Atheist movie coming out in New York and Los Angeles

[fezzyfestoon]

New atheist movie 'The Ledge' evangelizes godlessness

Not really sure what to say about this.  I think it's a case of coming on a bit too strong.  It almost lends credence to the argument that atheism is a religion.  He seems to think atheists are of a unified organization that needs more respect.  That seems reminiscent of the "homosexual agenda" many on the religious right point to.  In reality, I don't really feel much of a connection to other atheists based solely on our lack of religion.  I almost always find myself in opposition to, or at least not in support of, major efforts to promote (for lack of a better word) atheism.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This doesn't exactly sound like an "atheist movie" as in an attempt to evangelize and convert people to atheism from the summary:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The article is based more on that it has an atheist hero who is portrayed positively, which is different. Not exactly the first such movie either. Nor are any of the cast members outspoken atheists or anything like that. Just the media in search of a story.

For a real atheist movie, look to that Bill Maher documentary Religulous from 2008, which was pretty entertaining but also kind of preachy and thus hypocritical as a result.

[fezzyfestoon]

I agree, the movie's a bit of a non-issue compared to what the author of the article (and the director) wants it to be.  But it still serves as an example of what's wrong with these kinds of efforts to improve the image of atheists.  The director himself says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously one of his biggest points in making this movie is the atheist character.  When you draw that much attention to an issue, it's a horrible idea.  It's like LeBron moving to Miami.  If he had done it subtly, no one would have been paying attention and his mediocre transition would have gone much less scrutinized.  But when you make it your specific goal to promote one aspect of something, that's what people are going to look at first.  I think that's the worst possible approach to improving atheists' standings in society.

[The Mikado]

Goddamn, wasn't Religulous bad enough?  Stop it.

[Username MechaRFK]

Goddamn, wasn't Religulous bad enough?  Stop it.

No, it was amazing!

[Dr. Cynic]

It sounds more like character arc than an actual "atheist agenda".

[King]

This "athiesm" is more antitheism.  People who go around the world advocating with crap like this are no better than evangelicals.

Athiesm should be "don't waste your life thinking about God" not "waste your life trying to prove there is no God."

[opebo]

This "athiesm" is more antitheism.  People who go around the world advocating with crap like this are no better than evangelicals.

Athiesm should be "don't waste your life thinking about God" not "waste your life trying to prove there is no God."

What about trying to feed your theist opponents to lions?

[John Dibble]

This "athiesm" is more antitheism.  People who go around the world advocating with crap like this are no better than evangelicals.

Athiesm should be "don't waste your life thinking about God" not "waste your life trying to prove there is no God."

Well King, I'd love to not give a crap about God but here's the thing - there are people who believe who want to force it down everyone's throats. No, I'm not talking about someone preaching their beliefs on a street corner. That's just words and I don't tend to give a crap about just words.

The ones I'm talking about are the ones that want to teach creationism (their version, of course) in public schools, the ones who want to spend tax dollars on religious monuments, the ones who want to force others to give up their reproductive rights purely based on their religious beliefs, the ones who want to force women to wear burqas and mutilate their genitals in infancy, the ones who want to stone homosexuals to death, the ones who commit heinous acts of terrorism and tyranny in the name of their chosen deities, etc. There are a variety of problems, both great and small, that many of us atheists see religion either causing or exasperating - these are problems that occur in the world we live in, and we happen to care about the world we live in. It would be quite dumb of us to ignore what we see as a problem, don't you think?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That may be so, but how does making bad and/or patronising films help matters from your point of view? Just throwing that out there, you don't have to reply with a wall of text.

[King]

This "athiesm" is more antitheism.  People who go around the world advocating with crap like this are no better than evangelicals.

Athiesm should be "don't waste your life thinking about God" not "waste your life trying to prove there is no God."

Well King, I'd love to not give a crap about God but here's the thing - there are people who believe who want to force it down everyone's throats. No, I'm not talking about someone preaching their beliefs on a street corner. That's just words and I don't tend to give a crap about just words.

The ones I'm talking about are the ones that want to teach creationism (their version, of course) in public schools, the ones who want to spend tax dollars on religious monuments, the ones who want to force others to give up their reproductive rights purely based on their religious beliefs, the ones who want to force women to wear burqas and mutilate their genitals in infancy, the ones who want to stone homosexuals to death, the ones who commit heinous acts of terrorism and tyranny in the name of their chosen deities, etc. There are a variety of problems, both great and small, that many of us atheists see religion either causing or exasperating - these are problems that occur in the world we live in, and we happen to care about the world we live in. It would be quite dumb of us to ignore what we see as a problem, don't you think?

Yes, and you can advocate against all those horrible things politically.  There is no need for athiest evangelizing or propaganda.

All of those issues mentioned are so fractionally supported among religions and denominations that the theists themselves will defeat each other on such issues.  They are vocal, sure, but ineffective.  

Wasting stressful and frustrating energy trying to convert others to your belief system is not required.  In fact, it drives nonreligious thought into the pitfalls of religion: the us vs. them, good vs. evil mentality.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I really don't understand (or like, at all) this notion that all atheists should never try to be activists, should never complain about the lack of respect, should never try to convince others that they are wrong, and generally should just sit around being apathetic individuals that sit around to ourselves intellectually masturbating by occasionally philosophizing about all the bad that religion does but never actually try to do anything about it. That sounds like the worst thing in the world.

If some atheists are more motivated into their atheism by apathy, then that's their prerogative, but I don't need to be dragged down to that level as well.

[afleitch]

I really don't understand (or like, at all) this notion that all atheists should never try to be activists, should never complain about the lack of respect, should never try to convince others that they are wrong, and generally should just sit around being apathetic individuals that sit around to ourselves intellectually masturbating by occasionally philosophizing about all the bad that religion does but never actually try to do anything about it. That sounds like the worst thing in the world.

If some atheists are more motivated into their atheism by apathy, then that's their prerogative, but I don't need to be dragged down to that level as well.

^^^^

[Torie]

I really don't understand (or like, at all) this notion that all atheists should never try to be activists, should never complain about the lack of respect, should never try to convince others that they are wrong, and generally should just sit around being apathetic individuals that sit around to ourselves intellectually masturbating by occasionally philosophizing about all the bad that religion does but never actually try to do anything about it. That sounds like the worst thing in the world.

If some atheists are more motivated into their atheism by apathy, then that's their prerogative, but I don't need to be dragged down to that level as well.

I have always been upfront about my Godlessness, and have never got any static over it ever.  There seems to be more animus between competing sects, than between those who have a God in their lives, and those that don't, in my experience. Go figure. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That may be so, but how does making bad and/or patronising films help matters from your point of view? Just throwing that out there, you don't have to reply with a wall of text.

Shhhh! If you get people thinking that way, Michael Moore will be broke and have to go to Cuba when he needs free health care.  Cuba doesn't need its problems made worse.

[King]

I really don't understand (or like, at all) this notion that all atheists should never try to be activists, should never complain about the lack of respect, should never try to convince others that they are wrong, and generally should just sit around being apathetic individuals that sit around to ourselves intellectually masturbating by occasionally philosophizing about all the bad that religion does but never actually try to do anything about it. That sounds like the worst thing in the world.

If some atheists are more motivated into their atheism by apathy, then that's their prerogative, but I don't need to be dragged down to that level as well.

I used to share this view, until one day I found myself getting annoyed by a friend of mine telling me a family member of mine will be in her prayers.

It was at that point I realized that atheism in the Western world is still very much corrupted by Judeo-Christian thought.  In order to really let myself break free from the stranglehold, I had to let go of not only the God idea, but the system of truth vs. heresy.

I have always been upfront about my Godlessness, and have never got any static over it ever.  There seems to be more animus between competing sects, than between those who have a God in their lives, and those that don't, in my experience. Go figure. 

I've always found referring to myself as "non-practicing" gets better reception than "atheist," despite there being no fundamental difference.   Perhaps it was because I was raised in a lapsed Catholic community.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think a lot of people, including many non-religious, associate atheism with this: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HollywoodAtheist

A big factor being that's what the most well known and vocal atheists are, like Richard Dawkins. An atheist who isn't all that bitter and doesn't preach about won't be seen as a big atheist. Hence why the term is kind of tainted.

[fezzyfestoon]

If there are any others out there like me, they might be torn between feelings about religion.  My thoughts ultimately boil down to not caring or acknowledging any part of religion in my life, or wanting others to see how ridiculous it all is and actually trying to get its influence out of my life.  By actually trying to remove its influences, I effectively turn it into an important part of my life.  I don't want to do that, but what else can I do if I want it to go away?  But can I really get it out of my life?  I don't think so.  So I just ignore the parts already in my life and take religion as a given in my day-to-day.

[John Dibble]

Yes, and you can advocate against all those horrible things politically.  There is no need for athiest evangelizing or propaganda.

Utterly naive. Do you think that someone who believes he's going to get an eternal reward from the supreme being for killing his enemies gives a damn about politics? And then there's some issues like the Westboro Baptist Church that you wouldn't necessarily want to solve politically - I mean sure, we could politically repeal the First Amendment to take away their free speech, but that wouldn't be acceptable.

I say it's far better to get as many people as possible to abandon the beliefs that make their actions a problem for the rest of the world, and for that you have to get out there and make the arguments against those beliefs.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, this is utterly naive and patently false. Left unchecked many theist groups attain undue amounts of power and influence. Some rule over entire countries and put their religion into law, if you haven't noticed. Oh, sure, disagreements will erupt from time to time, but without something to check them it's not unusual for one group to overpower the others that stand in their way and keep their power for a significant time period.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't care so much about the belief "system", if you can call just not believing in a deity a system - I want them to think rationally based on evidence. Faith runs counter to that in my book, so I discourage it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You suggested solving the problems politically - did it not occur to you that politics quite obviously has the same problem since it often requires you to take sides? Any time you take sides on anything you run the risk of this mentality, but at least atheism doesn't have any kind of dogmatic requirement that we shouldn't like or associate with those who disagree with us. Religion on the other hand often does.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The people who kill others out of their religion are not going to be persuaded by the arguments of athiests.

[patrick1]

Dibble, I think you may make atheism out to be a better default position than it really is.  I just don't buy it. There are many people who are just a-holes. They will latch on to whatever belief system (doesn't have to be a theist one), use it to their advantage and make other people's lives miserable.   Basically, I don't really think that it is the idea of God that is the problem here, rather the ancillary stuff humans build around that idea.

[John Dibble]

The people who kill others out of their religion are not going to be persuaded by the arguments of athiests.

I never claimed that it would be possible to convert everyone, but you can still decrease their numbers, and thereby their effect on the world, given enough time and effort. Also, the degree of zealotry that results in the willingness to hate and even kill members of out groups tends to have a good deal to do with lack of positive exposure to those out groups - staying quiet about our views isn't going to help that.

Dibble, I think you may make atheism out to be a better default position than it really is.  I just don't buy it. There are many people who are just a-holes. They will latch on to whatever belief system (doesn't have to be a theist one), use it to their advantage and make other people's lives miserable.

The people you are referring to are called sociopaths. Their problem has nothing to do with belief systems, but is rather a problem of their innate ability to feel empathy for other human beings and so they are out for only themselves. Dealing with that problem is a different matter.

Let's be clear. Just because sociopaths exist does not mean that all people who do bad in the name of religion or some other system are like that - many are decent people who become indoctrinated into the idea that certain things we'd consider bad are actually good, be it because their deity demands it or for some other reason. They actually believe that they are doing the right thing, that they are doing some greater good. Those people can still possibly change their minds if you can convince them that they are wrong. Additionally, getting people to think rationally makes them less likely to fall for the tricks that sociopaths and tricksters use to gain control over them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't actually disagree with this point - deists who don't claim to have knowledge of what God wants from them don't tend to be unreasonable. Unfortunately, most theists are not deists.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Far more people in the last century were killed as a result of nationalism and other (usually related - in practice if not in theory) political ideologies than as a result of religious fervour. Most of the regimes and movements in question were/are avowedly secular and some were/are far more anti-religion than you. You know that, of course (you aren't an idiot), but I think it needs re-stating.

You can think whatever you like about religion and about the importance of evangelising on behalf of atheism (though a little more honesty on that point would be appreciated as you're arguing for a little more than mere lack of belief), but don't try to pretend that religious belief is the root of all evil in the world and the master key that explains all the horrors in history. Not if you want to be taken seriously by anyone who doesn't share your worldview, that is.

[John Dibble]

Far more people in the last century were killed as a result of nationalism and other (usually related - in practice if not in theory) political ideologies than as a result of religious fervour. Most of the regimes and movements in question were/are avowedly secular and some were/are far more anti-religion than you. You know that, of course (you aren't an idiot), but I think it needs re-stating.

Certainly - I don't deny that many of those regimes were secular. (though it's worth noting not all were) I would say they use some of the same types of methods that some religions used. For example many such regimes have been sustained with cults of personality around their leaders, something actual religious cults often do.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I evangelize, but what I evangelize isn't so much atheism so much as a rationalist world view. My atheism is a part of that, but not the whole of it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never made that claim, so please don't try to imply I did. In fact above I pointed out that the problem of sociopaths is not the same problem as religion, giving a clear example that I know that all evil isn't caused by religion.

Also, I won't deny that religion can get people to do good, but since that good could be accomplished by secular means I don't find the bad to be worth it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Certainly - I don't deny that many of those regimes were secular. (though it's worth noting not all were)

Is it though? For that minority of regimes (and movements; let's also avoid the trap of assuming that terrible things are only carried out by governments) that were not secular, how important was their religious nature to the political murder that they were responsible for? Generally not at all; or about as relevant as the fact that the Nazis were German Nationalists.

Now, I need to point out that I'm not bringing up the essentially secular nature of mass murder in the twentieth century as a way of bashing the nonreligious; that would be beyond absurd for several reasons (one that you are, of course, aware of; so I won't bother to lay them out). I pointed it out because I do not like this tendency to argue that conflicts about religion and between religions are somehow central to history or to religion's role in it. In any case I would tend to argue that religion is something that humans do, rather than a 'thing' that causes humans to do other things (be they good or bad).

Of course there's also the interesting issue of conflicts that are often inaccurately ascribed religious motivation; the recent low level civil war in Northern Ireland would be a particularly good example of that. Other factors were at work, but because religion had become (for a complicated set of related factors) a marker of identity in the province, it was all that outside observers noticed; in part because doing so meant that they did not have to re-examine the complex relationships between Ulster (however defined) and the wider world. Though I suppose that counts as a digression (but then so does this entire discussion, such as it is, because whatever we are writing about it is not a film that I will never see).

Thinking a little further, perhaps that odd digression gets closer to what I'm attempting to get at than any actual attempts at a coherent explanation. Whenever the question of history emerges in a debate about religion (and it tends not to take very long) it is usually in a form that is horrifically reductionist. Not only that, but it denies agency (and so, in a way, absolves any responsibility) for anyone who isn't a special little snowflake of some kind or other.