What is some essential atheist kino?
What is some essential atheist kino?
Other urls found in this thread:
strangenotions.com
twitter.com
>jewish "atheism"
well, at least not that piece of garbage
>claims to be "apatheist"
>keeps talking about his hatred of religion all the goddamn time
...
The Grey
...
Rick and Morty
maximum kek
The way the interviews were so blatantly edited pissed me off so much
>Maher makes an epic burn
>person he's talking to obviously is about to respond
>cuts off to another clip of them silent so it looks like they're just dumbfounded
...
lol
Oh I am sure they would have made epic comebacks
how can you take anything pro atheism from that?
How can you not?
this guy is the reason i realized atheism is just a bunch of assholes jerking each other off about how they're so much better than everyone else.
religion is basically the same thing, but at least churches help their communities and people's lives get changed through worship.
yeah, i didn't really care much for this film. i don't like his talk show either. he seems to have an agenda.
He's neckbeard tier. He can't shut the fuck up about how much he hates religion and how smart he is because he's atheist.
People who do that do it because they are so insecure in their POV that they feel the need to spout it constantly.
>at least churches help their communities blah blah
Cause atheists never do that, right? There are MANY secular institutions who do a whole lot more than the church; they just don't do it under the name of some ridiculous doctrine.
>help people lives get changed
Brilliantly articulated, user.
Did you forget about how religion pollutes politics by reeling people in with their nonsensical beliefs? How about breeding hatred for nonbelievers and various "sinners".
Hush, goyim.
>that guy didn't watch it all
>neckbeard
This is one of the neckbeardiest arguments that a neckbeard could make.
There are people who can't shut up about why religion is dumb, and then there are people who just call anyone a neckbeard for criticizing it -- I guess you would fit into the latter group.
Fuck atheist-flicks.
Post Protestant-kino
>Ben Stein: "Do you know why the universe exists?"
>Dawkins: "Well, no, but..."
>Stein: "HAH... CHECKMATE, MOTHERFUCKER!"
Dawkins wasn't even interviewed by Stein
They cut out the real interviewer and replaced him with Stein.
Did not know that
Stein is a gigantic fucking cunt
>gives no thought out rebuttual
>instead calls user neckbeard for comparing his hero bill maher to a neckbeard
When someone is so stupidly anti-religion, there are a lot of good opportunities for rebuttal when there isn't an editing team involved.
I have yet to hear something like that.
The Pray-the-gay-away dude looked especially lost
ITT
>expecting a well-constructed rebuttal for "duuh, he's a neckbeard, and he smug"
Unfortunately, it's necessary for people to be outspoken about irrational beliefs, so that they don't manage to seep their way into public policy again. Also, the less people that are able to be manipulated by some dickhead politician by saying he's a Christian, the better.
(you)
>protestant
lol
very skeptical agnostic who used to be an atheist here.
there are literally no examples of atheist kino because the fundamental flaws of atheism preclude the capabilities of being kino.
you might find some weak films or cinema that's striking at moments, but you will never find kino. most of what would fall here are movies that think they're films, and don't even understand the concept or existence of kino because they summarily reject and dismiss most of the potential elements.
I'm an atheist and Bill Maher makes me mad as fuck.
The only thing I really enjoyed watching, and isn't even specifically atheist (although it definitely shines through) is Aronra's Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism on youtube.
>very skeptical agnostic
lol, I bet this pussy will even ask for Christ's forgiveness on his deathbed
>How about breeding hatred for nonbelievers and various "sinners".
inshallah, the earth will be soaked with your infidel blood.
>55
I'll as for keks forgiveness
>using kino unironically
well you've convinced me
Atheists need to stop apoligizing for Maher because they're afraid of being called a fedora or some shit.
Religulous is funny AF. Is he Friedrich Nietzsche or Arthur Schopenhauer? Of course not, he's a fucking comedian, and I applaud him for having the balls to take on religious nonsense in the grand scope that he has.
Totally warped the message of the book into some retarded atheïst propaganda
still a beautiful movie though
Atheism is perhaps the biggest fiction on this planet A godless universe would actually be paradise
>it's an "agnostic" who tries to convince himself he's different from an atheist episode
>Checkmate, atheists
Kek
>Billy Wilder.
Why I didn't knew about this?.
Sure, Religulous was kinda funny but it doesn't make any point at all except 'retarded people are retarded'.
Also, there isn't any really atheist kino for the simple reason that atheism is nothing but the lack of believe in deities. That's it. You can't make a movie about someone not doing something.
Fuck that's so cool, like a real life anonymous
You can make amazing films about losing one's religion tho.
If you seriously believe in god you need to go back to the fucking middle-ages where you belong
prove that he doesn't exist you pleb
It always amazes me that there are anons who've probably had this debate hundreds of times who STILL don't understand how burden-of-proof works...
Stay dumb
Another good atheist movie.
I like Roger Ebert's take-down of the flick:
>The more you know about evolution, or simple logic, the more you are likely to be appalled by the film. No one with an ability for critical thinking could watch more than three minutes without becoming aware of its tactics. It isn't even subtle. Take its treatment of Dawkins, who throughout his interviews with Stein is honest, plain-spoken, and courteous. As Stein goes to interview him for the last time, we see a makeup artist carefully patting on rouge and dusting Dawkins' face. After he is prepared and composed, after the shine has been taken off his nose, here comes plain, down-to-earth, workaday Ben Stein. So we get the vain Dawkins with his effete makeup, talking to the ordinary Joe.
>I have done television interviews for more than 40 years. I have been on both ends of the questions. I have news for you. Everyone is made up before going on television. If they are not, they will look like death warmed over. There is not a person reading this right now who should go on camera without some kind of makeup. Even the obligatory "shocked neighbors" standing in their front yards after a murder usually have some powder brushed on by the camera person. Was Ben Stein wearing makeup? Of course he was. Did he whisper to his camera crew to roll while Dawkins was being made up? Of course he did. Otherwise, no camera operator on earth would have taped that. That incident dramatizes his approach throughout the film. If you want to study Gotcha! moments, start here.
If their arguments are so stupid and irrational, it would make them look worse to actually hear them, no?
This
Prove that he does. Burden of proof is lies with the claimant
prove you aren't sitting on a giant invisible dildo you pleb
It's not invisible
rekt
Burden of proof works both ways. When you are asserting the non-existence of something, the burden lies on you.
Ok Adam of Yourmoviesuck.org who is a furfag and enjoys zoophilia.
Expelled was the epitome of "preaching to the choir" style pandering -- the only people who would have found ANY of his arguments compelling are either people who've never dedicated much thought to the matter, or wishful "thinkers".
wow, much nihilistic s a d b o i s 2 0 0 1 who have no hope. just kys already
prove its not invisible you pleb
lol someone is mad
no it doesn't.
No it doesn't. Because then you'd have to prove that you're no sucking invisible elf dick right now. And we all know Dunmer are fucking aces at blending with the surroundings. So how does ashy cum taste like faggot?
>When you are asserting the non-existence of something, the burden lies on you.
Not if theirs no evidence of it's existences in the first place. Are you saying I should disprove the unproven?
Wrong. Do you believe anything you read/hear? Are you an agnostic regarding various mythological creatures or monsters etc. Unless you're literally retarded, you don't... you need some evidence to support it before you'd even entertain the idea of whatever it is being true -- especially if the claims are particularly extraordinary.
The burden of proof lies, and always WILL lie, on the person making the claims; if you think otherwise, then you don't know how to logic.
>lol someone is mad
Lol someone is real fucking new here. Like Adam of Yourmoviesucks.org who is a furfag and enjoys zoophilia.
>no it doesn't.
It absolutely does. This is how it works in philosophy and science.
If I want to prove a claim false, I have to falsify it. If I want to prove a claim true, I have to exhaust all possible ways of falsifying the claim. It's the same principle.
here's my proof: evil
Please take a Philosophy 101 class and educate yourself. Even non-realists of this or that have to prove their propositions. It isn't taken for granted.
You don't understand falsification.
First, the claim must be well defined before you can even begin to refute it; otherwise, we'd never advance in anything.
That's Doctor for you
Sure, you are right technically.
That is a downfall that many new atheists fall into.
The position of "God doesnt exist" is a poor one. Almost nobody truly holds this idea though.
They may say it off the cuff, but nobody is going to deny a god if he showed up and proved he was a god.
The problem is, when you have an idea that something exists purely on faith the burden of proof is on you.
Anything claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Fuck off.
>please take a Philosophy 101 class and educate yourself
Please have some common sense in what claims are actually taking place between the two parties.
>take philosophy 101
Gee, I've never seen that debate tactic before, user. Compelling argument
Also, "God" is a very weak "proposition"
American athiests have a lot to say about Jesus and 'Dumb Christians' and sometimes Moses but leave out Jews Muslims, Abraham and Muhammad.
But pic related is a very strong proposition.
Muhammad was real, are you retarded?
I do understand it. God is a metaphysical notion. It can be defined in various ways, of course, but that doesn't mean it cannot be well-defined.
Prove that everyone except you is not gods, you god fearing faggots. Yes, the gods post on this Mongolian sheep shearing forum.
That movie kicks ass
All butthurt because you found out that Santa is a jew.
>atheist kino
any kino that doesn't pertain to theism...?
strangenotions.com
Stop over-simplifying the debate. Smarter people than you have argued both sides for centuries well-aware of your juvenile objections.
Also best John Hurt performance. Literally.
>well defined
Well then define it, and then I'll tell you that you're simply using your imagination, and that there's nothing remotely transcendent about the human limitations and characteristics that you're projecting upon something that you're postulating would represent the whole of reality, in, and of itself.
fight club
I don't care what that shit has to say. No claim than is being made has to be disproved before convincing proof was presented. Fuck off
God is real.
>juvenile objections
Just because they're trite doesn't make them juvenile.
Part of the problem with definitions of God, is they're either completely nebulous or completely retarded.
>who has the burden of proof
it honestly should be "burden of justification", that is, both sides have justifications for thinking they are correct in their opinions. It should be both sides duty to discuss why they feel their justifications are valid.
I personally am not interested in my own metaphysical conception of God. I'm merely pointing out that your objection isn't logically sufficient to counter people who do make propositions about God.
Or non-retards say "I don't care if he exists, leave me alone you weird faggot" and go about their day
>his website is literally catholic
Are you this dense? I feel like I'm being trolled here.
Right, because said person wouldn't really have an opinion on the matter.
which one(s)?
>That is a downfall that many new atheists fall into.
The position of "God doesnt exist" is a poor one. Almost nobody truly holds this idea though.
This
99.9% of atheists are agnostic atheists. Very few are fedora tippy enough to claim they can "prove god doesn't exist" (too bad they're so vocal though). Especially since god is something so poorly defined and unfalsifiable. That's the problem though, believing without evidence is just illogical. Sure, god can't be disproven, but he's still unproven and illogical to believe in.
>one can be just agnostic
I'm tired of this meme
It isn't a pro-religious essay. It talks about the debate and explains how burden of proof works therein.
Trite, okay, that's a fine description too. It still isn't logically sufficient way to attack all propositions about God.