schizophrenic. Wasn't as good as Noah though.

Poor herc. His show was great until his arm got messed up, ha ha.

I loved that show. XD 

Oh, christ, THIS movie. I remember my Christian Fundamentalist debate teacher pushing this as if it were the best film ever, which instantly put me off. It could be great, and I wouldn't really care (although RT has it at 17%, so it's probably not).

So this movie is about Hercules and Superman acting like dicks to Christians, while Hercules has a mental break down? I also presume that they're trying to kill God or some shit?

Edit: Just read the plot on Wikipedia. I am thoroughly disappointed.

Well with the way you put it, there was no way the movie was going to actually live up to such a magnificent description.

What's it gonna be called? "God's still not dead?"

It's a shame we live in a day and time where people are so adamant of their hatred of religion. If you choose to not believe in God, so be it, but what is with all of the hate? I take time out of my week every weekend to walk from house to house spreading the word of the Lord, which isn't easy in Alaska, and people just slam the door on me while usually yelling some obscenity. You'd think that after walking through the snow for hours at a time, they could at least be respectful about it.

Edit: I see I replied to the wrong post. My apologies.

You have every right to your religion, but I don't believe anyone of any religious affiliation (including atheism) should go out of their way to actively convert those who do not hold x belief. As to those who don't want to "hear about the Lord," do you really blame them? How many times do Christians try to convert people that hold differing beliefs (especially to pronounced atheists).

Hint: it's a lot more than you probably think.

And I agree with you, but simply walking up and asking is not "actively" converting, as you say. If they tell me to leave, I shake their hand and leave. If I were trying to actively convert them, that would constitute borderline harassment on my part. I'm not trying to save souls from damnation, I'm trying to offer a guiding light to those in dark times. I could recount numerous times of when somebody in need turned to God for help, and while he didn't hand them what they wanted on a platter, they gained the faith and courage they previously lacked to go out and get it for themselves.

My main issue though, is the lack of common manners. If they'd wish for me to leave, I would respect that. I am at their house, and they have no obligation to speak with me. However, just because they disagree with my views does not mean I am not a human being, and I deserve to be treated as such, and not have curse words and objects thrown at me.

I'm trying to offer a guiding light to those in dark times.

There's nothing wrong with this, as long as you aren't the initiator. If someone comes to you with wanting help in a religious fashion, then so be it, but I don't think it is acceptable to approach others with the same goal, even if it is benevolent, especially if it's at a time were they're confused about their religious identity. Or young, because that's dangerously close to indoctrination, in my mind.

Like Madbrad said, you're coming to THEIR home about a religious affiliation that they aren't aligned with. It may seem like a good idea to you, and others that do the same, but to those who don't share your belief, it comes off as condescending, especially towards atheists.

... Offering religious aid to someone who is young is  dangerously close to indoctrination? How is one polite request, while standing  at the door indoctrination?

Read that paragraph, again. It was a generalization, and had nothing to do with the door-to-door thing.

Fuck, I'm tired. Sorry.

"There's nothing wrong with this, as long as you aren't the initiator. If someone comes to you with wanting help in a religious fashion, then so be it, but I don't think it is acceptable to approach others with the same goal, even if it is benevolent, especially if it's at a time were they're confused about their religious identity."

Why is it only wrong if I'm the initiator? That doesn't make much sense to me. Besides, I'm not the initiator. I'll put in the effort to come to you, but you would have to initiate the conversation if you wanted any information. I don't just walk inside of people's homes, they have to invite me in. It's a 50/50 thing. 

"Or young, because that's dangerously close to indoctrination, in my mind."

Why is that indoctrination? Because they're young, or because the information I'm trying to give them is religion? If it's the former, then public schooling could be considered a form of indoctrination, could it not? I'm not forcing anybody to believe what I tell them, or even to live by it, or even to pray. I merely provide words and information and let them choose what they want to do with it. 

"Like Madbrad said, you're coming to THEIR home about a religious affiliation that they aren't aligned with. It may seem like a good idea to you, and others that do the same, but to those who don't share your belief, it comes off as condescending, especially towards atheists."

Well, I apologize if it comes off as condescending, but that is not my intent. I aim to merely provide information and even support if it is asked of me, but I do not believe myself to be any better than anybody else. Besides the fact that pride is a sin, I was raised to treat my neighbor kindly no matter the differences between us. We're all human.

"Why is it only wrong if I'm the initiator?"

I don't think that's what he meant honestly. I think he meant that if someone came to you asking for spiritual help, then you'd be perfectly in the right to give it.

"Besides, I'm not the initiator. I'll put in the effort to come to you, but you would have to initiate the conversation if you wanted any information. I don't just walk inside of people's homes, they have to invite me in. It's a 50/50 thing. "

Of course you are. You're the one going to peoples houses and they're the people who have to answer/ignore.

"Why is that indoctrination? Because they're young, or because the information I'm trying to give them is religion? If it's the former, then public schooling could be considered a form of indoctrination, could it not? I'm not forcing anybody to believe what I tell them, or even to live by it, or even to pray. I merely provide words and information and let them choose what they want to do with it. "

Because it's unlikely a child knows the difference between faith, and fact. A school doesn't teach faith, it teaches fact. Sure, you might be giving the child a choice in the matter, but why should they go against what you're telling them? An adult can make that choice.

Unrelated: I love how we're all quoting differently haha.

"I don't think that's what he meant honestly. I think he meant that if someone came to you asking for spiritual help, then you'd be perfectly in the right to give it."

I can understand his reasoning, but not everybody knows how to properly ask for help, or has proper transportation under the harsh climate. It seems like a shame to let even one poor soul continue to suffer because some people don't wish to be bothered for 60 seconds. Does taking a minute out of some unwilling person's life really vindicate me the way they would like me to believe?

"Of course you are. You're the one going to peoples houses and they're the people who have to answer/ignore."

Like I said to him, I initiate the introduction, they have to initiate the conversation.

"Because it's unlikely a child knows the difference between faith, and fact. A school doesn't teach faith, it teaches fact. Sure, you might be giving the child a choice in the matter, but why should they go against what you're telling them? An adult can make that choice."

History teaches fact littered with opinions. The curriculum isn't what I was referring to, when I made that comment though. Public schooling incorporates a certain belief about how we are supposed to act towards our fellow man, some for the better, some for the worse. 

"I can understand his reasoning, but not everybody knows how to properly ask for help, or has proper transportation under the harsh climate. It seems like a shame to let even one poor soul continue to suffer because some people don't wish to be bothered for 60 seconds. Does taking a minute out of some unwilling person's life really vindicate me the way they would like me to believe?"

I'm not exactly taking a moral stance here. I understand religion can help some, but perhaps there're better ways to do so without including religion? To each his own.

"Like I said to him, I initiate the introduction, they have to initiate the conversation."

By initiating the introduction, you have initiated the conversation. 

"History teaches fact littered with opinions. The curriculum isn't what I was referring to, when I made that comment though. Public schooling incorporates a certain belief about how we are supposed to act towards our fellow man, some for the better, some for the worse. "

I guess this comes down to how crappy (or not so) the school system is. Sure it's not perfect, but it isn't teaching faith that is baseless. The schooling system teachings things that are based on fact, I'd wager more so than faith or opinion. All I can say to the last line is: how so?

I guess this is the part where to agree to disagree, agreed? lol

Why is it only wrong if I'm the initiator? That doesn't make much sense to me. Besides, I'm not the initiator. I'll put in the effort to come to you, but you would have to initiate the conversation if you wanted any information. I don't just walk inside of people's homes, they have to invite me in. It's a 50/50 thing. 

Have you ever approached someone with this intent, without their consent (or desire for it), or if it was absolutely assured that they wanted help, without explicitly stating such; that makes you the initiator. It's not inherently wrong (but then, I don't think anything really is), but since religion is a highly personal area (and an extremely socially sensitive one), I think, unless they wish for it, any sort of religious aid shouldn't be delivered.

Why is that indoctrination? Because they're young, or because the information I'm trying to give them is religion? If it's the former, then public schooling could be considered a form of indoctrination, could it not? I'm not forcing anybody to believe what I tell them, or even to live by it, or even to pray. I merely provide words and information and let them choose what they want to do with it. 

Because the younger a person is (because infancy, where they obviously can't understand anything), the easier it is to sway opinions, or even establish one that wasn't there before. Public schooling isn't indoctrination, because the curriculum is based purely on fact. Any misinformation or bias is done by the teachers, which should be dealt with on any individual basis.

"Have you ever approached someone with this intent, without their consent (or desire for it), or if it was absolutely assured that they wanted help, without explicitly stating such; that makes you the initiator. It's not inherently wrong (but then, I don't think anything really), but since religion is a highly personal area (and an extremely socially sensitive one), I think, unless they wish for it, any sort of religious aid shouldn't be delivered."

Point conceded. Still, I'm not the type to go babbling on about how "Jesus loves you but if you don't love him you'll spend eternity in hellfire" like some of my fellow evangelists. I simply walk up, ask if they would like to give me half an hour of their time, and if they say no, I leave. I might initiate the introduction, but they have to initiate the conversation that follows. It doesn't seem any different from stopping to help somebody change their flat tire, or delivering food to the poor.

"Because the younger a person is (because infancy, where they obviously can't understand anything), the easier it is to sway opinions, or even establish one that wasn't there before. Public schooling isn't indoctrination, because the curriculum is based purely on fact. Any misinformation or bias is done by the teachers, which should be dealt with on any individual basis."

Well, most young children don't answer the door unless a parent is present, so while I don't think what you're saying is too important in regards to this conversation, you do have a point. However, I can assure you public schooling is not based entirely on fact. History itself is extremely biased, because it is written by the victor. Some people even believe the Pledge of Allegiance is a form of indoctrination. Public schooling also teaches children that rote memorization is the true form of intelligence, when that is clearly not the case. We're getting off topic though.

I simply walk up, ask if they would like to give me half an hour of their time, and if they say no, I leave. 

Like I said, I just don't think any one should do it, no matter how courteous a person is.

I might initiate the introduction, but they have to initiate the conversation that follows. It doesn't seem any different from stopping to help somebody change their flat tire, or delivering food to the poor.

This is a dreadful comparison. Those two things are utilitarian actions, conversion just isn't, if a person is unwilling, or doesn't desire it. I don't think you'll find many people who won't let you help with a flat tire, and poor people who won't accept food, if they really need it.

Well, most young children don't answer the door unless a parent is present, so while I don't think what you're saying is too important in regards to this conversation, you do have a point. However, I can assure you public schooling is not based entirely on fact. History itself is extremely biased, because it is written by the victor. Some people even believe the Pledge of Allegiance is a form of indoctrination. Public schooling also teaches children that rote memorization is the true form of intelligence, when that is clearly not the case. We're getting off topic though.

Like I said the young children example was a generalization, and had nothing to do with the door-to-door point. History can be biased, yes, but I think extremely is an overstatement. Fridge conspiracists don't exactly prove "public school is based on non-fact." Memorization isn't a form of intelligence at all, it's a form of knowledge. And honestly, I don't blame schools who emphasize memorization, what with the over intensity of test scores, and I think the public school system needs a reform, but you're right, this is off-topic.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree then. 

Sure. I'm guessing you're not used to debate like this? Last couple months, I haven't done very much, so I forgot how interesting it could be. Cheers.

Not really, no. I'd rather just quit now before I get too far into it and go all night lol

"Some people even believe the Pledge of Allegiance is a form of indoctrination."

I'm honestly inclined to agree with them. Children are made to pledge allegiance to the state, and the God part shouldn't even be there.

I always thought the Pledge of Allegiance was more silly than anything. Kids that age are too young to understand it. To us, it was more or less the time of the day we all attempted to one up each other with the coolest new rhyme.

Indeed. We prayed in primary school and everyone did it because...why not (which did make me believe in God when I was young)? Still, I'm glad we didn't have to make a pledge haha.

I agree with this, mostly the "... in God we trust." Also, don't think that should be on coins, either. The rest is nationalistic bullshit that kids and teenagers aren't going to care about.

I just think it's one of those things that are so utterly unimportant in the grand scheme of things, it's not worth getting worked up about. I can understand why you're against it, and from a government perspective I agree it shouldn't be included, but I don't think it's hurting anybody and it's the way it's always been, so I don't see any harm in it.

"it's the way it's always been"

That's not true actually. The allegiance part, yes. But the God part was added in opposition with communist Atheism.

And no matter how small a problem is, if it's a problem, it should be changed.

Huh, that's weird. I never knew that before.

Wait, what's the problem with it? America was based on religious principles. Don't see how it's unfitting.

Because it was introduced in the early/mid 50's, which is a far cry from when American was founded. Also, The Founding Fathers, the one's responsible for the basis of government, were primarily influenced by the Enlightenment (which was secularist).

So what? It's not like John Locke was an athiest. Whole concept of America was freedom from tyranny, because liberty was given through God. That's why we have inherent rights such as carrying arms that can't be taken away from the government, etc.

*Maintaining a state militia.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A militia is composed entirely of civilians, not professional soldiers.

I know. Tan's post was just written a little unclearly, so I figured I should clarify.

If you're gonna clarify, at least do it with clarity like James haha.

Punctuating your posts with "haha" makes you sound snide.

I thought it just makes the conversation light hearted and impersonal. Sorry about that, man.

No worries.

Read the influence of the Enlightenment on America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enlightenment

The American Enlightenment advocated scientific reasoning and religious tolerance. Having the phrases "...under god," and "...in god we trust. aren't tolerant of religion. It's establishing a favored religion, especially since it was during the Cold War, and taken against atheists.

You really can't expect me to read all of Wikipedia haha. If you have a point to make, say it.

The Enlightenment supported religious freedom. As athiesm isn't a specific religion, I don't see how 'Nation under God' favors a religion besides perhaps the Semitic ones. And if it does, I still don't see what the matter is.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Yeah, see, that's talking about a national Church. America never had that and never will haha. "In God we trust" is as vague as deism, which is pro-Enlightenment as per Wikipedia.

"In God we trust" can only refer to two religions. Christianity or Judaism, more than likely Christianity. Either way is a violation of the religious establishment clause.

No... Deism. You know what that is, right? It's not endemic to a specific religion.

.

I guess it depends on who you talk to. As an atheist, it was kinda odd to have two old Jehovah wineses come to my door to tell me the devil rules the world or some shit. Whilst they were a little intrusive, I was polite and they eventually went on their way. I guess what I'm trying to say is, no one really wants someone preaching on their doorstep, some are just more polite about it.

Well I admire your politeness in the face of intrusiveness. I personally don't try to save souls from damnation, I believe God is an outlet we could all use in our lives. If somebody doesn't wish to pursue that outlet, then so be it.

My problem is that religion tends to indoctrinate people at a age so young that they are unable to actually argue against it. It's no different than brainwashing in my opinion, which is wrong. If Christians tried to convert people at an older age, we'd probably notice a significant drop in their numbers.

Christians also tend to push their beliefs on other people, whether the realize it or not. The fact that the multiple denominations of Christianity have some disagreements doesn't help either.

"God's even less dead"

Not if you don't bother to wait three days.

"God's Not Dead, Part 3: Someone Forgot to Double-Tap"

"God's Not Dead Episode 4: He's Missing an Arm Now..."

"God's Not Dead, Episode 5: Night of the Living Gods"

"God's Not Dead, Episode 7: Fuck, God bit him. We're going to have to amputate.

So instead of going septic, they can be used to clean wounds?

"Godger that."

I watched it too, but unlike you I failed to find amusement in it and it just seemed like religious propaganda. I especially hated the part at the end where the atheist teacher is dying and the pastor-type guy takes advantage of a dying man's desperation and fear of the afterlife to convert him, doesn't bother trying to save him, just converts him. Plus the main plot was predictable with a bunch of pointless side plots thrown in. The only reason I watched such a film was because my mother is religious and had her church friends over to watch it.

I hate that movie. I did find it funny when the girls Dad kicked her out of the house though.

You mean the girl from the side-plot Islamic family?

Yeah.

Those minor plots were just pointless. I thought the movie as going to focus more on the debate of whether or not God exists. Even then, the debate was just terrible on both sides. The student brought up arguments that have all been defeated before and the teacher only made appeals to ethos which is pointless in my opinion.

Then that last question, "How can you hate God if you don't believe in him?" was stupid. You can hate something without believing in it. For example, I hate Captain Marvel and Goku, but that doesn't mean that I automatically acknowledge their existence.

You have no reasons to dislike Goku. You monster.

Goku just sucks. He may be the weakest of all the Saiyans. Why? Because he gets his ass handed to him almost every time he faces a new opponent.

Raditz - Kicked his ass.

Vegeta - Kicked his ass TWICE

Freiza - Was playing with him for most of the fight.

Cell - Killed his ass!

Buu (multiple variations) - Gave him the spanking that his daddy never had.

Broly - Oh man...Broly.

Need I say more? Let it be known that his son is the reason two of these guys lost and another two died.

You're taking it way too seriously, lol.

Too seriously? The movie was terrible! I was greatly disappointed.

Disappointed? You're an atheist. What exactly were you hoping to get out of the movie?

A grudging respect for religious mammals, perhaps?

You were looking into the arguments for god and thinking about them, lol. The whole movie was a joke, ha ha. (Though it did well in the theateres, surprisingly.)

The professor was more of an anti-theist rather than a proper atheist anyway.

When he got killed in the end I suppose it did confirm that Superman can beat Hercules though.

I guess he is more an anti-theist, he was pretty bitter to religious people because he used to be a Christian but his mom died of cancer when he was little.