Why can't fedora tipping atheists make films this good?

Why can't fedora tipping atheists make films this good?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Events_generally_accepted_as_historical
newgeology.us/Shroud.pdf
sindone.info/DILAZZA3.pdf
shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF
shroud.com/pdfs/whanger.pdf
shroud.com/pdfs/accett2.pdf
shroudnm.com/docs/2013-01-10-Yannick-Clément-Reflections-on-Ray-Rogers-Shroud-Work.pdf
shroud.typepad.com/topics/2005/10/secular_peerrev.html
youtube.com/watch?v=2GL0curpDE8
amazon.com/How-Jesus-Became-God-Exaltation/dp/0061778184
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>DUDE JESUS NEVER EXISTED AND WAS MADE UP BY 1ST CENTURY AUTHORS LMAO

Too busy preaching atheism

>Scorsese
Awesome, I can't wait to see how this mov-
>Liam Neeson
And dropped

Because they're soulless, just like how they can't run a country or their lives.

Adolescence is idolizing Cristovao, Adulthood is realizing Sebastiao makes more sense.

>dropping a film over Liam Neeson and not Andrew "nu-male talentless hack" Garfieldstein

kys

BTFO, How can edgy fedora-wearing atheists ever recover?

Why is Malick the only protestant able to make good Christian movies?

i think because regardless of whether christianity is real, they morals and stories in it can change a persons life tremendously. some of the smartest people where christian, fyodor dostoevsky for example.

im agnostic btw.

because they're autistic and lack creative talent

Jesus didn't ever exist though

>dostoevsky

You have 99.9% of historical scholars disagreeing with you.

Every advancement in a field has to go against the consensus.

Why do I get the feeling that all of you pretend to be religious on the internet for some reason

Because most of them go into engineering or other technical fields rather than the arts. The few that do are outcasts that can't gather needed support required to grow in their art. Movie making by its nature isn't individualistic.

Not true though

this
flat earth theory is literally true
evolution is a lie
PROGRESS, people!

>The Young Pope
>Silence

God is back.. with a vengeance

But there's evidence to support a round earth. If we had the evidence for Jesus that we have for a round earth, this debate would be over

>there's evidence to support a round earth
Every advancement in a field has to go against the consensus.

>The Japs are evil!
>Oppressing my poor jew worshipers!

I see through your tactics, Schlomo. Still hating on the Axis Powers are we? The fact Andrew Garfunkle is in it is proof enough of the agenda. Bluepilled amerifats will lap this shit up.

If you can give sufficient evidence for your claim, it would be taken seriously

there is historical evidence of christ's existence
but he was no more than a mad jew, the authors of the canonical gospels exploited his figure for their political aims

This. The whole film is about how replacing a country's native culture with a foreign one is a good thing, and oppressing such a movement is evil and bad and on par with the holohoax.

Atheists are the definition of a wagecuck.
Soulless drones devoting their existence to working, sleeping and posting on tumblr

You're crazy if you think Obama and Trump are Christians.

It's been 5 years and atheists STILL haven't refuted this point.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Events_generally_accepted_as_historical
wahey lads

because you're an autistic left wing fedora who can't take the fact that people disagree with you

>implying attempting to civilize barbarians is a bad thing

The evidence is not actually sufficient
They use the criterion for embarrassment to get to those conclusions

What about Dr Strange? Critics loved it!

top notch banter tbf lads

Summary of scientific and historical evidence supporting the authenticity of the Shroud:

newgeology.us/Shroud.pdf

Shroud-like coloration of linen by nanosecond laser pulses in the vacuum ultraviolet (it explains that they replicated the shroud's qualities using laser pulsations, which so far is the only way anyone has been able the replicate the shroud's qualities):

sindone.info/DILAZZA3.pdf

Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of Turin:

shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF

Nuclear imaging:

shroud.com/pdfs/whanger.pdf

shroud.com/pdfs/accett2.pdf

Raymond N. Rogers' observations and conclusions:

shroudnm.com/docs/2013-01-10-Yannick-Clément-Reflections-on-Ray-Rogers-Shroud-Work.pdf

Also, here's some secular peer-reviewed scientific journal articles on the Shroud of Turin:

shroud.typepad.com/topics/2005/10/secular_peerrev.html

oh no! scientists disagree with me! better criticize their methods :v)

The shroud goes against what is said in the Bible.

I don't know why this image gets mocked so much when it's 100% correct by contemporary logic and philosophy.

Christianity literally gave world the best moral and ideals, best architecture, classical music and painting.
Besides your soul can be saved from eternal suffering in emptiness and unimaginable horrors in a company of pederasts, transgeners and other numales.

inb4 medieval forgery
newgeology.us/Shroud.pdf

>Barbarians
Only the Jew loving Allied Powers believe this. Hitler knew the strength of their traditional culture and praised them for it. Too bad Europe wasn't the same and stayed pure in its white culture, instead of being cucked into worshiping Yahweh God of the Kikes. Not like it matters, as the original Jew book was half zoroastrianism and half babylonian paganism anyway.

Their methods aren't legitimate historical methods and it's criticized in the field

alri richard, hows your cum fetish going?

wew i fucked that up

Kill yourself

>Worshiping the demonic Israelite baby eating God will save you from Hell

Keep spreading those lies, Ahriman.

welp, its criticized. pack it in fellas, we've been found out.

You people don't even study the field

still obsessed, huh? that's a shame :v)

i'm only one person, user. are you scizophrenic?
:V))))

No, seriously, kill yourself

but the Japs are evil

>pack it in fellas
Shut up, you retard

>The only country not taking in smelly rapist syrians is evil
But of course.

Jesus existed. The same way Buddha and Muhammad also existed.

That is highly contested.

Buddha and Muhammad was never worshiped as a god in the earliest text we have that is so far removed from the Gospel that you can't say it believed what the writers of the Gospels were trying to portray

Wow, that quote really got me thinkin.

Most scholar of ancient antiquity believed in the existence of Jesus Christ as a historical person.

Is that why his movement was documented within twenty years of his death? Why the first gospel was written within 30 - 40 years of his death? Why roman and jewish authorities never questioned his exitsence even though his cult was making problems for them? Talmudic Jews even included him in their writing as a blasphemer deserving of punishment. The hypocrisy is eveident when you consider that many historical figures throughout history are only survived by either their works or a passing mention in a book which dates a century or more after their death. Jesus had both within the century of his passing and yet atheists deny his existence because facts dont matter when they contradict their narrative.

Have you actually ever read the Gospels? They are a document of a martyred people who thought the end times were coming. People have used the Gospels in political maneuvers but the Gospels themselves arent adovocates for political restructuring. Jesus himself advocates leaving family and and possessions behind in order to follow him.

Christianities population is mostly boosted by subhuman nigs, spics and other undesirables who breed like plagued roaches. Ontop of this, it isn't even really a white religion anyway, developing in the middle east.

And yet all the cucked degenerates here worship it trying to be pro white when the religion is anything but.

lmao'ing @ ur lives

Even fucking Fedoraism formed as a result of Europe's scientific and logical mastery, making it more white than kike shit, technically speaking. If you want a white religion, go worship something whites were worshiping for ten thousand years before they were converted (often by force) for political maneuvering.

should have been oscar isaac instead of garfield

I mean the New Testament and the writings of the Apostles. I cant write fast without making typos or mistakes.

Acts isn't touting a history.

>Most scholar of ancient antiquity believed in the existence of Jesus Christ as a historical person.

Not independent of the Gospels

He was great in The Social Network and 99 Homes

People will deny this

youtube.com/watch?v=2GL0curpDE8

No one bases their religion on any of the other stuff in that image, they aren't claiming to be the irrefutable word of God

Because that quote is a logical fallacy, and I do not have the burden of denying or confirming it.

Fedora tippers who claim that Jesus never existed really are annoying. I agree. But its interesting that Christians wont point out the other part of the scholarly consensus i.e. that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic preacher who never claimed to be god. That's the majority scholary view whether they are Christians, Agnostics, Jews ...

That version of Jesus can't answer what Jesus did to be worshiped as a god.

>baby eating God
WTF? You better drop that weed you smoke.

Why people are so butthurt about Christianity ideas? Literally no other religion bothers them as much as christian conception.

Muslims are just bombermen, leave them aside.

1. Consensus isn't inherently correct.
2. Every "first-hand" account written about Jesus was written posthumously -- decades or more.

There isn't concrete evidence he existed or did not exist -- and, again: scholarly consensus is not fact.

Read pic related. People back then had a completely different understanding of what it means to be a God. It also explains how Jesus came to be considered a God and in what sense.

>Jesus was a failed apocalyptic preacher who never claimed to be god

It is most probable that he claimed in some way to be divine or divinely ordained. His following depended on this assertion. He would have claimed himself to be the Son of Man or the Suffering Servent who would reunite the Jewish people as prophecised in the Tanakh.

I saw in the night visions,
and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
And to him was given dominion
and glory and a kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed.

...

Moloch is completely separate to Yahweh, learn your gods you retard

Actually, it doesn't say what exactly he did to be worshiped as a god. You obviously haven't read it

Disproving is a stupid concept

he originally had del Toro to star, with Day Lewis playing Neeson's role.

>Not independent of the Gospels

They believe in Pontius Pilate independent of teh Gospels. They believe in Herod independent of the Gospels. They believe in John the Baptist. independent of the Gospels. These people were used in a historical context within the Gospels. Nobody contradicted this history. Josephus is seen as an extrabiblical source for Jesus. Though some claim forgery it is undeniable that Romans and Jews by the end of the first century wrote and had troubles with the burgeoning Christian movement. Do you believe you can craft a such an influential person out of wholecloth like that a couple of decades after their death? Conpiracy theories are convenient.

The "Suffering Servent" is Israel, not the future messiah. No one before Christianity considered that to be a messianic prophecy. That is purely Christian apologetics.
The Son of Man is a complicated question, but The Son of Man was not considered to be a God, and its highly debatable whether Jesus claimed to be The Son of Man.

>Do you believe you can craft a such an influential person out of wholecloth like that a couple of decades after their death?
You obviously haven't read On The Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt

You haven't read what I wrote. I said it "explains how Jesus came to be considered a God" as in how Christians came to view Jesus as a God.

...

Where?

Why would early Christians die for a man they didnt believe to be divine. A roman source speaks of this when referencing the movement.

We don't even really know what happened to the Early Apostles, we have Acts which isn't showing a history

> you havent read this one book i read, therefore you obviously dont know what your talking about

ok

It's a peer-reviewed book

Now your just playing dumb. Here, from Amazon.

"The claim at the heart of the Christian faith is that Jesus of Nazareth was, and is, God. But this is not what the original disciples believed during Jesus’s lifetime—and it is not what Jesus claimed about himself. How Jesus Became God tells the story of an idea that shaped Christianity, and of the evolution of a belief that looked very different in the fourth century than it did in the first.

Ehrman reveals how an apocalyptic prophet from the backwaters of rural Galilee crucified for crimes against the state came to be thought of as equal with the one God Almighty, Creator of all things. But how did he move from being a Jewish prophet to being God? In a book that took eight years to research and write, Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection. Only when some of Jesus’s followers had visions of him after his death—alive again—did anyone come to think that he, the prophet from Galilee, had become God. And what they meant by that was not at all what people mean today."

amazon.com/How-Jesus-Became-God-Exaltation/dp/0061778184

People say that no one can prove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster and they're right, but I say no one can disprove the existence of it.

When will shitbread religious heads realize this is a retarded logical fallacy and that the burden of proof is on them, not the other way around.

So you haven't actually read the book. You can't tell me where he actually puts forth a hypothesis to how Jesus became god

But apparently we know who made up FSM therefore he's fake

They don't see the irony in this

How could you make a film about atheism? It doesn't have any really cool mythology to draw on for stories and an atheist "conversion" story would be boring as shit.

>yeah so anyway I believed a bunch of stuff and then I realized it was a load of crap and stopped believing it
>OH MY GOD 10/10 MOVIE OF THE YEAR GIVE THEM ALL THE OSCARS!

It's not gonna happen.

Sure they can.

We're talking about 17th century Japan you silly weeb. Those slant eyes were evil.

So christians werent martyred or faced persecution?

> Non-Christian historian Tacitus describes Nero extensively torturing and executing Christians after the fire of 64. Suetonius also mentions Nero punishing Christians, though he does so because they are "given to a new and mischievous superstition" and does not connect it with the fire.

They believed him to be the son of God. Roman sources write about this.

Read From Chapter 3 to Chapter 6. I'm not gonna spoon feed pages and paragraphs some underage faggot on the internet. Go let Carrier fuck you in the ass and then kys.

OP wasn't talking about movies about atheism, but movies made by atheists.

You're not allowed to criticize people's methods now? That sounds like the opposite of science.

Actually, there's questions as to whether he was talking about Chrestians. Secondly, you can't take the idea of a fire that may have destroyed Rome and say they died for their beliefs from it