2014-- The Year of Religious Movies?

[Stewball]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/religion/article/Five-films-that-will-make-2014-the-year-of-the-5132624.php

I just saw Son of God to see if it had anything to say. It didn't except a large net profit I'm sure. Even if I was still a Christian, I'd have thought it was overwrought from beginning to end. I've been wondering what's going on with Aronfosky and Noah, and the disclaimer which showed up in the preview today heightens my curiosity. There's no doubt Hollywood is chasing profits, but him, and Ridley Scott I had higher hopes for than just presenting the Bible in documentary form....apparently.

All this makes me wonder if there was more to the general silence at the Academy Awards during McConaughey's speech, and if maybe he wasn't so courageous after all. Which is worse, Hollywood selling out to religion or vice versa? Why can't somebody, just once, sell out to the libertarians, or the agnostics?! Hmmmm, maybe that's what keeps us honest.

[Stewball]

There's another one coming out on the 21st, God's Not Dead, about an obnoxious philosophy professor who demands that his students sign a statement that God is dead or fail his course. So a Christian student and the professor debate the issue with the student's pass or fail on the line depending on convincing the rest of the class. I'm prepared to be irked by this movie since I'm sure the agnostic position that the answer is immaculately/(intentionally?) unknowable, will never come up.

[mattorama12]

I'm sure the agnostic position that the answer is immaculately/(intentionally?) unknowable, will never come up.

I'll bet you it does

[Stewball]

I'm sure the agnostic position that the answer is immaculately/(intentionally?) unknowable, will never come up.

I'll bet you it does

If they give it anything more than same lip service they give to doubt, IOW a genuine consideration instead of just bringing it up then dismissing it, I'll give you a lifetime supply of Attaboys even if you've read the book or have seen an advanced screening. Each one may be redeemed toward winning any argument with me without any qualms on my part. It would be worth it to see a major shift in Christian apologetics like that. Some atheists could consider it, but believing Christians never could, by definition. Salvation is acquired through (blind) faith alone.

[mattorama12]

Each one may be redeemed toward winning any argument with me without any qualms on my part.

If I don't get to argue with you, then I feel like that's a loss for both of us. I haven't read the book (if any?) or anything else. This is the first I've heard of the movie, and I haven't bothered to do any research outside of reading your post. I just can't imagine a whole movie around this question--with a philosophy professor no doubt--without the agnostic idea playing at least a minor role.

Call it a gentleman's wager. I most likely won't even see it, so you'll be on the honor system to report back to me.

[Stewball]

If I don't get to argue with you, then I feel like that's a loss for both of us. I haven't read the book (if any?) or anything else. This is the first I've heard of the movie, and I haven't bothered to do any research outside of reading your post. I just can't imagine a whole movie around this question--with a philosophy professor no doubt--without the agnostic idea playing at least a minor role.

I can promise to shut my mouth, but could never promise to shut my brain. I was merely injecting some semi-levity into the subject, which has been a lifetime avocation for me. Like I say, Christians are bound not to doubt--their protestations notwithstanding. And, many atheists, particularly when they're young and male and newly converted away from revealed religions, are as blindly dogged in the pursuit of their new blind faith as they feel those in their old faith were. Their revealed God is false, so the only possibility is that God doesn't exist.

Only recently have professional atheists and atheistic scientists had to back off of their God is impossible stance à la Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins. And it wasn't any revealed religion that caused their shifts, it was deism, which is an agnostic belief by everyone I know who holds it.

Call it a gentleman's wager. I most likely won't even see it, so you'll be on the honor system to report back to me.

Indeed, and you've never given me any reason to doubt your honesty, including your critically important self-honesty.

[mattorama12]

If I don't get to argue with you, then I feel like that's a loss for both of us. I haven't read the book (if any?) or anything else. This is the first I've heard of the movie, and I haven't bothered to do any research outside of reading your post. I just can't imagine a whole movie around this question--with a philosophy professor no doubt--without the agnostic idea playing at least a minor role.

I can promise to shut my mouth, but could never promise to shut my brain. I was merely injecting some semi-levity into the subject, which has been a lifetime avocation for me. Like I say, Christians are bound not to doubt--their protestations notwithstanding. And, many atheists, particularly when they're young and male and newly converted away from revealed religions, are as blindly dogged in the pursuit of their new blind faith as they feel those in their old faith were. Their revealed God is false, so the only possibility is that God doesn't exist.

Only recently have professional atheists and atheistic scientists had to back off of their God is impossible stance à la Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins. And it wasn't any revealed religion that caused their shifts, it was deism, which is an agnostic belief by everyone I know who holds it.

For what it's worth, I myself am an atheist. You could argue I'm an agnostic, but I'm as agnostic about God as I am about ghosts, Superman, or a perpetual motion machine. My point is that, sure we can't know. But, I have to start somewhere, and science is that somewhere for me. From that starting point, we can essentially eliminate the possibility that a "God" has any direct influence on the world. There could still be a creator, but that doesn't really answer any questions (who created the creator could go on ad naseum). So, I think science has effectively eliminated any relevance of a god.

Indeed, and you've never given me any reason to doubt your honesty, including your critically important self-honesty.

Appreciate that. I fancy myself an honest gent, even while I make my living as a lawyer.

[CMonster]

You could argue I'm an agnostic, but I'm as agnostic about God as I am about ghosts, Superman, or a perpetual motion machine.

Doesn't matter how much you don't believe in God, still more likely than a perpetual motion machine.

[ShogunRua]

You could argue I'm an agnostic, but I'm as agnostic about God as I am about ghosts, Superman, or a perpetual motion machine.

Doesn't matter how much you don't believe in God, still more likely than a perpetual motion machine.

A perpetual motion machine actually violates physical laws. It can never occur. It's impossible.

"God", especially based on one's definition of such an entity (which could be very, very different than the standard Judeo-Christian one), has a certain chance of occurring. While I used to be an atheist and agnostic, as I learned more about science, I became a Deist. (I think there was an "original creator" of some kind, but think we can't know anything past that. And when I say "original creator", I certainly don't think of an immortal human who is still alive, or judges our actions. More likely, it's some bizarre entity whose existence ended billions of years ago. Far too many things would have to go right (I'm talking one in a trillion chances) to ascribe our life and universe to "random chance".

[Stewball]

The issue isn't so much the existence of God as how the universe came to be, God or spontaneous creation. Both are "impossible" but they're the only possibilities, and there's absolutely no evidence available from before the Big Bang (the initial singularity) to work with. It's a perfect firewall.

The odd thing is, that's exactly what we should expect if God created the universe to spawn sentient creatures with free will--the only conceivable purpose for God to create it. What else could It not do instantly instead of a 13 billion year old big bang? We wouldn't have true free will if God was hanging around telling us how we should live, that would be intimidating as ....Hell. And God couldn't set things up it indicate that It doesn't exist, that would be a lie.

If God created the universe, and the universe is still in existence, why couldn't God still exist, particularly if God IS the universe and/or the universe is, as is being theorized, a giant quantum computer. Add to that that time may not exist, or have any effect, "outside" of this universe where there could be any number of dimensions in which it could be swamped, so to speak.

I believe atheism and deism are the only two reasonable positions on God. From our perspective here, the only difference is hope.