Well, now he is dead, SH knows the truth. He's probably wishing he hadn't been so arrogant and pointed to the reality of God instead of inferring that man was god. Personally, I was not impressed by his nonsensical rhetoric. :^)
@Tron But that's a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. If the creators of this movie believe themselves to be Christian, it's kind of silly to assert that they're not "true Christians". You have to meet people where they are.
@Tron No. Christianity is a belief. It's not mandated by actions. It's a belief, and beliefs have different interpretations. I could say that you're not a true Christian if you don't fast for the whole period of Lent, that doesn't make it true. When it comes to religions, if somebody believes in a certain way, they believe in a certain way, and it's not your place to say what they are and aren't.
It’s basically an attempt at turning the incredibly lame “atheist professor myth”, in which a hilariously stereotypical yet curiously inept atheist professor gets bested by a plucky Christian student, into a whole feature film. If that seems a of a bit thin and contrived premise, then, yup, it is. And it gets “fleshed out” with a greatest hits of fundamentalist evangelical canards (e.g. atheists being motivated by some form of hedonism or sinfulness, attacks on evolution, the general denunciation of college education as a sinister, atheist indoctrination plot, and various “therefore God” claims that tend to be wholly or mostly non sequiturs etc.). This includes, as the clips shows, hawking some of the popular works of fundamentalist evangelical apologetics à la Lee Strobel, which are all really aimed at preaching to the choir, i.e. reinforcing fundamentalist evangelical beliefs, rather than (as most of them claim) convincing those who do not already subscribe to them.
Imagine being a student and having to drag yourself out of bed for your 8 AM class and having it be this. Just your professor and some annoying guy arguing. Every class.
Ahhhhhh concerning the bit about the Muslim girl wearing the hijab, I have heard plenty of CHRISTIANS say that women shouldn’t wear swimsuits, shorts, and miniskirts and even decry them as “harlots” “sluts” “vixens” “temptresses” and the sort for wearing THOSE things. Now, isn’t THAT basically the SAME THING? Seems rather incongruous and hypocritical, doesn’t it?
I found it ironic that they included a scene where it shows a child being disowned, kicked out, and abused by a parent for doing something outside their religion when Christian parents have done the same to LGBT children for decades.
@Wystic I mean I know why it wasn't, I was just pointing out how ironic it is they tried to say Christianity is better than other religions by using that example when Christianity is just as guilty of doing it.
if im a father and my son is turns out to be gay/bi, as long as he doesn't turn into that "one they person that shout they literally exist for decades, and have room full of rainbow like it's their savior instead of just plain flag" then i wont disown him. it's my son and idrc if he gay as long as he doesnt turn into that one person these christian disown their kid like nothing happened as what i see
@@lost4468yt he didn't. He rejected evolution. He even used the same arguments, that creationists use, like that animals stay within their "kinds" or that the "all powerful creator" made everything and so on. Hitler only used the word evolution as Progress, like when he talked about the evolution of technology. He didn't believe in evolution.
@@BluePhoenix_ In fact, I recall books on evolutionary theory being on the list of things the Nazis called for burning. Don’t remember where I read it from so take it with a grain of salt.
I always found that one scene where the Muslim girl is told she is pretty and shouldn't have to wear her hijab cringe inducing. (For reference, I grew up Pentecostal and saw this movie with my youth group.) A lot of Christian denominations advocate purity culture and tell women in the church that they have to dress modestly so as to not tempt men, to avoid falling victim to "worldly desires", to earn God's favor, etc. Demonizing Islamic women for dressing modestly because of their faith is hypocritical.
the funniest part is its talking about social Darwinism, something that has literally 0 to do with darwin but another dude, who was already saying his shit before darwin anyway, so its technically older than evolution (and ofc the idea itself is as old as humans, i mean just think of royals or slavery)
Can we please point out how insensitive the main character (spensor) is when the professor says, "God took everything away from me" spensor doesn't address it, he doesn't comfort him, he just continues to push forward the narrative that the professor is an inhumane person with no emotions...
Yeah but there are a lot of religious therapy’s were the therapists instead of actually addressing the situation or the mental issues a patient is having they accuse them of sinning or saying it was all of gods will
"Muslim girl who, throughout the film, finds Jesus" So... they basically ignore the fact that muslims not only believe in Jesus, but also hold him in extremely high regard, being one of the greater prophets. The only real difference between muslims and christians in this regard is that we muslims don't believe Jesus to be 'son of God', but a prophet.
@@DuelistKoi93Christians must believe that Jesus is the son of God and he was crucified and his teachings and so on ..... which Muslims don't believe and for that to happen you must find him first through faith. So that Muslim girl who must find Jesus seems completely understandable. It's like the chahada but for Christians.
Most well-behaved class ever. In my grade, at least one person would've yelled out some snarky, anti-religious thing and trashed josh. As an atheist, kind of hard to believe that every single person there was a christian.
if my professor told me his 12 year-old trauma was the reason his entire education style is the way it is and the reason for his weird vendetta against my personal life, i would immediately call the dean and beg for a refund on that class
Lol I would've just reported him on the first lesson for how the class was conducted in relation to the given syllabus and the whole idea of an actual philosophy class.
The portrayal of Aisha is so laughable. Do Christians think...muslim girls don't care about their looks? That no one ever tells them they're beautiful? That moment where the white girl complimented her was so weird for me. Not to mention that it makes literally 0 sense that Aisha would be covering her face, even though she's wearing a short sleeved shirt and jeans. Like....I can't explain to people of non-muslim backgrounds how baffling of a mistake that is. That would be like an Indian movie portraying an American family wearing neon green spandex to church with no explanation.
Wren K I know! I’m just a white dude but if her dad’s really that traditional then why the hell is she wearing that outfit? Surely that’s a bit more revealing than not wearing a hijab would be.
Right?!?! White girl says “You’re beautiful” “OMG?!?!? How fortunate am I to have this wonderful white girl tell me I’m pretty! My life has been completed!”
Movie, you need to talk to more Muslim people. Or at least look at them. I live near a mosque, and my observations are that hijabs go AROUND the face and short sleeves aren't a thing. I think they're amazing, considering they wear jeans and long sleeves even in the summer and I live in a desert....
U can try explaining it to me, a person of non-muslim background. I think i will understand it fine. In fact i do understand it, but just don't have same emotional background do get outraged at this inconsistency.
One of my favorite interactions was when a professor of mine briefly discussed evolution and a freshman Christian student tried to pull a "gods not dead" and debate him, going so far as to ask the professor why he hated god (like in the movie but more ham fisted). Little did the student know that the Professor was also a pastor at a nearby baptist church who just so happened to have a Ph.D in Biology and was just making extra money as an adjunct lecturer. Professor shot Bible verses like a cowboy shoots bullets.
o... A healthy mix of faith and reason Rearly seen But great every time (im hardcore atheist, but i do like this kind of people - who dont mix reality with faith)
I went to a semi-private christian school purely because it was the closest to home, so we had a weekly class about religion (spoiler: we only talked about christianity), and our teacher, a father who tried to teach us about the immorality of lgbt+ people, suicide, and abortion, put us this film. So you can imagine a whole class of 15 year olds either sleeping or laughting for an entire hour while he keeps telling us to shut up. Even the christian ones were. It's such a ridiculous movie.
I also went to a catholic school because it was close to home and my parents didn’t speak Italian, so they never knew it was a catholic school. So for like 10 years they all thought that all schools in Italy taught Christianity in school. So I was basically the only atheist in my whole class room but I had a lot of fun there. In Italy when you go to primary school and do religious class they prepare you for 2 of the 7 sacraments(penance and confirmation). Which usually means reading some bible passages and knowing the true meaning of Easter and Christmas. They also had a lot of extracurricular activities like going to church, but usually as children we just played after mass. In middle school they prepare you for the holy communion, you don’t need to do it, but if you do it with them you only need to attend 1 year of classes instead of 3 and you can get married in the church. All my classmates did it because they wanted to get a Christian marriage in the future. In high school they basically say fuck you, after the holy communion in the eyes of the church you are an adult that can get married so do anything you want, just remember to never use 2 condoms at once because the friction may break both of them.😂😂😂 During high school we also dropped the pg rating and our religion teacher finally could tell us how Christians were brutally murdered by Romans and showing us different types of executions and famous paintings about them, it was truly a eye opening experience, especially after he told us how powerful the church was during the Middle Ages and how they treated heretics.
I love how this professor teaches _philosophy,_ the class where most people learn to reason and build a well-structured argument, and he supposedly hates God, and he could utterly dismantle literally every one of the kid's main arguments using stuff he probably teaches in his 101 class, but he just... Doesn't. He stalks around the room with his face contorting into a bunch of different stupid expressions like "man, this kid is just absolutely _destroying_ me."
also an philosophy proffersor is smart enough to know that belief isnt built on hatred or dislike, as well, which is his whole thing and the reason why he doesnt believe in god, just because he hates him, that only just shows that he recognises there is a God which is not what an aethiest is at all.
Minty Hippo, I don't think you can further prove a theory such "self- designing" universe? Utterly ridiculous hypothesis. Atheists still can't come up with anything better than: out of nothing came everything. And then they resort to snide and acrimonious remarks as far as the believers' cognitive functions are concerned. Oh, and they will throw scientific terminology in the mix, serving it with sarcastic humorous attacks. Well, if that doesn't prove their point , I don't know what will....right? P.S.: but even if we forget that 0+0 or 0×0 is still 0; let's say that out the blue we had bacteria formed ...how in the world it could evolve into , say, a horse? And a bull???? Irreducibly complexity is at stake...and you say we, believers, are gullible. I'd assume that everyone else here is familiar with C14 theory as it relates to the age of our universe
@@csmoviles So... you just misrepresented the argument, did a hasty generalization, built a strawman, and an ad hominem in the process? The supposed atheists you conjured are nowhere to be seen, leaving you the only one making the " snide and acrimonious remarks" Also, C14 dating doesn't really work with masses older than 20k years-old. And fantastic non sequitur, too. If you're really confused about evolution as a concept, I would recommend any biology class
I actually took philosophy classes in college taught by atheist professors. None were interested in dechristianizing anyone - on the contrary they often defended historical Christian philosophers like Descartes and Leibniz from atheists students who didn't understand those philosophers positions well enough.
My sister went to a Christian high school and they had her watch this movie in her Theology class. Now it's a running joke where if one of us is a jerk to the other, we'll say 'You're acting like an Atheist from God's Not Dead.'
I saw this movie in middle school, since I went to a private Christian middle school, and I bet no one there even remembers it. All I remember is making a funny Vanoss reference when the "Le epic atheist gets pwned" moment happens
Here in Oklahoma the church is a lot of things. The community it's created has a lot of political power and very restrained well thought out marketing tools and content. A book none of the Christians have read is Tolstoy Anarchist Christian manifesto The Kingdom of God is Within Us which is highly subversive of Evangelical Politics that tells me the Leadership is politically oriented and not Jesus oriented.
@Voice of Reason even if we agree that a clump of cells is a human from day one. That human being has no right to violate the body autonomy of another person against its will same as you cant draw blood from prisoners against their will or remove organs from a dead person against their will
@Under Bridge ugff please tell me about the corelation between ethnicity and cognitive ability since theres no research that has made the claim of a corelation let alone causal link
The character in the movie who’s family was Muslim and she was a “closeted Christian” I guess. When her family found out and disowned her she had nothing and turned to other Christians for support. While I was watching that play out, I couldn’t help but see the irony when something like that happens to an lgbtq child in a strictly religious family, especially Christianity. It was a bit hipocritic in a since that they preach to believing in your religion regardless of what everyone else thinks. Yet there are still religious people out there who completely disown others who do something against the religion even if it’s something they can’t control. I just thought that was a bit interesting.
@@quasar7951 Far was I know they are. The most complains about the Hijab are in Iran and other countrys when it is compulsory and even non-muslim women have to use it.
Dude really asked his prof. Why he hated God. Bruh I dont believe in Santa but I dont hate Santa tf Edit: Not trying to make a dumb edit but I wanted to say that now I'm a Buddhist, and I have more respect for Christians than I did 4 years ago. Religion is actually pretty sick. 👍
I love it when Christians call atheists “devil worshippers”. I can’t love or hate or worship anything I don’t believe in. And if I don’t believe in God, what about that statement makes you think I believe any more in Satan?
Many Christians believe that atheists are just telling themselves god doesn't exist because they're mad at him. It's dumb as hell, but it's a super common belief
@@maia_gaia ikr. Bruh. I cant even tell my parents I'm athiest because they'll take me to church to "cleanse" me. AGAIN. I pretended that I wasn't athiest anymore after that, and we haven't gone to church since. Thank god lol. XD
Yelling "why do you hate god?!" over and over would lose literally any debate in real life, your opponent could pull down his trousers and play wipe out on his buttcheeks and he'd still be more credible
Meanwhile when my philosophy class talked about religion the professor was respectful and neutral towards all religions. There were Muslims and Christians in the class who were allowed to speak to their own experiences without preaching or trying to prove their beliefs are more valid than anyone else's. It was a surprisingly non-toxic environment and a good learning experience. Christians spend so much time hating and vilifying the Islamic religion without even realizing how much they have in common. Like... it takes a special brand of tone deaf for Christians to make this movie portraying a Muslim family as controlling and intolerant of different beliefs. Look in a mirror lately?
@@KingdomStoryFilms don’t get it twisted, the goal of this film was never to convert people. It was only to make Christians feel good about themselves for an hour and a half.
@@nathanielyee9203 humans can understand emotions and will figure out what is right and wrong bacause they care about each other. You don't need to be part of a religion to be a good person. Point is, you shouldn't need religion to be a good person, and if you do, you're not a good person.
When Nietzsche stated "God is dead" he didn't mean "God does not exist, he is 'dead'" because that would be a meaningless statement for an atheist to make. What he actually meant was "Human beings have progressed past the NEED for an external figure of worship, when we can find self-actualisation within" which is a much more interesting and nuanced argument than perma-offended, pearl-clutching evangelicals like to give him credit for. Whether or not you agree with his point, it's far, far more complex than "Duhhh God's not real 'cause I say so."
My favorite response that misses the point of Nietzsche is the pithy response I read on the back of an apologetics book: "God is dead" - Nietzsche "Nietzsche is dead" - God Just... Wow, so petty.
@@LeRoyBoxley434 Hardly. The actual book wasn't anything more substantial than your usual apologetics fare. It didn't have anything new to bring to the table than the standard stuff. Not a creationist or fundamentalist work, in fairness, but being above the level of someone like Ken Hamm or Kent Hovind isn't something to aspire to.
To be fair, 'God is dead' is a metaphor from a pretty famous Nietzsche quote. Considering the Prof. teaches philosophy, I'm fairly sure having him swear by it is intentional
I believe in a beginning scene, the professor does point this out, saying "God is dead" is a false statement, as God never existed. When he was requiring them all to write it over and over again, starting the whole plot because the main character didn't. Fun fact, he gave bonus points for someone who wrote"god is dead" instead, using a lowercase for God
I absolutely love the Strawman "Atheists" in movies like this, their dialogue is always hilarious. There are always certain key words and phrases that Christian writers are irresistibly compelled to stick in non-believers' mouths, like "Atheistic" and "Worldview." Not to mention the fact that they all seemingly think Charles Darwin is the First Atheist Pope (TM), that lost souls devoutly adore like some 19th century apostle.
Michael Gipson The Darwin thing is kind of telling really. They blindly follow and trust in the word of some people from long ago, so they assume atheists do too. It’s projection.
@@Contributron I agree, but I still try to be humorous. It helped us survive as a species for quite a while, and poking a little fun is rather amusing.
I'd probably find it funnier if characters like these didn't make people assume atheists are all traumatized liars who are undergoing an existential adolescent rebellion. But maybe it's just too personal for me to properly mock.
@AIFAHRA HORGGHRO Um...no? First off, if it was, they would be portraying the relatable Christians as teen-like, not the atheists. Second...look, I've seen a lot of these traumatized-liar "Hollywood Atheists," and both they and their not-atheist-but-not-True-Believer counterparts are diverse in presentation. The most straightforward interpretation is that a significant proportion of authors genuinely think atheists are like that. Which is also what plenty of fundies literally say out loud.
I became an atheist at the age of 9. Mom sent me to my room because I was naughty. I prayed to God to turn me into Godzilla so I could stomp around town and feel better. God didn't do that. Therefore, there is no God. And that makes more sense than God's Not Dead.
@@motnurky7055 and cirklejerking is easy cause theres an online community for everything and everyone, and you might even 'win' a debate against a real person if enough people updoot your sicc burns
To be fair, there are truckloads of atheists that tend to attack Christians for no reason. For some reason they like it more than attacking islam and Judaism
@@gem6105 Christianity is more attacked by Atheism from Europe or America than other religions because they know it better. I know a lot of christians, some muslims and probably no jews (as far as I know).
I love how they portray this atheist professor as a villain that seeks to destroy Christianity. Which is how most Christians view atheist in the real world
Captainpep No not really, their is no large movement to destroy Christianity, maybe there a few people who actively seek to destroy religion. That’s not a majority, what’s really happening is more people are questioning the Bible and Christians who identify themselves very closely take this as an attack. Christians aren’t being persecuted, at least in the western world.
Swolsuke the way I see it, it feels that the modern world itself is trying to push Christianity away from everything and that if you are a Christian then you’re a homophobe, sexist, etc
The problem with "bad things happen because of free will" is that it presupposes that all suffering is a result of human actions, which is blatantly untrue
Yeah, that's not true at all. Bad things can happen because of free will, but that's because free will inherently grants us the ability to do anything good or bad. Not all bad things happen because of free will. For example, you're capable of murdering someone because of free will, but a hurricane killing someone isn't caused by free will.😊
@@nickchambers3935 speaking as a Christian, I view it as God granting us free will. As for why He did that, I think it's because love is a choice, and therefore God wanted us to be able to make choices. However, the granting of free will also granted us a capacity for malice, and therefore evil.
Girl to other girl with Hijab: I wish you didn’t have to wear that. Girl with Hijab: I wish you didn’t have to wear that stupid headband Karen but here we are.
The funniest moment for me in this movie is when the Chinese student was talking to his parent. He's speaking in Cantonese while the father is speaking Mandarin. It's like you're speaking English and your son's speaking Italian.🤣
I actually do this sometimes with my parents. My mom speaks mandarin while my dad speaks cantonese, so sometimes I start talking to one of them and forget to switch, which results in me speaking one language and them speaking another, though I usually switch after a sentence or two.
@@loganstrawn6366 even if nothing matters in the end what you do still affects people's lives. Emotions, ideas and thoughts are real wether the univerde ends or not
@@thehuman2cs715 to the movies point I never said emotions aren’t real but, if you can rob a bank or swear a person off without giving a hoot. As Christians we live for Christ and the Bible lays out a set of “rules” so we show others we are different. I can’t understand an atheistic perspective because I have been all in since I was born but, I know for a fact that you wouldn’t be able to understand where I am coming from until you read or hear the scriptures.
And ironically, they don’t have empathy for those that aren’t “chosen” or different in some way, be it sexual orientation or identity, race or especially class. American Christians fucking hate the poor 😭
Some even include love, hope, or even intellect. It pisses me off because their misunderstanding of nonbelievers can be so great, that we might as well not have a debate at all at that point.
I feel like the movie uses Christianity as a baseline, and as something everyone is born as. All the Christian characters are normal people, the atheists want to be Christian and are just atheist for some reason that broke their Christianity, and the Muslim chick wants to be Christian but her dad is forcing her to go against her instincts. By putting Christianity in characters in a natural, inborn way, the movie subliminally tells its audience that god is everywhere and you would only refuse him, i.e. the inborn truth, if you had something happen to you that makes you wrong.
Let's be honest, that was not a stylistic chouce. It happend purely because the creators of the movie are to stupid to see the world any other way. This movie reminds me a lot of bad harem animes where everyone likes the edgy main character for no apparent reason.
This is literally how a lot of them think; they use having a conscience as justification for innately believing in God and that version of morality, and if you don't agree you must be doing bad things to get rid of that inner feeling. I completely agree that this movie uses Christianity as a baseline. In my experience (aka my dad forcing me to watch this movie and its sequel) the goal is more to radicalize a Christian audience than it is to actually prove anything about the validity of the religion, which is why Christianity is undefined except in regards to other factors.
I was dying when the professor is dying at the end and no one decides to help him but instead the students tell him to accept Jesus before he goes and that it's not to late 😂
That's seriously how it ends?? They want to depict Christians as good people but end the movie with weird cult bs? Sounds like some Children of the Corn shit 😂
@@nightlizard8595 it ends that way to show that it's never too late to accept Jesus into your heart. I've been changed by the Lord's grace and I can tell you first hand that he's helped me get over a life of depression and drugs. God was there when no one else was. All you have to do is truly look for him and he will reveal himself to you.
Movie: "her dad hits her and disowns her when he finds out she's christian" Me: *looks at the homeless rates of LGBT+ people, who are often kicked out of their homes by their christian parents* ..... u m Movie: "Her dad forces her to wear a hijab for their god" Me: .... *looks at apostolics and women forced into modesty/purity culture by their churches and religious schools* U M - - -
I understand the point that you're trying to make but religions aren't monoliths. Not all Muslims are intolerant of other religions or deny women rights. But at the same time not all Christians are intolerant of the gay community or force purity culture on their daughters. Try to be aware that individuals and smaller communities exist within religions that believe different things and just because someone's Christian doesn't mean they're somehow responsible for a subset of their community that is intolerant.
@@harrygarris6921 I am aware. Because I'm a Christian myself lol. Just because not everyone in a group is a certain way doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge those issues. If we as Christians want to make a change, we have to be self aware and talk about these things.
@@sophisticatedPJs I wasn't aware that you were criticizing the church from within, my bad. I do agree with you that is an important thing to do to some extent.
... As an atheist im sooo glad to see actual beliver beeing critical of the church organization, and practices soo good on you my friend You are one of the *sane* belivers
@@missoreofreak Please seek out a refund on anything you have spent on education and formally apologize to your teachers. I literally cannot piece together what you are saying from that disgrace to the English language you call a sentence.
When I saw that this movie was criticizing Islam for being oppressive and unwilling to let their followers indulge in free will, I was reminded of that Spiderman meme with the two identical Spidermen pointing at each other in accusation.
*Nabzarella Dare* I had a whole comment typed out but it didn't send so i'll just link you this and you can draw your own conclusions en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy#/media/File:Map_of_countries_with_death_penalty_for_atheists.svg
What about that scene specifically made you cringe? I am a Christian, but I really am asking out of curiosity; I'm not trying to prove a point or anything.
"Without God, why should we even have morality?" is such a shallow, frankly disturbing argument. I mean... 1. Because most of us have empathy 2. Because acting amorally often causes needless suffering...which is, y'know, a bad thing 3. Because a lack of morals would be socially maladaptive, as society can't function without a moral code There are plenty of reasons to develop/promote morality. Tbh, "because God says so" isn't even much of an explanation at all, given its lack of universality -- not all societies are religious, and yet all societies have some sense of morality. To imply otherwise is just...grossly ethnocentric and self-righteous. It's also rhetorically irrelevant, since the question is not "why are MY morals superior?" but rather "why do ANY morals even exist?" This answer is like saying "marriage exists because I love my wife."
"Without God, why should we even have morality?" Every time I hear that line, or see it, I could only imagine a shallow and empty person. Sitting in their room, not doing anything, and still needed someone to "teach" them how to be kind, rather than having empathy themselves. It's like you still needed someone to tell you to do something, rather than doing them yourself and learn from it.
Most of our morality is cultural, not biological which is where our empathy comes from. Similar to christians we teach our kids rules of how they should behave in the society and if they don't behave properly they will be punished, christianity is just older observations and ideas about the world.
Your argument is even more shallow. 1. If most of you have empathy, shouldn't the crime among all humans in general be less than among religious people? And by basic math, it's impossible, because religious people is included among people, and therefore they also have empathy, yet their crime is significantly less? And of course, that argument alone destroy all 3 of your counter argument. Empathy doesn't work, if by default, people have perfect empathy by themselves, there wouldn't be any crime. The point is that people do not have those, the tests have been done, and you have failed. Society have proven that they're incapable of figuring things out by themselves without something telling them what to do, so the benefits of religion is undeniable. Religion is just like common teachings, moral sense is a religion, or both "moral sense" and "ethics" are just ideas that people follow, however, by having such absolute values embedded within them, religion is much more effective in guiding incompetent people. And if you think that incompetent people are not an overwhelming part of the society, look again.
@@markarmage3776 No it wouldn't, it depends on what culture you happen to live in. We have learned to feel empathy towards random people through our culture. There are tribes that are cannibals and they don't have the same view on life as we westerners, I think that if you're religious or not has little effect on you compared what culture you are from, and I think religion has built on our culture alot considering that christianity has existed in it for 1000 years. I also believe that there are more people than psychopaths that commit crimes, so I don't believe that people with empathy commits a crime. I also don't think most people in our society is incompetent. Our technological and philosophical development has moved so far that we think of ourselves above animals. I don't know what you misunderstood in my argument. I don't consider religious people to be perfect, I never argued for everyone to be perfectly empathic. My argument was simply that culture has played a larger role than empathy in our moral system. That's why we don't eat humans like other cultures. We also don't attack other small tribes of humans like chimpanzees do to each other.
@@markarmage3776 What? What the fuck are you even saying? "If most of you have empathy, shouldn't the crime among all humans in general be less than among religious people? And by basic math, it's impossible, because religious people is included among people, and therefore they also have empathy, yet their crime is significantly less?" Who are you referring to with you in 'most of you'? Atheists? People of non-Christian faith? "shouldn't the crime among all humans in general be less than among religious people" No???? Why would this be true??? Your assertion is that humans in general should be committing less crimes than people of faith, due to empathy? Religious people have empathy too???? Both groups have empathy??? What the fuck? "And by basic math, it's impossible, because religious people is included among people" Do *YOU* know basic math??????? This assertion that the crime rate of religious people can't be mathematically lower than whatever you define as 'people' in "among people", is stupid.(You should have backed it up with something, cause by itself it's plain stupid) You're not being specific enough here for me to make any decent criticisms. But I suspect you're talking about averages of crime rates between two sample sizes, one defined as religious people and the other defined as everyone, and I suspect you're trying to say that the smaller sample size of religious people can't have a higher crime than everyone, because that's how you think math works. "and therefore they also have empathy, yet their crime is significantly less?" Uhm, the fuck? What are you basing your claim of 'religious people's crime rate is less'? You got reliable numbers? Statistics? Sources?? And yeah? Religious people do have empathy?? Who's saying they don't??? You?? "And of course, that argument alone destroy all 3 of your counter argument" Do you even understand what your argument is? "Empathy doesn't work, if by default, people have perfect empathy by themselves, there wouldn't be any crime." *what.* "The point is that people do not have those, the tests have been done, and you have failed." WHAT????? What fucking tests? "Society have proven that they're incapable of figuring things out by themselves without something telling them what to do, so the benefits of religion is undeniable." Sources?????? Also, I suspect you're trying to say that no major civilization has been without religion and therefore religion is a necessary part of society, which is flawed reasoning. It's like saying crime and violence has been a part of all major civilizations and thus is a necessary part of society, and thus we should make "The Purge" by James Demonaco into reality. Or maybe a closer parallel would be stories. No major civilization has been without stories, and thus stories are necessary to society. Pretty sure societies wouldn't just go extinct without stories. "Religion is just like common teachings, moral sense is a religion, or both "moral sense" and "ethics" are just ideas that people follow, however, by having such absolute values embedded within them, religion is much more effective in guiding incompetent people." I suspect your meaning is something like 'religion helps guide people to be good' but its phrased so poorly (as is most of what you said is) that I'm really not sure. But I don't think anyone in this comment thread is arguing against this? Again, what the *fuck* are you saying?
The fact that this movie features a University Philosophy professor having no retort to "God is the only source of objective morality" is quite staggering
If someone steals from you. You don't have something anymore that was precious to you. This alone is enough to tell you that stealing isn't a good thing and you shouldn't do it to other people to make them feel as badly as you do. You don't need an imaginary man sitting on a cloud to tell you not to
@@riffgroove I don't think this movie is intended for people who can make logical connections that far. I think its more for the "Its bad cause I said so" intellectuals of the christian community.
@@riffgroove The issue is about finding an *objective* basis for morality - one that can judge wrong actions to be wrong regardless of who's doing the judging. If you base morality on emotions (i.e. "feeling bad"), then it's not objective. You can't tell whether someone is feeling bad or just faking it, and you can't always predict when someone is going to feel bad. Not to mention it allows a lot of concerning edge cases (if I steal from a comatose person who can't feel emotion, did I do anything wrong? Or worse yet, if I murder someone, then they can't feel emotions anymore cause they're dead, so is murder wrong?).
@hoodiesticks I stand by my original statement. If you steal from someone, it doesn't take a rocket-scientist to determine they most likely won't be happy about it.
Seriously, the professors character comes across as though some teenager who was homeschooled by fundamentalists was trying to imagine what a “Godless intellectual” is like, without actually having been to college.
When the protagonist presented these arguments for the existence of God I just kept imagining Dawkins' reaction to this. He would snort himself into oblivion and then rant about all the logical fallacies that he spotted. Plus scientific and biblical inconsistencies. He would probably be done in a week.
Ikr--the class isn't even a serious philosophy class, and the professor would probably be fired or suspended on ethical grounds for his antics in real life.
“ We would never have our women wear face scarves that is demeaning and against women’s rights “ Heads on home “ Sara why you wearing such short shorts, I don’t care it’s 100 outside God doesn’t want you dressing like a common hussie, while you live in my house you will live under my rules! “
Nkozi Cole they also forget that many Muslim women choose to wear a hijab and it isn’t forced on them, but that would require a degree of truth which they simply can’t live with
I love how the girl who is " forced to wear a hijab" by her dad is still showing her arms. I get many hijabis might want to show their arms, but this movie is trying to paint muslim fathers as controlling people who force their daughters to conform to islam, and they couldn't even get that right. Not to mention the hijab is more like a hybrid between a shayla and a niqab. It's so inaccurate it's funny.
I'm just now noticing that the Muslim girl's father is not only a "bad Muslim" but also the most ethnic looking Middle Eastern guy ever. His daughter meanwhile is one shade away from a white person. Rather creepy visual shorthand.
Yeah I noticed this too, they really managed to find the most propaganda political comic character looking guy to represent a Middle Eastern man, who is generally portrayed as evil in propaganda, and he's evil in this movie. Yikes
Could you imagine being a regular college student in this class and absolutely hating this kid and the professor? 😂 imagine the reviews you would find on the internet lmao. I would send an email to my dean or advisor like “hey can you please deal with this shit so I can actually get the education that I’m paying out the ass for?”
I was just imagining the rate my professor review a average student would have "Yeah the class was generally okay but the professor got in a semester long argument with a student on the existence of God. This isn't even a class dealing with religion and they wasted like 5 class sessions on it. Overall I would not recommend."
As an atheist, my goal isn’t to destroy Christianity. I want to destroy bigotry. While Christianity has been used as a tool to perpetuate that, there are also actually good Christians (like Brenda from God Is Grey), who don’t use it as a weapon. My goal is to have conversations so hopefully whatever you believe out there, can coexist with basic human rights. Do what you want, but cause no harm.
I consider myself a true Christian and the bigotry that many evangelicals show genuinely pisses me off. It’s like they didn’t even read the fucking Bible, where Jesus, the guy they say they worship, literally commands us to love and respect everyone. It’s absurd and I have to apologize for these people more than I should have to.
As a religious person myself, I'm so freaking happy that this movie made atheists AND theists mad. This movie sucks and I hate everything it stands for
@@boombox3819 No, this is demonizing any non-religious AND any religious that isn't Christian, when in reality, I (along with my faith, the Church of Jesus Christ) believe that there's still some value to be found from lots of different religions, Christian or not. And that there's some great people out there who happen to be atheist/agnostic, if they didn't get the choice/chance to be religious or they were never introduced to it in a positive light, why should I blame them? This movie treats Christianity as much more cult-like than it needs to be. It's also conservative which is big cringe
@@boombox3819 It's taking something I support and twisting it into an incredibly self-righteous manner that's used dishonestly to push a conservative agenda; I'm not a fan of that.
Why would an Atheist argue that god is dead when, to an atheist, god never existed and therefore is incapable of dying? The Nietzsche quote I always took to mean that religion has outlived its usefulness. So to disprove that “god is dead” he would instead need to argue that religion is useful and humanity can benefit from religion, which makes more sense than trying to do the impossible task of proving an unknowable force’s existence and feel proud of the good that faith has in people’s lives rather than demonize people who don’t share their beliefs. But hey 🤷🏻♀️that would take actual nuance, and that’s not as easy to write.
Which proves that Pureflix doesn't know what the fuck it's talking about. That Nietzsche quote is super easy to interpret (fuck, I never studied philosophy and I can do it) and only a really close minded person would take it literally
Plus it would require actually knowing literally anything about philosophy. Evangelicals hate philosophy - which I find funny because most of the apologists they look up to actually studied philosophy (see William Lane Craig for a perfect example). Philosophy is all about questioning things and that's something evangelicals can't stand - they want firm answers and to not have to worry about whether or not they're right.
When he said “God is dead,” he was talking about God being dead to humanity and that humans killed him and that it was not a good thing. He was talking about how millions of lives would be lost in the 20th century due to the loss of God in society, and what did we get?
@BohemianScandalous I think you've summarized my entire perspective on this issue. I'm an agnostic atheist and I think religion, even theistic religions, can be very useful! I just don't believe they're objectively correct. As to the God issue, I take the Zen Buddhist stance. I don't know for 100% fact if God's real, I can't know for 100% fact if God's real, no one can know for 100% fact if God's real, so I divert my attention elsewhere and worry about more terrestrial matters while still being as compassionate, humble, and conservation-minded as I can; not because some deity via a dusty book tells me to be those things but because I can deduce that maintaining those three qualities will afford me and those with whom I interact the most optimal life in terms of overall well-being.
15:20 That's not how Islamic modesty code works. I'm not speaking ethically, just from factual perspective. No pious Muslim father is going to force his daughter to cover her hair and face while allowing her to wear jeans and short-sleeved blouses. It starts with form-concealing clothing for the arms, legs, and chest. Some people stop there. I have friends and peers who are pretty religious and dress like that without veiling. Then if someone decides that's not modest enough, they had the headscarf. From there, you go for a chador (a cloak that covers the hair, shoulders, and chest, and maybe the lower body too). And finally, there's the face-concealing niqab (the one that covers the whole body and leaves only a slit for the eyes). The movie instead has her cut out the highest level modest garment, stick it on her face, and leave everything else like a Christian/non-hijabi Muslim girl. If this seems besides the point, I just wrote it because it supports your point that the movie uses Islam as a prop with no actual attention or curiosity in how Muslims actually live.
While I agree with your larger point about Islam as a prop, I do want to correct your assertion that "No pious Muslim father is going to force his daughter to cover her hair and face while allowing her to wear jeans and short-sleeved blouses." When I was in college, I saw this ALL the time. At least 50 girls I passed in the hallway were sporting that garb. I was even good friends with a girl that wore tight jeans/blouses and covered her hair. She told me that her dad would have been very angry/disappointed if she didn't cover, but when she stopped he never beat her, it just kinda strained their relationship. I also go to a YMCA in a heavily populated muslim area so I see little girls wearing basically normal american style clothes and head scarfs.
Joe- I mean, Muslim or not, they're girls in college. About the same time the Christian girls realize that "not causing a brother to stumble" doesn't necessarily mean bulky sweaters 24/7, I'm sure many Muslim girls figure out that no one is calling them a slut because they can see her elbows.
I'm pretty sure it varies between countries. When France was trying to "free" Algerians from their religion many used only face-concealing. Partially because it could be quickly hidden from the police, but it retained the intended religious value. You can see pictures of women in jeans with the chador or niqab in pictures from Iran during the 70's too.
Joe Kanter i think the point isnt that muslim girls dont wear jeans, but that a strict muslim father who forces her to wear hijab would definitely object to it. Why force her to wear the headscarf, then be fine with her wearing short sleeves and skinny jeans?
The thing with Iran thought is that before the US put a dictator in charge and fucked up the country, they were considered one of the most liberal states in the middle east, so having jeans on in the 70s wasn't really a big issue for them. They were on the path of becoming a 1st world nation before we screwed everything up.
Apparently, the main protagonist was the real life boyfriend of Bridget Midler of “Good Luck, Charlie.” He also played the role of the boyfriend in that show as well.
Even as a kid being raised christian I thought it was weird how this movie either villainized or converted all the non-christian characters. I had to uncomfortably sit through this movie so many times when I was younger.
I used to think this movie was so good. But I was also a terrible person 😕. I'm glad I can look back and notice how bad and unhappy I was (I'm not atheist now. I'm agnostic)
@@occisorminotauri their point wasn't that being "godless" made them a better person? It was that as they grew up they assessed their views and are now happier as a person?
In his first argument, he also got the science completely wrong. The big bang was not an explosion of light. The big bang was not an explosion of... anything. Because the big bang was not an explosion. There was not an outward release of energy but, instead, a rapid expansion of the very spacetime "fabric" of the universe that the energy was already inhabiting. Even if you want to call it "functionally" an explosion - the next thing gotten wrong is that the big bang started about 370,000 years *before* photons had enough of a free path for the universe to become "transparent" and light (as we see it) could happen. Before then it was all super-dense plasma that couldn't emit any light because there were too many free charged particles everywhere scattering the photons. Finally, no physicist believes that the universe was created out of nothing when the big bang happened. In fact, for the big bang to even happen, the energy of the universe had to have *already been there* in a singularity. As for where *that* energy came from... gotta go with a big ol' "?" because we have no way of learning anything about any events before just after the big bang started. That energy could be eternal or created or something else we can't even imagine yet.
Oh, it gets even worse than that... I am surprised that Joel didn't hone in on it, but regardless, his relation of the Big Bang Theory is so easily attacked from a learned Atheist's point of view AND an indication of how the kind of Christians behind this couldn't even throw a Catholic a bone; the Belgian cosmologist he referenced, Georges Lemaître, who started the whole BBT a'rolling, was a Catholic priest, so it's hardly revelatory that he believed it representative of God's existence.
Stellar Aevum well i knew the white girl was white but i have no idea what race the muslim girl is idk its the easiest way to identify them from the video
@Ruben Colon Uh yeah I have. Alot actually Depends if you mean "white" as in the skin, lots of arabs are white or you meant "white" as in European uh yeah. Ever heard of Bosnia? European country. 51% Muslim. Not from immigrants.
Wonderful video. As a Christian, I've been completely disgusted with this movie (and PureFlix in general) for years now. They're one-sided, they promote an "us vs. them" mentality that Jesus would despise, and they really only care about money when it comes down to it. The hilarious thing is, even as a propaganda film, this is poorly-constructed propaganda. As you pointed out, the internal logic doesn't make any sense, and it has self-proclaimed "intellectual Christians" such as myself rolling their eyes every other minute. Everything is so vastly oversimplified and pandering that it feels like it was written by a person who had 'studied' Christians, but is not one themselves. Anyone who looks at this film and says "that's the movie Jesus would make if he were a filmmaker today" is kidding themselves. Jesus would make a Shawshank Redemption or a Lord of the Rings. Ya know, something that accurately shows the love, glory, and *nuance* of God, instead of creating strawman stereotypes to tear down. Anyway, once again, thanks for making this video. I've been enjoying the stuff coming out of your channel recently and didn't realize I missed this when it came out last year.
I never thought I’d see “Jesus,” “Shawshank Redemption,” and “Lord of the Rings” in the same sentence, but it oddly feels like it fits. I’m currently trying to work through theology, philosophy and science to figure out what religion makes the most sense (I include Atheism as a religion merely for ease of classification. I like my taxonomy-esc charts). I can’t help but learn towards Christianity, though Atheists whom I have talked with have brought up some good points. Honestly, I find debate to be more productive than wanking off to how right you are, and that problem appears on both sides. Damn, I am rambling like a mad man. I don’t think any two sentences in there relate to each other.
Unfortunately, that type of false christian is the status quo. And the infuriating thing is, they make people like you look awful, and I legitimately fear that the US is headed towards some dark, dark events in the near future as a result of this religious fervor building up among the radical right.
Amen brother. I truly despise the somewhat warped version of Christianity that has become mainstream. This is an alteration of what Jesus and the Bible truly stands for.
Steve, no, I didn't realize I was retarded, thank you for enlightening me with logic and reason rather than simplistic name calling. As for your source, it points out both violent right-wing groups and radical Islamic groups. My point was about those radical Christians that are doing all of the killing, because Christianity is evil, and anyone who defies this notion is obviously retarded and believes any facts are "fake news." We can play the "no u" game all day long, though I find it about as entertaining and productive as gouging my eyes out.
Nerd Herd You know, you're pretty bad at this. But that's ok, don't get discouraged! You can say whatever you want, whether it's factual or not. That's the american way! I know how hard it must be for you, making your way through this hardscrabble life as a straight white boy. You're also can't bring in statistics from different countries to prove some half-baked argument that isn't relevant to the US in any way, as we are explicitly discussing the US. And lemme tell ya, of aaaaaalllllllllllllll the mass shootings and acts of domestic terrorism on US soil, the overwhelming majority have been perpetrated by straight white men.l I know, I know, you're so fragile and delicate, even the mere mention that any white boy would murder anyone is a personal attack on you somehow. It's all my fault, really. I should have been more mindful to avoid stating objective facts in your presence.
"With no god there's no real reason to be moral" Remember that time god said that it's fine to have slaves and that it's fine to beat the shit out of the slaves and if they die this is not even a bad thing? Yeah, we definetly need god to be moral...
If God can't convince people to be good to each other without the threat of eternal punishment, then he's not much of a leader. Demanding obedience and worship or else he'll get the belt is the tactic of an abusive parent, rather than one of a benevolent creator.
Oh , oh , remember when God said it was fine to fight nine wars against muslims , and whatever war crime commited was fine because it was a "holy war" ?
Even as a Christian, I never got these Christian stereotypes. I went to a good engineering school and met people from all walks of life. I never had a professor shove his atheism down my throat. In fact, I had the exact opposite experience. I had a great discussion with my quantum chemistry professor, who was an atheist, and we literally had lunch together discussing many different topics. It was a hard class but I learned a lot from him. We still keep in touch to this day. Not everything has to be made to make Christians out to be victims. Focus on the real issues like the growing income inequality in the US or the plutocracy that literally runs this country. Atheism won't bring this country down; it's Christian Nationalism that will literally let rich corporations bend Americans over, take our money, and then laugh their way to the bank. Now that's something atheists and Christians can get behind.
Ahhhhhh concerning the bit about the Muslim girl wearing the hijab, I have heard plenty of CHRISTIANS say that women shouldn’t wear swimsuits, shorts, and miniskirts and even decry them as “harlots” “sluts” “vixens” “temptresses” and the sort for wearing THOSE things. Now, isn’t THAT basically the SAME THING? Seems rather incongruous and hypocritical, doesn’t it?
@@timothyissler3815 "I think their point was that empathy ultimately comes from God, and that empathy is evidence that a God exists, even if nobody believes in Him." Empathy is a product of evolution, and no God was needed to get it, so it is not a good argument for the existence of God.
@@doctorwebman Explain how. Is not evolution survival of the fittest? Te stronger destroying the weaker? Where is there room for empathy? To answer your question: God is empathetic to his creations, humans above all, as they were created in HIs image. And His love for humans was so great, that He gave them the free will to choose to accept Him or not (otherwise He might as well have made us like every other animal) and they chose to reject HIm. As such, evil (sin) came into the world, and humanity's nature became violent and inclined to pride, personal gain, and greed. But being still in the nature of God, they still had empathetic natures and sought to help other humans and animals, but from a twisted sense of pride, that helping these weaker persons will make the helper feel better about themselves or earn their way into heaven or force the helped person into some slave-debt to the helper. As such, even if people reject the existence of God, their desires to help prove that God exists.
@@timothyissler3815 A species that cares for one another will work together to survive, and that is survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest is not the strong destroying the weak.
@@doctorwebman Valid point. But in that case humans would be no better than packs of dogs or herds of sheep, where again the weaker ones may indeed be left to die for the survival of the herd. In which case we must follow the words of Spock from Star Trek II: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". If we tend to the need of the one to make them happy, the many will be left to fend for themselves. Hence so many revolutions against rich aristocracy: they were few, the revolutionaries many. I can't think of a concise way to end my thoughts here, so I'll leave it at that and wait your reply.
When I was in 7th grade, a lot of my class mates in one of my classes found out that I was an atheist and they decided to make the wallpaper on all of the computers the God’s not dead movie cover… including mine. Just an example of how we still live in a country where some of our founding principles are selectively enforced.
honestly the movie could have ended when he referred to evolution as being “sudden”. evolution took place over MILLIONS of years. it’s not “sudden”. we didn’t pop into existence overnight. the evolution of the great apes accelerated in the 66 million years since the dinosaurs went extinct because fewer massive predators allows for more species to evolve beyond basic survival. it also allowed us to stop sleeping in trees which facilitated the growth of our large brains which is the reason we have tik tok, KAREN.
I believe he was referring to "punctuated equilibrium", a hypothesis that there are long periods with barely any evolutionary changes and periods of rapid changes, which he calls "sudden" in the geological timescale. evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-008-0049-4 I still don't see how it matches anything in the Bible, but I don't find this part THAT ridiculous.
@@Aterbrarum that’s... not what they were talking about. That’s why he brought up the clock thing, to say that it all just happened in the last second of time, boom outta nowhere
@2:30 Josh is talking about cosmology, in which the "Big Bang" or initial singularity likely burst forth with unimaginable levels of energy of ALL kinds, which shows Josh's embarrassing ignorance about the origins of the universe when Josh speaks of the bible deity (Elohim) saying "Let there be light". As someone else has pointed out below, light as we know it didn't exist in those first few moments (hours?) after the initial singularity. For that matter, most of the original stars produced after the initial singularity also died out, and what we see today are mostly second-generation suns/stars which came into existence as the first-generation stars decayed and recombined into the later stars, one of which is our sun. @3:53 The "formless and primordial earth" mentioned is in reality the domain of a Babylonian creation goddess of chaos, Tiamat. Since Genesis and the rest of the 5 books of the Pentateuch were probably written during the Hebrews' Babylonian exile, that Babylonian goddess' power is being subjugated to the Hebrew god *Elohim* in a sly way of insulting one of the conquering Babylonians' deities. @5:05 Seems to be referring to the "punctuated evolution" also mentioned elsewhere in the comments section. If I recall correctly the question of a steady, slow progression of evolution versus a "punctuated" slow process with occasional swift jumps forward was debated for quite a while amongst various scientists studying the new discipline of evolution - until mass extinctions were finally found in the fossil record. @5:22 Is practically an outright lie. "Most major animal groups suddenly appear in the forms which they currently hold" is such dishonest bullsh*t, it's disgusting. Josh's comment here takes the Cambrian explosion and slams it forward through the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic (primitive life forms, primitive fishes, reptiles, dinosaurs and finally mammals) claiming that ALL of those various life forms have "suddenly appear[ed] in the forms which they currently hold". I would love to have Josh show me an Allosaurus or a T-Rex trotting around on earth today, if that's really the case. Hope this helps explain how drastically Josh's speeches misrepresent current scientific knowledge about the universe, evolution of life (I think Josh eventually gets into abiogenesis too, but mangles it up with evolution in another significant mistake) etc.
Gotta love how he says "evil exists because god allows free will" without mentioning that god will also damn your soul to hell for all eternity even if you do stuff that wouldn't be considered evil with that exact same free will.
Also, if God is all-powerful, then why couldn’t he let us have perfect free will while also being free of evil and suffering? Surely he would have been capable of doing that, right?
@@elfin2865 The short version is that the classical definition of omnipotence excludes logical impossibilities, although my longer refutation of Epicurus includes things like compatibilism and the movie Minority Report
@@justineberlein5916 So, the classical definition of omnipotence isn’t actually omnipotence as we’d define it, then? Because an entity who can do anything except for logical impossibilities isn’t omnipotent, so far as I would use the term, because they have a limitation.
@@elfin2865 So... keep in mind as I attempt to explain things that this is very much a simplification. Like the philosophical concepts involved are the sort that I wouldn't be at all surprised if people have written entire essays about. Also, I'm going to try to use English terms, although I'll occasionally use Latin where English translations would obscure connections. The main two concepts involved here are actuality and potentiality. Essentially, actuality is the state of a thing actually existing or happening, while potentiality is the potential for a thing to exist or happen. (Latin literally 'to move") The potentia, then, of omnipotentia is the ability to actualize something and "convert" potentiality into actuality. However, logical impossibilities lack even potentiality. For example, three-sided squares don't just not exist, but *can't* exist. Thus, omnipotentia needn't include the potentia to actualize such a thing, because they can't exist. So basically, omnipotence is classically understood as the ability to make anything that can exist exist, but not to make things that can't exist be able to exist. And at least in my opinion, it makes a lot more sense when you mention things like three-sided squares, which are, by the definition of "square", impossible. They just aren't as interesting, because it doesn't stumble into the debate about compatibilism that becomes involved when you start discussing things like whether it'd be possible for an omnipotent being to create a universe with both predestination and free will.
Well, actually, certain acts (such as Newsboys) really do fill stadiums. I know it seems weird not being in that scene; you're really not even aware of it's existence from anything mainstream. But I came from that world and I've been to those concerts...they really are that big, believe it or not.
@@xSmittyxCorex true. Where I live a local Christian Death Metal show sold out a venue. Lots of people like the music for the sound more than the lyrics. Personally, I'm more a lyric guy. But fuck with their guitar riffs weren't damn good live.
"Without God, why do we have morality?" Buddy, have you ever heard about this thing called empathy? You know, the ability to relate to others and sort of experiance their suffering as if it was our own? The perfectly scientifically explainable process of our mirror neurons firing, prompting us to feel as the other person would, which is advantageous for organisms living in groups, like humans tend to do. Not a magical ability gifted by God and definitively independent of Him, as humans of all faiths have said abilit.
It's circular reasoning with chrstians man. Then they would argue that empathy is devout from God. But sin and evil? Ohhhhh God didn't create those things, they say. It's our fault, our own will, Satan's fault. Litterally every reason in the book, but no blame God that had unlimited power over fucking everything. What a loser God if he exists.
but that still doesn’t answer the question. Where do we get Empathy? From my understanding. Empathy is not just something that you or I are born with . But it’s Inherited even though the capacity for it is inborn. The best way to think about empathy is an innate capacity that needs to be developed or Programmed, and to see it as a detail in a larger picture. Because humans are naturally selfish creatures. By nature we want what we want . And that is Generated by our own selfish Desires. And without a higher authority that we look up to that set’s the moral standard it’s impossible for morality to exist . Because we become our own gods and we Decide what is right and from what is wrong . Even if that means my understanding goes Contrary to your understanding. It wouldn’t matter if my understanding is wrong. Because i would be my own god who i would be Entitled to my own standards. And No one can Tell me otherwise. Because I Decide what’s right from wrong. Here is an Example, is still any moral law in nature? No , does a lion think it’s right or wrong to attack and kill a sheep ? It doesn’t . Without a God we would just be like other Animals no different.
@@lisalatham4389 You wouldn't have this understanding without the divinity of man. We ARE our own gods, no higher power has ever tried to intertwine itself with our understanding. We are our own deities, that's exactly correct. And unless you can drag down the higher power that gave us "everything" you can shut your mouth about the fictional, imaginative crap you have to spout about a God that can't be measured or observed
@@debeb5148 Of course, I would never have come to that understanding if the Divine God did not exist. There has never been a higher power that intertwined itself with our understanding? You should study the death, life and history of Jesus Christ before making such bold statements. And you will see that your understanding is false .
FOR THAT TO HOLD TRUE, THE ANTAGONIST WOULD HAVE TO BE EATEN BY A CROCK IN A NEW YORK SEWER AFTER KILLING A MURDERER WHO LEFT HIS HOOK IN THE REAR BUMPER OF HIS MOM'S DESOTO
I never saw the movie, but my understanding from watching other reviews of the movie is that the "atheist teacher" was never actually an atheist. The movie doubles down on the myth that atheists hate god, because my understanding is that there is a scene where the teacher proclaims that he hated god because of some misfortune in the guy's life or something to that effect. * Atheists don't believe god exists. You can't hate something that doesn't exist. * The movie title is actually accurate. God isn't dead. For God to be dead, it would have had to have been alive at some point, which is pretty hard for something that doesn't exist to do.
Gods Not Dead reveals the only function christian propaganda ever has: to trigger an emotional reaction. Literally every non-believer in this movie gets "saved" because of an emotional reason - just got hit by a car, just got kicked out of your home, just heard some pretty music. I'm not just an ex-believer. I'm an ex-pastor, ex-missionary, and ex-evangelist. I've been responsible for literally THOUSANDS of supposed "salvation experiences" and confirm that it is ALL about emotional manipulation.
If you don't mind talking about it, I'm curious what made you decide to stop being Christian (if that's what happened). I'm the same way but I feel like I never hear stories about why people leave the church.
I've realized that too. I'm not a preacher or anything but looking back to when I was religious, I was hateful and disgusting. I was homophobic (internalized homophobia), probably racist (I really hope I wasnt), and just overall hateful. Christianity made me depressed and ruined my mental health. I finally started questioning the things that never added up and once I got old enough to unlearn what was taught to me, I became happier
@@nym0s177 - You are Religious Now, and Christianity doens;t make people Hateful. And how can You say You were "Probably" Racist? Wouldnt You Know if You er Racist or not? All You're doing is repeating the Negative Things Christianity is said to cause by the Modern Atheist Religions Propaganda. And I did not call Atheism a Religion, I am calling the New Atheism a Religion. And I have already Heard the Dictionary Definition of Religion and Not Collecting Stamps is a Hobby. Just like I Know the Bible has Talking Snake's and Donkeys, or condones Slavery. Christianity didnt cause You to be Hateful. And You aren;t Loving now. And Christianity did not Harm Your Mental Health.
@@skwills1629 oh wow you are totally correct I've been so wrong my entire life. First off, you don't know me. You can't say that I'm not "loving" just because I'm not Christian anymore. I'm saying the negative things that I've experienced and still experience to this day so just because you had a good experience with it. Do not act like you know me And 2nd off, you can't assume that I'm atheist. I incorrectly used religious, when I meant practicing religion but I'm Agnostic not atheist. Don't make assumptions off people from a UA-cam comment less than a paragraph and pretend you know someone
In middle school my family forced me to go to church and they showed us a psa by the duck dynasty guys and they talked about how suicide is selfish and you should just love god instead
People really don't understand Nietzsche. The phrase "God is Dead" actually has nothing to do with arguing for Atheism. It's an observation that, after The Age of Enlightenment, mankind began to worship reason and science. As a result, society has been forced to replace its faith in omnipotent, omniscient beings with faith in itself. Nietzche predicted that in doing this, most people would find that they didn't measure up to the impossible standard they set for themselves and would, therefore, become nihilistic. Only a very few "over men" would be able to make the transition by freeing themselves from the slavery of their own constantly self-imposed morality (in whatever form it may take). The very premise that we should have to rationally argue for the existence of God is proof that today's society prizes reason over faith. This proves Nietzche's point before the movie even begins. The only arguments for "God is Not Dead" are based on the benefits and existence of faith. These are things like: - Faith is inherently good for you - Reason is flawed - People treat science and reason like a religion - self-imposed morality is subjective and therefore inferior etc. But... This implies that you actually understand the premise of the source material. Like I said: People really don't understand Nietzche.
How exactly does one worship reason and science? Do they build monuments to it, fall on their knees bowing to it and asking reason and science to magically fulfill their wishes and have mercy on them? Do they paint runic symbols on their labcoats and test tubes, declare jihads on competing science companies, and set up priesthoods?
@@Eisenbison it's called scientism and basically means you think only "hard" science (e.g. STEM) is valid while "soft" science (sociology, arts, etc.) have little to no value. While it is obviously nowhere near as extreme as religion (hardcore scientism followers are usually just massive tools instead of terrorists) it is still a philosophically shaky position to hold since it rests on certain assumptions that we cannot definitively prove one way or the other e.g. the assumption that we can 100% trust our senses (something philosophers like Descartes would have plenty to say about). Which isn't to say that we ignore science and it's many discoveries - studying science and the scientific method are still two of the best ways we can understand our universe - but the people who hold up science (or at least their very narrow definition of it) as the *only* appropriate method are just fooling themselves
No sir, that is what's called a Strawman fallacy, in which you deliberately misrepresent someone's position in order to make it easier to attack. Your entire argument is, simply put, a lie. Basic science obviously has value, but I challenge you to name ONE reputable scientist who has ever said that things like sociology (which is *absolutely* a legitimate field of study, and also an actual science in and of itself), and that *art itself* is worthless just because it's not "scientific". Do you legitimately think that scientists are like soulless robots who can't be moved by powerful music, enjoy all kinds of art, and don't even like watching good movies because they're stupid and pointless? How out of touch are you? You must have never met an actual scientist or even anyone who could be called a nerd _in your life_ if you think they're all like your Strawman construct. Saying that science is just another philosophy is also logically invalid. Science has proven that it is the *only* way to reliably acquire knowledge and further our actual understanding of anything, from physics, to psychology (which you earlier tried to dismiss as not-real-science) biology, cosmology, physics, medicine, technology, geology, etc. Even if reality itself wasn’t real, even if we only exist within a dream of Brahma or if all we perceive is a computer-enhanced hallucination like the Matrix, it wouldn’t change the fact that the rules of that reality would still be real to us. We’re forced to assume that our perception is at least partially reliable, that we really do exist in a real world that is independent of us, and that other minds exist outside our own. Because it would be impossible to function otherwise. Consequently, such ponderings as solipsism are in my opinion meaningless philosophical nonsense. Do you have a different method by which we can acquire reliable, practical knowledge? If so, I'd love to hear it. If not, your entire argument is invalid and essentially worthless.
@@aoli8142 The only people I've ever met who have objections like yours to "theories being taught as facts" either don't understand what a Scientific Theory is, or they're knowingly twisting the definition to suit their argument, and have always turned out to be creationtists angry that Evolution is treated like fact while their own conjecture isn't taken seriously by science at all. At the risk of an incorrect assumption, I'm going to assume you're a creationist as well, but you can correct me if I'm wrong. Those who object to science (such as creationists) like to exploit the academic meaning of "Theory" in favor of a colloquial one, as if a theory was only blind speculation like their own positions often are. But a scientific theory isn’t a guess or conjecture. Look it up. Colloquial definition: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. Scientific/Academic Theory: an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations. In most instances, a theory is in and of itself a field of academic study, which include things like Music Theory, the theory of Economics, etc. No theory can ever be "proved" simply because that's against the rules imposed by the game of science. If music theory is a field of study, and as such can never be proved, then neither can the theories of evolution or even economics, and for the same reason: the notion is silly. Even if a theory passes every test forever, we still wouldn’t say it was proven, because positive proof exists only in matters of mathematics or law wherein evolution actually has been proven. Otherwise, in science, no theory has ever been proved, nor can one ever be. A theory is an analysis of how reality works, but every theory has holes in it and no theory is complete. That’s why science must remain objective and ready to admit when our current concepts or understandings of anything may be inaccurate, because in reality there is no such thing as absolute truth. Logically, there can’t be; one reason being that “truth” requires validation while “absolute” denotes an unrestricted unconditional ultimate totality, independent of relation and transcending the limits of experience or observation. No mere fallible human can honestly claim knowledge of absolute truth because everything within the capacity of human understanding contains a degree of error, and everything men know to be true is only true to a degree. Everyone is inevitably wrong about something somewhere. We don’t know everything about everything. We don’t know everything about anything! And what we do know, we don’t know accurately on all points nor completely in every detail. Nothing in science would ever be promoted to “truth,” because truth implies that there’s nothing more to learn. (Unless the truth is what the facts are, in which case theories would have to be demoted to truth, not promoted.) That’s why science, being objective, demands that everything be considered theory no matter how proven it seems to be. Theories can only be disproved. And when that happens, a theory that doesn’t work must be replaced by one that does. We can’t discard any theory just because we haven’t perfected every part of it yet. You can’t trade something that works for nothing that doesn’t. If the original theory works at all, you’ll still have to use it, and perhaps fix it-but we can’t dismiss it until we can replace it with something better. A fact is merely data, a demonstrably accurate observation that is indisputable because it can be objectively verified by either side arguing about it. So if we demonstrate the fact of gravity, we see that things tend to fall down. What’s that mean? Well, nothing yet; a fact on its own is meaningless. We need to understand it more specifically. When seen on an astronomical scale, we can determine a universal rule: that matter attracts matter. This is one of the laws of gravity (a law being a general statement of nature that is always true under a specific set of circumstances). Now _why_ does matter attract matter? *That’s* the theory! Atomic theory has never been proven either -not even in Hiroshima. But just as evolution is the foundation of modern biology, modern chemistry is completely dependant on atomic theory. And there are huge holes in that theory! Just look at our classic model of atomic structure; it’s wrong, and we know it’s wrong, but we still teach it in school anyway, because despite their virtual invisibility and being understood only in theory, atoms are still a matter of undeniable fact. So we have to use that in a series of imperfect models because we’re still trying to figure out one that works in all instances. We’re also trying to devise a single theory to blend quantum theory with the theory of relativity, and act as a unifying theory of everything. The closest we’ve come is string theory; which really isn’t an actual theory yet; because it hasn’t been vindicated by substantial empirical evidence, and it hasn’t born itself through the battery of critical examinations which every hypothesis must endure before it can graduate to the highest level of confidence science can attain: A Theory. No branch of creationism has ever met even one of the criteria required of a theory. They can’t, because science demands both accuracy and accountability. So there has to be a way to detect and correct any errors in a given explanation, and determine for certain whether it’s wrong in whole or in part, or whether any of it is true to any degree at all. A theory has to be tested indefinitely. It demands understanding instead of belief and faith like religions do. So it must be based on verifiable evidence; It must explain related observations with a measurable degree of accuracy; It must withstand continuous critical analysis in peer review, and it must be falsifiable too. If it doesn’t fulfill all these conditions at once, then it isn’t science. If it meets none of them, it may be religion. Intelligent Design isn’t a theory at all; it’s a scam, a scheme conceived solely to undermine legitimate science. It doesn’t even count as a hypothesis, because it isn’t based on evidence, offers no mechanism, and isn’t falsifiable either. It's backed by nothing and produces nothing because it is nothing but untestable conjecture. None of it has been shown to be right and lots of it has been proven wrong. So it’s useless in any field, because only accurate information can have practical application. That’s why we have billion-dollar industries in medicine, toxicology, agriculture, and biotechnology, where we have Nobel prize-winning research that is all dependent on the functionality of evolution and would only work if evolution were factually correct. Evolution has survived every test the greatest minds of the modern age have ever been able to pit against it. It’s been demonstrated myriad ways with lab and field experiments, and is further enhanced by compounded revelations in paleontology and systematics, as well as developments in embryology and advances in genomic research and bioengineering. Evolution is now one of the strongest theories in science. There is no fact it doesn’t agree with, and it’s never failed any test.
I’m a Christian and when I was a kid my church went to see this. And the youth pastor ended up apologizing to the parents and students for taking them to see the movie.
I took a one semester philosophy class in 10th grade and there was more open discussion about religion there than there is in this entire film. Like, I genuinely believe none of these people understand how philosophy classes work. My teacher was a Christian man and was more than willing to explain the viewpoints of people who aren't religious and what they're rooted in. He even talked about some of the paradoxes about how God can't possibly exist according to ____ philosophy or worldview. Funnily enough, that teacher can no longer teach a philosophy class at the school because a Christian student told their parent about what was happening in the class and they complained to the school.
My first degree was philosophy, and I can vouch for the fact that the philosophy class depicted in this film is 0% like real philosophy classes. I also have been lolling at this movie for it's title ever since it came out because it is obviously a reference to the "God is dead" speech in one of Nietzsche's works. The irony is, the character who made that speech not only did not hate God, but was mortified at the prospect of proceeding into a future that didn't include God. And the further irony is, nobody listened to him because they were distracted by a concurrent trapeze act, and he couldn't figure out why they would not also be mortified at the realization he was sharing and take serious action to think about how life could possibly go on, so he threw his lantern to the ground and left, saying, "I have come too soon."
Funny how they never mention that Nazi Germans were practicing Christians, they had military chaplains, religious services and had even “gott mit uns” (god is on our side) on their belt buckles. And Hitler was a believing Christian, according to his own autobiography.
Not to mention them also giving the leftist journalist cancer. (also I think she converts in the sequel and then is cured??, but don't quote me on that.)
I am a science-friendly Christian (yeah, there are a few of us) and when I was in a group that started watching this movie, I had to stop and go somewhere else. It was so unrlelievedly terrible that I couldn't stomach it. There are deep and serious ways to probe the subject of God's existence, but you will never encounter them in pop Christian entertainment.
There's more than a few of you. The Big Bang was discovered by a Catholic Priest, and a Pentecostal proved birds were dinosaurs. America has been full of Christians since we stole it from the Indigenous peoples and it has been a technological superpower. Christianity can be a very benevolent, peaceful, and science-compatible religion, it's the decay of American education and socio-political manipulations that have created the American Christian Right.
Being a science friendly chrstian isn't stellar unless you are actually using scientific models to observe data. That's why I admire monks like Gregory Mendelle, the father of genetics. He was a religious man who clearly used generation breeding to discover the genes in his pea garden. Then there's 99% of other chrstians who just say "That's how God did it right there, trust the process lol" I personally hate these kinds of chrstians particularly because they don't aim to learn, just label everything as God's property and glory. It's foolish
As ridiculous as it is, this is one of the most common arguments I've heard from those who want to stop teaching evolution in public school biology classes (or teach creation alongside it) In fact, "Reductio ad Hitlerum" is inevitably going to be appealed to in any argument that goes on long enough. Don't like something? Find and point out something it superficially shares with Hitler or the Nazis.
The thing I wish Christian movies portray more is the Man Vs Self Conflict rather than the Man Vs. Man or Man. vs Society. Since the conflict is always an outside source, the film can present a "holier than thou" mentality and it's more or less stroking Christian egos rather than what it means to truly believe in God. Where are the doubts, the struggle, sometimes even asking yourself why is God just letting things happen. It would be interesting to see a Christian film star a prison inmate who finds about the word of God, but is struggling with himself because he committed a crime heinous crime (murder, burglary, what have you) and you just see this struggle that makes the compelling argument that the love of God stretches even to those who have sinned. Hell, it could be the fact that a father lost his son and is cursing God, asking why he didn't save his son. I feel movies like that would strengthen faith, make the situation more relateable, and at the same time, make a movie that's actually compelling.
I am soooo late to this but you really should check out Sufjan Steven's song Casimir Pulaski Day. It's about a boy reconciling his belief in god after a tragedy happens to someone he loves. It's a beautiful song to listen to religious or not
@BTIsaac depends on if the Christians are retarded or not. The people that made this movie were retarded. They actually believe in the Bible, lol. EDIT: I am Christian
@BTIsaac Being an atheist with a brother who is… religious… and married to a Christian woman… What you say is absolutely incorrect. Doubt in your faith and fighting to retain your faith, dealing with doubt, exploring and understanding it are all part of the religion of the Christian people I know personally. That may not be true for Christians in general, but I'd be wary to make almost any claim about Christians in general at all.
@BTIsaac You know what I mean, they think of it like it's 100% right, when in reality it's a terrible source and not the word of God. It was written in the 1200s btw, not a good source.
“You’re beautiful. Wish you didn’t have to wear that :(“ Alright fam, say that to a nun then. Or traditionalist Christian societies that restrict what unwed women can do. What’s that about Islam being bad bc it “forces” women to cover themselves? Hm?
thesparitan Well to fundamentalist Muslims wearing a t shirt with uncovered arms is “too slutty”. It’s almost like that’s in the eye of the beholder or something.
@CheetCat me and my class went to the movies for the last day of 8th grade and our teacher gave us a choice between that and Godzilla. It was a Christian school so ig they were like “you can see anything that has God in it” 😂
As an Atheist I always felt bad for Christians when it comes to media options. Like sure, Pureflix sorta movies paint us in the whole "lying dirty sinner" light, but ho lee SHIT they somehow have even less respect for their Christian audience. Like sure all our tropes as Atheists in Pureflix stuff are evil and liars and nasty and all that, but there's at least usually a layer of intelligence to them (I mean can't have a useful villain if they're too stupid to be one). I'd be more insulted by the implication that these kinds of movies are what they "think Christians like". Everybody kinda likes the villain trope, no one likes the mindless busybody do-gooder that judges you constantly trope. And it's not like Good Biblical movies don't exist, Ten Commandments and Prince of Egypt are famous for a damn good reason. Y'all deserve better media.
@@patchwurk6652 As another Christian who is routinely horrified by the quality of the Christian subculture's media in 21st century America... thank you. The one thing that comforts me is the fact that it's mostly the pop culture stuff that really sucks, and also it wasn't always like this. If you look before that, we have a lot of very good paintings. Some sweet epic poems. Handel's Messiah absolutely slaps. Bernini's Ecstasy of Saint Teresa is effing sick. Et cetera.
Is it weird that, more than anything, I’m bothered by the unrealistic quality and intricacy of the graphics during the main character’s lectures? Full animation and everything? I’ve never seen a college student do anything more complex than having images bounce around in a PowerPoint. Come on, movie.
My Mom forced me to see this movie when it first came out in theatres when I was 13. Im still a Christian but I remember hating this movie when it first came out but I felt like it was a sin for me to dislike it lol
@@astrobabecosmicwaves7587 Exactly! I kind of see religion as different types of studies based on things we experience. We each have different interpretations of things we believe to be beyond full human understanding, and I don't think it's as simple as "my interpretation is right and all others are wrong". I think there's truth and value to lots of different religions, even if someone believes theirs to be the _most_ true. And if someone never really got religious than fine, that's also 100% understandable. Would be self-contradictory to say it isn't
@@WiloPolis03 you're totally right!!! I try to explain to people that christianity is a personal experience and God is personal connection that only you can explore. I also try to explain that some christians aren't homophobic or judgmental like the other crazy ones are.
Really? Doesn't seem as though there's much point in being moral by accident. Being moral for good reasons, reasons that can be updated in light of new evidence seems eminently superior to both states of affairs that you mention.
The thing is, what is “being moral” different cultures have had different versions of “morality” and the one you are most likely talking about is western morality which came from very specific sources (bible)
I was at a Lutheran high school where they did a big assembly to show God’s Not Dead when it was first released, but I don’t think it had the effect on me that the school intended. I’ll be applying to PhD programs in philosophy within a year.
“The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians: who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, walk out the door, and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.” ― Brennan Manning I think this applies a lot to this movie.
I have to disagree with that idea. The single greatest cause of atheism in the world today is probably the proliferation of the internet. It's possible to study all the arguments and apologetics and develop an informed belief - which for me and many others is that it's highly unlikely that a god or gods exist due to poor arguments and lacking evidence.
@@jacoblang7840 not really sure what you're trying to get at here. That we don't have existence of what happens after death? I don't think death sucks more or less of we don't know what's next, you still die and knowing wouldn't change that. The circumstances of life and death determine most afterlifes, and you can fill them without knowing anything
@@jacoblang7840 i mean, it might make us feel better, but as far as I'm aware there's no schrodinger's cat version of death, where knowing what happens after death changes what happens after death. So in the end, we might like to know but it doesn't really matter or affect the results
@@jacoblang7840 of course it would be better to know. The problem with that is that we don't know and can never really know. We can make up stories and pretend they're true but that's about it
RIP Steven Hawking. He may not have been Jesus but he sure was cool!
On a mathematical holiday, we mourn for one of mathematics' and science's greatest minds and contributors...
It's kind of ironic that one of mathematics' and science's greatest minds died on a day meant to celebrate math...
Big Joel even if Jesus could use his superpowers to walk on water, it's still arguably less impressive than what Steven Hawking has accomplished.
Well, now he is dead, SH knows the truth. He's probably wishing he hadn't been so arrogant and pointed to the reality of God instead of inferring that man was god. Personally, I was not impressed by his nonsensical rhetoric. :^)
nice bait lul
You know for a philosophy professor he sure is bad at arguing
Hercules making Christian propaganda. That is flat out outrageous 😈😈😈😈
The Lonely Penguin Movie exaggeration? Nope. WLC has a degree in philosophy and commits many logical fallacies.
You know, I shat my pants
Gotta hit em with that Epicurean Paradox.
It’s almost like he’s a strawman created for this propaganda piece or something
Gods Not Dead: A movie taking place inside a philosophy class, written by someone who has clearly never stepped foot inside of a philosophy class
Yass
@Tron But that's a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. If the creators of this movie believe themselves to be Christian, it's kind of silly to assert that they're not "true Christians". You have to meet people where they are.
@Tron No. Christianity is a belief. It's not mandated by actions. It's a belief, and beliefs have different interpretations. I could say that you're not a true Christian if you don't fast for the whole period of Lent, that doesn't make it true. When it comes to religions, if somebody believes in a certain way, they believe in a certain way, and it's not your place to say what they are and aren't.
@Tron You don't think the evangelical Christians behind this movie have ever set foot inside a church? Really?
It’s basically an attempt at turning the incredibly lame “atheist professor myth”, in which a hilariously stereotypical yet curiously inept atheist professor gets bested by a plucky Christian student, into a whole feature film.
If that seems a of a bit thin and contrived premise, then, yup, it is. And it gets “fleshed out” with a greatest hits of fundamentalist evangelical canards (e.g. atheists being motivated by some form of hedonism or sinfulness, attacks on evolution, the general denunciation of college education as a sinister, atheist indoctrination plot, and various “therefore God” claims that tend to be wholly or mostly non sequiturs etc.).
This includes, as the clips shows, hawking some of the popular works of fundamentalist evangelical apologetics à la Lee Strobel, which are all really aimed at preaching to the choir, i.e. reinforcing fundamentalist evangelical beliefs, rather than (as most of them claim) convincing those who do not already subscribe to them.
Imagine being a student and having to drag yourself out of bed for your 8 AM class and having it be this. Just your professor and some annoying guy arguing. Every class.
And if he’s really threatening to fail the student over religious beliefs then the student should just report him to the higher ups
TBH I'd just start bringing popcorn in with me. It'd probably be the most interesting thing to happen, may as well make the best of it.
Ahhhhhh concerning the bit about the Muslim girl wearing the hijab, I have heard plenty of CHRISTIANS say that women shouldn’t wear swimsuits, shorts, and miniskirts and even decry them as “harlots” “sluts” “vixens” “temptresses” and the sort for wearing THOSE things. Now, isn’t THAT basically the SAME THING? Seems rather incongruous and hypocritical, doesn’t it?
I'd hope a few students would chime in to make a point every now and then.
I mean, best case scenario, its an easy grade and a free study period
I found it ironic that they included a scene where it shows a child being disowned, kicked out, and abused by a parent for doing something outside their religion when Christian parents have done the same to LGBT children for decades.
@Wystic I mean I know why it wasn't, I was just pointing out how ironic it is they tried to say Christianity is better than other religions by using that example when Christianity is just as guilty of doing it.
if im a father and my son is turns out to be gay/bi, as long as he doesn't turn into that "one they person that shout they literally exist for decades, and have room full of rainbow like it's their savior instead of just plain flag" then i wont disown him. it's my son and idrc if he gay as long as he doesnt turn into that one person
these christian disown their kid like nothing happened as what i see
@@iputapipebombintoyourmailb6210 so..... If they're really into gay pride advocacy, you WILL disown him? Wtf
@@DMO-DMO-DMO i say depend. they can beocme lgbt whatever they want. but if it on extreme case. then idk. disown dont solve it. but i say extreme
@@iputapipebombintoyourmailb6210 So you won't disown him... if he's not too gay? Am I reading this correctly??
that dude just said nazis believed evolution too LOL basically "did you know who drink water? that's right HITLER"
Even if it was true, the consequences of an idea have nothing to do with it's validity.
Hitler did use evolution as justification. But he massively misunderstood it.
@@lost4468yt he didn't. He rejected evolution. He even used the same arguments, that creationists use, like that animals stay within their "kinds" or that the "all powerful creator" made everything and so on. Hitler only used the word evolution as Progress, like when he talked about the evolution of technology.
He didn't believe in evolution.
@@BluePhoenix_ In fact, I recall books on evolutionary theory being on the list of things the Nazis called for burning. Don’t remember where I read it from so take it with a grain of salt.
@@sealogic4552 yes, that's correct, they burned Darwins books
I always found that one scene where the Muslim girl is told she is pretty and shouldn't have to wear her hijab cringe inducing. (For reference, I grew up Pentecostal and saw this movie with my youth group.) A lot of Christian denominations advocate purity culture and tell women in the church that they have to dress modestly so as to not tempt men, to avoid falling victim to "worldly desires", to earn God's favor, etc. Demonizing Islamic women for dressing modestly because of their faith is hypocritical.
This.
This.
If there's anything a fundementalist christian and muslim had in common is the order to dress modestly so ... Nani?
Is that part of the strategy of Pure Flix: making movies formatted for youth groups?
@@supercellodude yes, i went to a youth group for the 1st time and they played this movie. Hated the movie
God's Not Dead is a film version of a 'Then everyone clapped' tumblr post.
stunningly accirate.
r/thathappened
You is right...
Kind of like Steven universe but as a cartoon.
I swear, I've seen a chain Facebook message with that EXACT plot.
"The same philosophy which inspired nazi Germany, which is evolution"
That logic went from 0 to absolute bonkers quickly.
They seem to like to pretend that "evolution" = "social Darwinism" an idea not even proposed by Darwin and that is not scientific.
You gotta admit he's got a point, after all, there were *_LITERALLY ZERO OTHER FACTORS_* contributing to nazi germany.
Actually the best "argument" from Christians I've ever heard, it's also one of the worst "arguments" I've ever heard in general.
And yet they still believe the same ideology which inspired so many genocides.
the funniest part is its talking about social Darwinism, something that has literally 0 to do with darwin but another dude, who was already saying his shit before darwin anyway, so its technically older than evolution (and ofc the idea itself is as old as humans, i mean just think of royals or slavery)
Can we please point out how insensitive the main character (spensor) is when the professor says, "God took everything away from me" spensor doesn't address it, he doesn't comfort him, he just continues to push forward the narrative that the professor is an inhumane person with no emotions...
yeah because shoving your religion down someones throat is always more important than giving them emotional support
That's what Evangelicals do best...
@@shintopriestesskikyou5674 I hope you're being sarcastic.
(Edited) I realized it was. I must have been tired then.
@@LadyOfTheEdits that was the intention of the comment yeah
Yeah but there are a lot of religious therapy’s were the therapists instead of actually addressing the situation or the mental issues a patient is having they accuse them of sinning or saying it was all of gods will
"Muslim girl who, throughout the film, finds Jesus"
So... they basically ignore the fact that muslims not only believe in Jesus, but also hold him in extremely high regard, being one of the greater prophets. The only real difference between muslims and christians in this regard is that we muslims don't believe Jesus to be 'son of God', but a prophet.
There are big differences between Jesus in Christianity and the one in Islam.
@@biostephan1685 there is, which I pointed out in my comment. We both, nonetheless, consider Jesus someone holy and great.
@@DuelistKoi93Christians must believe that Jesus is the son of God and he was crucified and his teachings and so on ..... which Muslims don't believe and for that to happen you must find him first through faith. So that Muslim girl who must find Jesus seems completely understandable. It's like the chahada but for Christians.
@@biostephan1685 it doesn't matter. Both ideologies aren't progressive. It's just to provide people a sense of security.
@@canti7951 I'm an atheist, and i know that. I'm also an ex Muslim that's why i had to explain to him the differences.
Most unrealistic thing about this movie is how everyone in this class is paying close attention ALL THE TIME. Like, come on.
Seriously?!? Not one of those fuckers was sleeping or eating that entire class.
Most well-behaved class ever. In my grade, at least one person would've yelled out some snarky, anti-religious thing and trashed josh. As an atheist, kind of hard to believe that every single person there was a christian.
EXACTLY WHAT I WAS THINKING
@@saathvikgowda9909 I can see a literal Christian yelling “Shut up losers!” when they spent 80% of the class arguing with each other
@@saathvikgowda9909 really? This is university, not high school. I never once had anyone ever yell out and interrupt in university.
if my professor told me his 12 year-old trauma was the reason his entire education style is the way it is and the reason for his weird vendetta against my personal life, i would immediately call the dean and beg for a refund on that class
Lol I would've just reported him on the first lesson for how the class was conducted in relation to the given syllabus and the whole idea of an actual philosophy class.
I would've reported him for confronting me after class
The portrayal of Aisha is so laughable. Do Christians think...muslim girls don't care about their looks? That no one ever tells them they're beautiful? That moment where the white girl complimented her was so weird for me.
Not to mention that it makes literally 0 sense that Aisha would be covering her face, even though she's wearing a short sleeved shirt and jeans. Like....I can't explain to people of non-muslim backgrounds how baffling of a mistake that is. That would be like an Indian movie portraying an American family wearing neon green spandex to church with no explanation.
Wren K I know! I’m just a white dude but if her dad’s really that traditional then why the hell is she wearing that outfit? Surely that’s a bit more revealing than not wearing a hijab would be.
Right?!?!
White girl says “You’re beautiful”
“OMG?!?!? How fortunate am I to have this wonderful white girl tell me I’m pretty! My life has been completed!”
Movie, you need to talk to more Muslim people. Or at least look at them. I live near a mosque, and my observations are that hijabs go AROUND the face and short sleeves aren't a thing. I think they're amazing, considering they wear jeans and long sleeves even in the summer and I live in a desert....
U can try explaining it to me, a person of non-muslim background. I think i will understand it fine. In fact i do understand it, but just don't have same emotional background do get outraged at this inconsistency.
It reminds me a little of that one PrankInvasion video where he's kissing "muslim" girls who have a hijab but are wearing shorts and a thong, lol
The real question is why Josh pursuits a law degree at all when he obviously could get a top job as a video graphics editor.
Pixel Guy I was literally thinking the same thing. His PowerPoint game was something to behold.
Yay 500th like!
I would've liked this but it's currently at 666 and I didn't want to ruin that.
IKR! He made such a spectacular PowerPoint presentation in a short time.
Pixel
One of my favorite interactions was when a professor of mine briefly discussed evolution and a freshman Christian student tried to pull a "gods not dead" and debate him, going so far as to ask the professor why he hated god (like in the movie but more ham fisted).
Little did the student know that the Professor was also a pastor at a nearby baptist church who just so happened to have a Ph.D in Biology and was just making extra money as an adjunct lecturer.
Professor shot Bible verses like a cowboy shoots bullets.
Sam Millwood favorite comment in this comment section 😂😂
They should make a movie of this
I willing go into debt to see that professor to talk to my grandparents. Just to see that, I could die and I would be at peace.
That's what happens when you try to use straw arguments against real people.
o...
A healthy mix of faith and reason
Rearly seen
But great every time
(im hardcore atheist, but i do like this kind of people - who dont mix reality with faith)
I went to a semi-private christian school purely because it was the closest to home, so we had a weekly class about religion (spoiler: we only talked about christianity), and our teacher, a father who tried to teach us about the immorality of lgbt+ people, suicide, and abortion, put us this film.
So you can imagine a whole class of 15 year olds either sleeping or laughting for an entire hour while he keeps telling us to shut up. Even the christian ones were. It's such a ridiculous movie.
🤣 That actually sounds like a really fun experience lol, what did your teacher do afterwards?
.
holly fuck I just realized something! christian schools have "religious learning" but don't teach anything outside christianity
I also went to a catholic school because it was close to home and my parents didn’t speak Italian, so they never knew it was a catholic school. So for like 10 years they all thought that all schools in Italy taught Christianity in school.
So I was basically the only atheist in my whole class room but I had a lot of fun there. In Italy when you go to primary school and do religious class they prepare you for 2 of the 7 sacraments(penance and confirmation). Which usually means reading some bible passages and knowing the true meaning of Easter and Christmas. They also had a lot of extracurricular activities like going to church, but usually as children we just played after mass.
In middle school they prepare you for the holy communion, you don’t need to do it, but if you do it with them you only need to attend 1 year of classes instead of 3 and you can get married in the church. All my classmates did it because they wanted to get a Christian marriage in the future. In high school they basically say fuck you, after the holy communion in the eyes of the church you are an adult that can get married so do anything you want, just remember to never use 2 condoms at once because the friction may break both of them.😂😂😂
During high school we also dropped the pg rating and our religion teacher finally could tell us how Christians were brutally murdered by Romans and showing us different types of executions and famous paintings about them, it was truly a eye opening experience, especially after he told us how powerful the church was during the Middle Ages and how they treated heretics.
Christianity isn’t a movie though. It doesn’t sum up the Gospel.
I love how this professor teaches _philosophy,_ the class where most people learn to reason and build a well-structured argument, and he supposedly hates God, and he could utterly dismantle literally every one of the kid's main arguments using stuff he probably teaches in his 101 class, but he just... Doesn't. He stalks around the room with his face contorting into a bunch of different stupid expressions like "man, this kid is just absolutely _destroying_ me."
LMFAO
also an philosophy proffersor is smart enough to know that belief isnt built on hatred or dislike, as well, which is his whole thing and the reason why he doesnt believe in god, just because he hates him, that only just shows that he recognises there is a God which is not what an aethiest is at all.
@@blepblep7245 The filmmakers probably didn’t even go to college, considering how much they hate higher education.
Minty Hippo, I don't think you can further prove a theory such "self- designing" universe? Utterly ridiculous hypothesis. Atheists still can't come up with anything better than: out of nothing came everything. And then they resort to snide and acrimonious remarks as far as the believers' cognitive functions are concerned. Oh, and they will throw scientific terminology in the mix, serving it with sarcastic humorous attacks. Well, if that doesn't prove their point , I don't know what will....right?
P.S.: but even if we forget that 0+0 or 0×0 is still 0; let's say that out the blue we had bacteria formed ...how in the world it could evolve into , say, a horse? And a bull???? Irreducibly complexity is at stake...and you say we, believers, are gullible. I'd assume that everyone else here is familiar with C14 theory as it relates to the age of our universe
@@csmoviles So... you just misrepresented the argument, did a hasty generalization, built a strawman, and an ad hominem in the process?
The supposed atheists you conjured are nowhere to be seen, leaving you the only one making the " snide and acrimonious remarks"
Also, C14 dating doesn't really work with masses older than 20k years-old.
And fantastic non sequitur, too. If you're really confused about evolution as a concept, I would recommend any biology class
You know those imaginary debates you have in your head during a shower? Someone made that into a movie
Best comment
Yooo fr
The arguments in my head make way more sense than these movies 😂
well debates in my brain are 1000 times better than this movie
Sadly they made a fourth one
I actually took philosophy classes in college taught by atheist professors. None were interested in dechristianizing anyone - on the contrary they often defended historical Christian philosophers like Descartes and Leibniz from atheists students who didn't understand those philosophers positions well enough.
@@coriiiiii2558 good point
@@coriiiiii2558 but there are anti theists, which is close enough
@@insert_edgyname8848 anti theists hate organized religion, not imaginary figures
@@patrickwalsh8913 well "imaginary figures" is kinda harsh dude... Like damn
i am a christian and descartes sucks
My sister went to a Christian high school and they had her watch this movie in her Theology class. Now it's a running joke where if one of us is a jerk to the other, we'll say 'You're acting like an Atheist from God's Not Dead.'
I saw this movie in middle school, since I went to a private Christian middle school, and I bet no one there even remembers it. All I remember is making a funny Vanoss reference when the "Le epic atheist gets pwned" moment happens
"look, I won an argument against an atheist I made up"
"Using my car"
Perfect
Oh wow! Let's put it on the fridge!
And everyone clapped.
That's Ravi Zacharias in a nutshell.
This movie creates a straw man athiest antagonist, and literally knocks it down with a car.
Subtle.
"Jesus, take the wheel" has a new meaning
The Wicked Witch of the North was the driver. Only she would have a big grudge against a strawman.
Here in Oklahoma the church is a lot of things. The community it's created has a lot of political power and very restrained well thought out marketing tools and content. A book none of the Christians have read is Tolstoy Anarchist Christian manifesto The Kingdom of God is Within Us which is highly subversive of Evangelical Politics that tells me the Leadership is politically oriented and not Jesus oriented.
@Voice of Reason even if we agree that a clump of cells is a human from day one.
That human being has no right to violate the body autonomy of another person against its will same as you cant draw blood from prisoners against their will or remove organs from a dead person against their will
@Under Bridge ugff please tell me about the corelation between ethnicity and cognitive ability since theres no research that has made the claim of a corelation let alone causal link
plot twist: the white girl talking to ayesha was a lesbian and was referring to all her clothes, not just the hijabi
Michelle F i mean...she looked good 🤷🏽♂️
that would be cool if it was true tbh
Spinoff movie where the two get together and get married and live happily ever after
I know it’s a joke but evangelicals don’t believe in gays
Eric Figler “if you like the vag we’ll call you a-“
The funniest part about this movie is it’s plot is basically just “everyone deserves kindness, unless they’re not Christian then fuck them”
To be fair, that's the moral compass of most Christians, so it checks out
As Jesus taught
As a former evangelical Christian, I can attest that's what they actually believe, no matter what they say
or ducks I guess
@@shvzvzjshvzhs3160 what if they're christian ducks?
The character in the movie who’s family was Muslim and she was a “closeted Christian” I guess. When her family found out and disowned her she had nothing and turned to other Christians for support. While I was watching that play out, I couldn’t help but see the irony when something like that happens to an lgbtq child in a strictly religious family, especially Christianity. It was a bit hipocritic in a since that they preach to believing in your religion regardless of what everyone else thinks. Yet there are still religious people out there who completely disown others who do something against the religion even if it’s something they can’t control. I just thought that was a bit interesting.
It becomes more ironic if you see that "you are beautiful, i wish you didn't have to do that" scene lol.
Christians are hypocritical? Shocking lol
@@juliavargas13 aren't most Muslim women cool with the Hijab though?
@@quasar7951 Far was I know they are. The most complains about the Hijab are in Iran and other countrys when it is compulsory and even non-muslim women have to use it.
@@juliavargas13 yeah
Dude really asked his prof. Why he hated God. Bruh I dont believe in Santa but I dont hate Santa tf
Edit: Not trying to make a dumb edit but I wanted to say that now I'm a Buddhist, and I have more respect for Christians than I did 4 years ago. Religion is actually pretty sick. 👍
I love it when Christians call atheists “devil worshippers”. I can’t love or hate or worship anything I don’t believe in. And if I don’t believe in God, what about that statement makes you think I believe any more in Satan?
Lol your profile pic is perfect for this comment
Many Christians believe that atheists are just telling themselves god doesn't exist because they're mad at him. It's dumb as hell, but it's a super common belief
@@maia_gaia ikr. Bruh. I cant even tell my parents I'm athiest because they'll take me to church to "cleanse" me. AGAIN. I pretended that I wasn't athiest anymore after that, and we haven't gone to church since. Thank god lol. XD
@@cocktailonion696 Damn. With that logic, since I dont believe in peanut butter, I worship jelly. Wtf?
Yelling "why do you hate god?!" over and over would lose literally any debate in real life, your opponent could pull down his trousers and play wipe out on his buttcheeks and he'd still be more credible
wHy 😖😖 do you HaTe 😫😫 GOD??? 😭😭
That is such a raw line I’m finna steal it
I give you award of best comment.
Ad hominem and non sequitur in one, right?
@@supercellodude straight up trash i would say
Meanwhile when my philosophy class talked about religion the professor was respectful and neutral towards all religions. There were Muslims and Christians in the class who were allowed to speak to their own experiences without preaching or trying to prove their beliefs are more valid than anyone else's. It was a surprisingly non-toxic environment and a good learning experience. Christians spend so much time hating and vilifying the Islamic religion without even realizing how much they have in common.
Like... it takes a special brand of tone deaf for Christians to make this movie portraying a Muslim family as controlling and intolerant of different beliefs. Look in a mirror lately?
Exactly. This movie wasn’t realistic. And it villainized unbelievers…which actually backfires on the goal of reaching them for Christ.
@@KingdomStoryFilms don’t get it twisted, the goal of this film was never to convert people. It was only to make Christians feel good about themselves for an hour and a half.
We are not the same, as a middle eastern who's also Muslim I had to laugh?! like wtf is this?! the dress isn't even correct.
@@tutu3909?? We Muslims have many things in common with Christians
i dont know what Christians youve been meeting but i havent persecuted anyone for their religion, neither has anyone in a 1000 mile radius from me
I don't trust him, he cheated on Teddy on good luck Charlie
😂
THAT'S WHAT HE'S FROM?? I KNEW HE LOOKED FAMILIAR
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
dayum, that is cold 🥶
UncleMoeLester the main character of the movie, he's teddy's boyfriend from good luck charlie ^^
It says a lot about American Christians that they can’t imagine being kind and caring for others if God didn’t make them
There’s Christians that hate this movie in the comments they all don’t think like this
@@thatsalotofdamage8568 yes but only American Christian's deny science except nazis
You guys forget that wesbero Baptist church still exist.
You know
THAT church
@@lop1991 there's also a christian dude arguing for a year in the comments by contradicting himself but also going "you're incorrect" to everyone lmao
yes because you wouldnt exist to be kind and caring if god didnt make you
“Without God, there’s no reason to be moral.” Buddy, people have all sorts of gods, but they still lack morality.
@Mitchell Fanning Exactly. And the flipside, too: there are great people out there who aren’t religious.
@@TerranPersoid725 And where do they get their morals then?
~99% of U.S. prisoners are religious...
@@nathanielyee9203 emphaty
@@nathanielyee9203 humans can understand emotions and will figure out what is right and wrong bacause they care about each other. You don't need to be part of a religion to be a good person.
Point is, you shouldn't need religion to be a good person, and if you do, you're not a good person.
When Nietzsche stated "God is dead" he didn't mean "God does not exist, he is 'dead'" because that would be a meaningless statement for an atheist to make. What he actually meant was "Human beings have progressed past the NEED for an external figure of worship, when we can find self-actualisation within" which is a much more interesting and nuanced argument than perma-offended, pearl-clutching evangelicals like to give him credit for.
Whether or not you agree with his point, it's far, far more complex than "Duhhh God's not real 'cause I say so."
hotelmario510 Yeah i think anyone but a baby or a braindead holy roller would get the connotation
Wonderful, wonderful point!
My favorite response that misses the point of Nietzsche is the pithy response I read on the back of an apologetics book:
"God is dead"
- Nietzsche
"Nietzsche is dead"
- God
Just... Wow, so petty.
@@olefredrikskjegstad5972 Not petty, just your misunderstanding of the meaning of their counterpoint.
@@LeRoyBoxley434 Hardly. The actual book wasn't anything more substantial than your usual apologetics fare. It didn't have anything new to bring to the table than the standard stuff. Not a creationist or fundamentalist work, in fairness, but being above the level of someone like Ken Hamm or Kent Hovind isn't something to aspire to.
I like how they think atheists believe God died and not that he just wasn’t there ever.
To be fair, 'God is dead' is a metaphor from a pretty famous Nietzsche quote. Considering the Prof. teaches philosophy, I'm fairly sure having him swear by it is intentional
I believe in a beginning scene, the professor does point this out, saying "God is dead" is a false statement, as God never existed. When he was requiring them all to write it over and over again, starting the whole plot because the main character didn't. Fun fact, he gave bonus points for someone who wrote"god is dead" instead, using a lowercase for God
@@EvelynFTTE This is so cartoon-ish.
One of the most misunderstood quotes . Most think Nietzche wrote in celebratory tone but it wasn't at all it was a lamantation.
That’s like saying I had a son named Jeff and Jeff died recently even though I’m a virgin and never even had sex
I absolutely love the Strawman "Atheists" in movies like this, their dialogue is always hilarious. There are always certain key words and phrases that Christian writers are irresistibly compelled to stick in non-believers' mouths, like "Atheistic" and "Worldview." Not to mention the fact that they all seemingly think Charles Darwin is the First Atheist Pope (TM), that lost souls devoutly adore like some 19th century apostle.
"and on this book of origin, I build my origin. This decree the flying spaghetti monster!!!
Michael Gipson
The Darwin thing is kind of telling really. They blindly follow and trust in the word of some people from long ago, so they assume atheists do too. It’s projection.
@@Contributron I agree, but I still try to be humorous. It helped us survive as a species for quite a while, and poking a little fun is rather amusing.
I'd probably find it funnier if characters like these didn't make people assume atheists are all traumatized liars who are undergoing an existential adolescent rebellion. But maybe it's just too personal for me to properly mock.
@AIFAHRA HORGGHRO Um...no? First off, if it was, they would be portraying the relatable Christians as teen-like, not the atheists. Second...look, I've seen a lot of these traumatized-liar "Hollywood Atheists," and both they and their not-atheist-but-not-True-Believer counterparts are diverse in presentation. The most straightforward interpretation is that a significant proportion of authors genuinely think atheists are like that. Which is also what plenty of fundies literally say out loud.
I became an atheist at the age of 9. Mom sent me to my room because I was naughty. I prayed to God to turn me into Godzilla so I could stomp around town and feel better. God didn't do that. Therefore, there is no God. And that makes more sense than God's Not Dead.
logic not found
What point is there in God if he ain't even gonna turn you into a behemoth
@@prozorozo exactly, i want my money back, goddammit
@@yarinoi8662 WHO dammit.
Science dammit
These movies are the arguments Christians have in the shower with themselves with imaginary atheists as the shampoo applauds
its kinda fun how atheists used to do the same thing just 10 or so years ago
@@Crosshill honestly "winning debates with yourself in the shower" is a habit regardless of religion or politics
@@motnurky7055 and cirklejerking is easy cause theres an online community for everything and everyone, and you might even 'win' a debate against a real person if enough people updoot your sicc burns
To be fair, there are truckloads of atheists that tend to attack Christians for no reason. For some reason they like it more than attacking islam and Judaism
@@gem6105 Christianity is more attacked by Atheism from Europe or America than other religions because they know it better. I know a lot of christians, some muslims and probably no jews (as far as I know).
They're not even using arguments and questions atheists actually _use._
If they did they would be straw manning the situation to where it would be unwatchable.
Maybe because they could never debunk real arguments :)
@@riotgrrrl8807 lmao headass
Cryptid Fan Good argument.
derpy clause Yes, but the point is, if you can't defend your beliefs against real arguments, you shouldn't hold them.
I love how they portray this atheist professor as a villain that seeks to destroy Christianity. Which is how most Christians view atheist in the real world
We should pray for them
Marcel Zachary to whom? Christians?
I mean, isn’t that what the modern world is trying to do?
Captainpep No not really, their is no large movement to destroy Christianity, maybe there a few people who actively seek to destroy religion. That’s not a majority, what’s really happening is more people are questioning the Bible and Christians who identify themselves very closely take this as an attack. Christians aren’t being persecuted, at least in the western world.
Swolsuke the way I see it, it feels that the modern world itself is trying to push Christianity away from everything and that if you are a Christian then you’re a homophobe, sexist, etc
The problem with "bad things happen because of free will" is that it presupposes that all suffering is a result of human actions, which is blatantly untrue
Damn, I really shouldn't have voted for that hurricane that flooded my house, real bad idea in hindsight
Yeah, that's not true at all. Bad things can happen because of free will, but that's because free will inherently grants us the ability to do anything good or bad. Not all bad things happen because of free will. For example, you're capable of murdering someone because of free will, but a hurricane killing someone isn't caused by free will.😊
@@Bighomie39 I know it's considered a pretty basic criticism of religion but I honestly haven't heard a good response to the problem of evil
@@nickchambers3935 speaking as a Christian, I view it as God granting us free will. As for why He did that, I think it's because love is a choice, and therefore God wanted us to be able to make choices. However, the granting of free will also granted us a capacity for malice, and therefore evil.
@@Bighomie39 Sure. But there is the problem of non human evil (Hurricane). Also, what is free will?
Girl to other girl with Hijab: I wish you didn’t have to wear that.
Girl with Hijab: I wish you didn’t have to wear that stupid headband Karen but here we are.
Jesus Hijab girl, i thought Islam was a religion of peace!
@@thehermit8618 me too, but with that absolute murder? im not sure!
The funny part is, I thought her calling the Arab girl beautiful gave off some big gay vibes.
Karen could wear a hijab too
@T'ai Chi for Arthritis - Rebecca they're just big hypocrites. not just Christians, almost all religious people in general
The funniest moment for me in this movie is when the Chinese student was talking to his parent. He's speaking in Cantonese while the father is speaking Mandarin.
It's like you're speaking English and your son's speaking Italian.🤣
Holy shit that's hysterical. Like, I can only assume the director just said "say this in chinese" to both actors.
I actually do this sometimes with my parents. My mom speaks mandarin while my dad speaks cantonese, so sometimes I start talking to one of them and forget to switch, which results in me speaking one language and them speaking another, though I usually switch after a sentence or two.
@@henrywong7607 yeah, that might happen, but let's be honest that's probably not what the writers of the movie intended lol
@@henrywong7607 i somehow doubt they were thinking about it like this
@@muggerpugger3231 @Émile I know, just wanted to share a cool story
"God is the only way morality matters"
Every non-Christian Society (Especially the Athiest ones): Bruh
I'd wager that not even most christians believe that
If you think about it what is the point of being morale with no overall purpose in the end whether you were a good person or not
If you don’t believe
@@loganstrawn6366 even if nothing matters in the end what you do still affects people's lives. Emotions, ideas and thoughts are real wether the univerde ends or not
@@thehuman2cs715 to the movies point I never said emotions aren’t real but, if you can rob a bank or swear a person off without giving a hoot. As Christians we live for Christ and the Bible lays out a set of “rules” so we show others we are different. I can’t understand an atheistic perspective because I have been all in since I was born but, I know for a fact that you wouldn’t be able to understand where I am coming from until you read or hear the scriptures.
The fact that people think empathy is a DLC only accessible through God is disturbing.
And ironically, they don’t have empathy for those that aren’t “chosen” or different in some way, be it sexual orientation or identity, race or especially class. American Christians fucking hate the poor 😭
I’ve never seen it described this way but I love it. Thank you
Some even include love, hope, or even intellect.
It pisses me off because their misunderstanding of nonbelievers can be so great, that we might as well not have a debate at all at that point.
I feel like the movie uses Christianity as a baseline, and as something everyone is born as. All the Christian characters are normal people, the atheists want to be Christian and are just atheist for some reason that broke their Christianity, and the Muslim chick wants to be Christian but her dad is forcing her to go against her instincts. By putting Christianity in characters in a natural, inborn way, the movie subliminally tells its audience that god is everywhere and you would only refuse him, i.e. the inborn truth, if you had something happen to you that makes you wrong.
That’s a very interesting take-I’ll have to think on that.
That’s a pretty cool take
Let's be honest, that was not a stylistic chouce. It happend purely because the creators of the movie are to stupid to see the world any other way.
This movie reminds me a lot of bad harem animes where everyone likes the edgy main character for no apparent reason.
This is literally how a lot of them think; they use having a conscience as justification for innately believing in God and that version of morality, and if you don't agree you must be doing bad things to get rid of that inner feeling. I completely agree that this movie uses Christianity as a baseline. In my experience (aka my dad forcing me to watch this movie and its sequel) the goal is more to radicalize a Christian audience than it is to actually prove anything about the validity of the religion, which is why Christianity is undefined except in regards to other factors.
I think this is also how more extreme or regular Muslims think
I was dying when the professor is dying at the end and no one decides to help him but instead the students tell him to accept Jesus before he goes and that it's not to late 😂
That's seriously how it ends?? They want to depict Christians as good people but end the movie with weird cult bs? Sounds like some Children of the Corn shit 😂
@@nightlizard8595 Children of the Corn is what I was thinking of this entire video!! Haha
@@nightlizard8595 it ends that way to show that it's never too late to accept Jesus into your heart. I've been changed by the Lord's grace and I can tell you first hand that he's helped me get over a life of depression and drugs. God was there when no one else was. All you have to do is truly look for him and he will reveal himself to you.
@@christianfudge3506 you're only proving my point that this is some creepy occultist Children of the Corn shit
@@christianfudge3506 Not better.
Movie: "her dad hits her and disowns her when he finds out she's christian"
Me: *looks at the homeless rates of LGBT+ people, who are often kicked out of their homes by their christian parents* ..... u m
Movie: "Her dad forces her to wear a hijab for their god"
Me: .... *looks at apostolics and women forced into modesty/purity culture by their churches and religious schools* U M - - -
I understand the point that you're trying to make but religions aren't monoliths. Not all Muslims are intolerant of other religions or deny women rights. But at the same time not all Christians are intolerant of the gay community or force purity culture on their daughters. Try to be aware that individuals and smaller communities exist within religions that believe different things and just because someone's Christian doesn't mean they're somehow responsible for a subset of their community that is intolerant.
@@harrygarris6921 I am aware. Because I'm a Christian myself lol. Just because not everyone in a group is a certain way doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge those issues. If we as Christians want to make a change, we have to be self aware and talk about these things.
@@sophisticatedPJs I wasn't aware that you were criticizing the church from within, my bad. I do agree with you that is an important thing to do to some extent.
...
As an atheist im sooo glad to see actual beliver beeing critical of the church organization, and practices
soo
good on you my friend
You are one of the *sane* belivers
Yep👏
Why do they always pretend to be oppressed so bad💀
They are 😅 people still Christian’s in many countries no other country kills any other people of religion
@@missoreofreak
Did you actually research before saying so many straight-up lies?
@@CatBitchNami It is hilariously fitting for Aldia to be criticising someone for blindly following a Lord... A Lord of Light, perhaps?
@@AivaskilIsu
A lie will remain a lie.
@@missoreofreak Please seek out a refund on anything you have spent on education and formally apologize to your teachers. I literally cannot piece together what you are saying from that disgrace to the English language you call a sentence.
When I saw that this movie was criticizing Islam for being oppressive and unwilling to let their followers indulge in free will, I was reminded of that Spiderman meme with the two identical Spidermen pointing at each other in accusation.
Nabzarella Dare haha totally. Both of these ‘spidermans’ are awful in actuality. Religion kills.
+Nabzarella Dare ? More like Dabzarella Dare. Cause you stuntin on them
Ok but christians don't behead you for challenging doctrine lol
christians will readily engage their opposition as well
*A vbad anon acount* Way to confuse Islam in general, with Islamic extremists.
*Nabzarella Dare* I had a whole comment typed out but it didn't send so i'll just link you this and you can draw your own conclusions
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy#/media/File:Map_of_countries_with_death_penalty_for_atheists.svg
as a paleontologist the part about evolution nearly gave me an aneurysm
Crater Lake as a philosopher, I wanted to die during the arguments. All of them. I know your pain >_
As a man in possession of a functioning brain, I wish to assure you that the pain you felt is not limited to paleontologists alone
That pain is felt by all with the ability to think
Emil Edlund hmm I saw something because I wanted to see it, how weird
What about that scene specifically made you cringe? I am a Christian, but I really am asking out of curiosity; I'm not trying to prove a point or anything.
"Without God, why should we even have morality?" is such a shallow, frankly disturbing argument. I mean...
1. Because most of us have empathy
2. Because acting amorally often causes needless suffering...which is, y'know, a bad thing
3. Because a lack of morals would be socially maladaptive, as society can't function without a moral code
There are plenty of reasons to develop/promote morality. Tbh, "because God says so" isn't even much of an explanation at all, given its lack of universality -- not all societies are religious, and yet all societies have some sense of morality. To imply otherwise is just...grossly ethnocentric and self-righteous. It's also rhetorically irrelevant, since the question is not "why are MY morals superior?" but rather "why do ANY morals even exist?" This answer is like saying "marriage exists because I love my wife."
"Without God, why should we even have morality?" Every time I hear that line, or see it, I could only imagine a shallow and empty person. Sitting in their room, not doing anything, and still needed someone to "teach" them how to be kind, rather than having empathy themselves. It's like you still needed someone to tell you to do something, rather than doing them yourself and learn from it.
Most of our morality is cultural, not biological which is where our empathy comes from. Similar to christians we teach our kids rules of how they should behave in the society and if they don't behave properly they will be punished, christianity is just older observations and ideas about the world.
Your argument is even more shallow.
1. If most of you have empathy, shouldn't the crime among all humans in general be less than among religious people? And by basic math, it's impossible, because religious people is included among people, and therefore they also have empathy, yet their crime is significantly less?
And of course, that argument alone destroy all 3 of your counter argument.
Empathy doesn't work, if by default, people have perfect empathy by themselves, there wouldn't be any crime. The point is that people do not have those, the tests have been done, and you have failed.
Society have proven that they're incapable of figuring things out by themselves without something telling them what to do, so the benefits of religion is undeniable.
Religion is just like common teachings, moral sense is a religion, or both "moral sense" and "ethics" are just ideas that people follow, however, by having such absolute values embedded within them, religion is much more effective in guiding incompetent people.
And if you think that incompetent people are not an overwhelming part of the society, look again.
@@markarmage3776 No it wouldn't, it depends on what culture you happen to live in. We have learned to feel empathy towards random people through our culture. There are tribes that are cannibals and they don't have the same view on life as we westerners, I think that if you're religious or not has little effect on you compared what culture you are from, and I think religion has built on our culture alot considering that christianity has existed in it for 1000 years. I also believe that there are more people than psychopaths that commit crimes, so I don't believe that people with empathy commits a crime.
I also don't think most people in our society is incompetent. Our technological and philosophical development has moved so far that we think of ourselves above animals.
I don't know what you misunderstood in my argument. I don't consider religious people to be perfect, I never argued for everyone to be perfectly empathic. My argument was simply that culture has played a larger role than empathy in our moral system. That's why we don't eat humans like other cultures. We also don't attack other small tribes of humans like chimpanzees do to each other.
@@markarmage3776 What? What the fuck are you even saying?
"If most of you have empathy, shouldn't the crime among all humans in general be less than among religious people? And by basic math, it's impossible, because religious people is included among people, and therefore they also have empathy, yet their crime is significantly less?"
Who are you referring to with you in 'most of you'? Atheists? People of non-Christian faith?
"shouldn't the crime among all humans in general be less than among religious people" No???? Why would this be true??? Your assertion is that humans in general should be committing less crimes than people of faith, due to empathy? Religious people have empathy too???? Both groups have empathy??? What the fuck?
"And by basic math, it's impossible, because religious people is included among people"
Do *YOU* know basic math??????? This assertion that the crime rate of religious people can't be mathematically lower than whatever you define as 'people' in "among people", is stupid.(You should have backed it up with something, cause by itself it's plain stupid) You're not being specific enough here for me to make any decent criticisms. But I suspect you're talking about averages of crime rates between two sample sizes, one defined as religious people and the other defined as everyone, and I suspect you're trying to say that the smaller sample size of religious people can't have a higher crime than everyone, because that's how you think math works.
"and therefore they also have empathy, yet their crime is significantly less?" Uhm, the fuck? What are you basing your claim of 'religious people's crime rate is less'? You got reliable numbers? Statistics? Sources?? And yeah? Religious people do have empathy?? Who's saying they don't??? You??
"And of course, that argument alone destroy all 3 of your counter argument" Do you even understand what your argument is?
"Empathy doesn't work, if by default, people have perfect empathy by themselves, there wouldn't be any crime." *what.*
"The point is that people do not have those, the tests have been done, and you have failed." WHAT????? What fucking tests?
"Society have proven that they're incapable of figuring things out by themselves without something telling them what to do, so the benefits of religion is undeniable." Sources?????? Also, I suspect you're trying to say that no major civilization has been without religion and therefore religion is a necessary part of society, which is flawed reasoning. It's like saying crime and violence has been a part of all major civilizations and thus is a necessary part of society, and thus we should make "The Purge" by James Demonaco into reality. Or maybe a closer parallel would be stories. No major civilization has been without stories, and thus stories are necessary to society. Pretty sure societies wouldn't just go extinct without stories.
"Religion is just like common teachings, moral sense is a religion, or both "moral sense" and "ethics" are just ideas that people follow, however, by having such absolute values embedded within them, religion is much more effective in guiding incompetent people." I suspect your meaning is something like 'religion helps guide people to be good' but its phrased so poorly (as is most of what you said is) that I'm really not sure. But I don't think anyone in this comment thread is arguing against this?
Again, what the *fuck* are you saying?
The fact that this movie features a University Philosophy professor having no retort to "God is the only source of objective morality" is quite staggering
If someone steals from you.
You don't have something anymore that was precious to you. This alone is enough to tell you that stealing isn't a good thing and you shouldn't do it to other people to make them feel as badly as you do.
You don't need an imaginary man sitting on a cloud to tell you not to
@@riffgroove I don't think this movie is intended for people who can make logical connections that far. I think its more for the "Its bad cause I said so" intellectuals of the christian community.
@@wako1576 "Christian intellectual" is an oxymoron.
@@riffgroove The issue is about finding an *objective* basis for morality - one that can judge wrong actions to be wrong regardless of who's doing the judging. If you base morality on emotions (i.e. "feeling bad"), then it's not objective. You can't tell whether someone is feeling bad or just faking it, and you can't always predict when someone is going to feel bad. Not to mention it allows a lot of concerning edge cases (if I steal from a comatose person who can't feel emotion, did I do anything wrong? Or worse yet, if I murder someone, then they can't feel emotions anymore cause they're dead, so is murder wrong?).
@hoodiesticks I stand by my original statement.
If you steal from someone, it doesn't take a rocket-scientist to determine they most likely won't be happy about it.
Seriously, the professors character comes across as though some teenager who was homeschooled by fundamentalists was trying to imagine what a “Godless intellectual” is like, without actually having been to college.
Godless intellectuals along with Muslims. I'm embarrassed for the writers and their levels of unfamiliarity with the subjects.
moar schtuff , that was funny.
I’m pretty sure that’s exactly what happened
When the protagonist presented these arguments for the existence of God I just kept imagining Dawkins' reaction to this. He would snort himself into oblivion and then rant about all the logical fallacies that he spotted. Plus scientific and biblical inconsistencies. He would probably be done in a week.
Ikr--the class isn't even a serious philosophy class, and the professor would probably be fired or suspended on ethical grounds for his antics in real life.
“ We would never have our women wear face scarves that is demeaning and against women’s rights “
Heads on home
“ Sara why you wearing such short shorts, I don’t care it’s 100 outside God doesn’t want you dressing like a common hussie, while you live in my house you will live under my rules! “
I don’t think that’s because her dads Christian I think that’s because he’s a dad and he doesn’t want her walking around in short shorts
@@godemperortrump6932 Hes just highlighting the hypocrisy
King Kai yeah but it’s a bad example
@@godemperortrump6932 Not really hard to understand
King Kai it’s not unreasonable to not want your daughter walking around in booty shorts
Did literally no one in this film even look at a single picture of a hijabi and see how we actually cover our heads
Like... the short sleeves?? The LAUGHABLE attempt at a niqab look? have mercy
@@nkozi they literally heard about headcoverings and made it up. No research
Nkozi Cole they also forget that many Muslim women choose to wear a hijab and it isn’t forced on them, but that would require a degree of truth which they simply can’t live with
Kai Flood wrong, everyone knows that all Muslim women are FORCED to wear a hijab. This movie accurately depicts all Muslims and their beliefs.
69 likes nice
I love how the girl who is " forced to wear a hijab" by her dad is still showing her arms. I get many hijabis might want to show their arms, but this movie is trying to paint muslim fathers as controlling people who force their daughters to conform to islam, and they couldn't even get that right. Not to mention the hijab is more like a hybrid between a shayla and a niqab. It's so inaccurate it's funny.
I have been friends with some Muslims and some Muslims do act like this and some don’t but I will say the majority leans to them doing this 😅
I'm just now noticing that the Muslim girl's father is not only a "bad Muslim" but also the most ethnic looking Middle Eastern guy ever. His daughter meanwhile is one shade away from a white person. Rather creepy visual shorthand.
this is a really good catch that I didn't notice
Great point.
Yeah I noticed this too, they really managed to find the most propaganda political comic character looking guy to represent a Middle Eastern man, who is generally portrayed as evil in propaganda, and he's evil in this movie. Yikes
The daughter even speaks with a vocal fry lol
that is a pretty good and disturbing point
Could you imagine being a regular college student in this class and absolutely hating this kid and the professor? 😂 imagine the reviews you would find on the internet lmao. I would send an email to my dean or advisor like “hey can you please deal with this shit so I can actually get the education that I’m paying out the ass for?”
Ikr lol
Definitely, if I saw this happening in real life I'd go into Karen mode so fast oh my god. LeT ME spEAK tO YoUR MaNAGEr
Get that professor moved to a different class and reprimanded, and get the kid suspended for ruining the learning environment.
I was just imagining the rate my professor review a average student would have "Yeah the class was generally okay but the professor got in a semester long argument with a student on the existence of God. This isn't even a class dealing with religion and they wasted like 5 class sessions on it. Overall I would not recommend."
Not to mention this professor doesn't seem to know anything about Philosophy, I guess he's tenured.
This really is just pragerU the movie
God, no.
PragerU videos look like actual university courses compared to this...
@@E4439Qv5 they look like it. but they sound about the same. arguing from emotion and theoreticals rather than any actual reasoning
Evidently you’ve never watched a PragerU video but hey you can keep being misinformed
RadioTSM {Operator Teddy Timis} not surprised leftists have a deep hate of truth
@@trekrl2327 what truth are you referring to?
As an atheist, my goal isn’t to destroy Christianity.
I want to destroy bigotry.
While Christianity has been used as a tool to perpetuate that, there are also actually good Christians (like Brenda from God Is Grey), who don’t use it as a weapon.
My goal is to have conversations so hopefully whatever you believe out there, can coexist with basic human rights.
Do what you want, but cause no harm.
as an agnostic muslim i dont want to destroy christianity, i want to live my own
@@iputapipebombintoyourmailb6210 I’m sorry for the ignorance you have dealt with ❤️ i wish you the best in your future
@Nathan Reinders unfortunately there’s more people who don’t think that way, than do :/
I consider myself a true Christian and the bigotry that many evangelicals show genuinely pisses me off. It’s like they didn’t even read the fucking Bible, where Jesus, the guy they say they worship, literally commands us to love and respect everyone. It’s absurd and I have to apologize for these people more than I should have to.
@Sanctus Paulus 1962 i wrote this long ago. forget about it
As a religious person myself, I'm so freaking happy that this movie made atheists AND theists mad. This movie sucks and I hate everything it stands for
Well I mean I assume it stands for God... So yeah, you shouldn't hate everything it stands for if you're religious.
@@boombox3819 No, this is demonizing any non-religious AND any religious that isn't Christian, when in reality, I (along with my faith, the Church of Jesus Christ) believe that there's still some value to be found from lots of different religions, Christian or not.
And that there's some great people out there who happen to be atheist/agnostic, if they didn't get the choice/chance to be religious or they were never introduced to it in a positive light, why should I blame them? This movie treats Christianity as much more cult-like than it needs to be. It's also conservative which is big cringe
@@WiloPolis03 it still stands for God, so you shouldn't hate everything it stands for.
@@boombox3819 It's taking something I support and twisting it into an incredibly self-righteous manner that's used dishonestly to push a conservative agenda; I'm not a fan of that.
@@boombox3819 Disliking this movie isn't disliking God. This is the worst portrayal of Christianity that they could have shown--shallow and inept.
Why would an Atheist argue that god is dead when, to an atheist, god never existed and therefore is incapable of dying? The Nietzsche quote I always took to mean that religion has outlived its usefulness. So to disprove that “god is dead” he would instead need to argue that religion is useful and humanity can benefit from religion, which makes more sense than trying to do the impossible task of proving an unknowable force’s existence and feel proud of the good that faith has in people’s lives rather than demonize people who don’t share their beliefs. But hey 🤷🏻♀️that would take actual nuance, and that’s not as easy to write.
Which proves that Pureflix doesn't know what the fuck it's talking about. That Nietzsche quote is super easy to interpret (fuck, I never studied philosophy and I can do it) and only a really close minded person would take it literally
Plus it would require actually knowing literally anything about philosophy. Evangelicals hate philosophy - which I find funny because most of the apologists they look up to actually studied philosophy (see William Lane Craig for a perfect example). Philosophy is all about questioning things and that's something evangelicals can't stand - they want firm answers and to not have to worry about whether or not they're right.
When he said “God is dead,” he was talking about God being dead to humanity and that humans killed him and that it was not a good thing. He was talking about how millions of lives would be lost in the 20th century due to the loss of God in society, and what did we get?
@@crowrebirth The God Nietzsche speaks of is not just the God of the Christians. It is the God of natural religion as well.
@BohemianScandalous I think you've summarized my entire perspective on this issue. I'm an agnostic atheist and I think religion, even theistic religions, can be very useful! I just don't believe they're objectively correct. As to the God issue, I take the Zen Buddhist stance. I don't know for 100% fact if God's real, I can't know for 100% fact if God's real, no one can know for 100% fact if God's real, so I divert my attention elsewhere and worry about more terrestrial matters while still being as compassionate, humble, and conservation-minded as I can; not because some deity via a dusty book tells me to be those things but because I can deduce that maintaining those three qualities will afford me and those with whom I interact the most optimal life in terms of overall well-being.
15:20 That's not how Islamic modesty code works. I'm not speaking ethically, just from factual perspective. No pious Muslim father is going to force his daughter to cover her hair and face while allowing her to wear jeans and short-sleeved blouses. It starts with form-concealing clothing for the arms, legs, and chest. Some people stop there. I have friends and peers who are pretty religious and dress like that without veiling. Then if someone decides that's not modest enough, they had the headscarf. From there, you go for a chador (a cloak that covers the hair, shoulders, and chest, and maybe the lower body too). And finally, there's the face-concealing niqab (the one that covers the whole body and leaves only a slit for the eyes).
The movie instead has her cut out the highest level modest garment, stick it on her face, and leave everything else like a Christian/non-hijabi Muslim girl. If this seems besides the point, I just wrote it because it supports your point that the movie uses Islam as a prop with no actual attention or curiosity in how Muslims actually live.
While I agree with your larger point about Islam as a prop, I do want to correct your assertion that "No pious Muslim father is going to force his daughter to cover her hair and face while allowing her to wear jeans and short-sleeved blouses."
When I was in college, I saw this ALL the time. At least 50 girls I passed in the hallway were sporting that garb. I was even good friends with a girl that wore tight jeans/blouses and covered her hair. She told me that her dad would have been very angry/disappointed if she didn't cover, but when she stopped he never beat her, it just kinda strained their relationship. I also go to a YMCA in a heavily populated muslim area so I see little girls wearing basically normal american style clothes and head scarfs.
Joe- I mean, Muslim or not, they're girls in college. About the same time the Christian girls realize that "not causing a brother to stumble" doesn't necessarily mean bulky sweaters 24/7, I'm sure many Muslim girls figure out that no one is calling them a slut because they can see her elbows.
I'm pretty sure it varies between countries. When France was trying to "free" Algerians from their religion many used only face-concealing. Partially because it could be quickly hidden from the police, but it retained the intended religious value.
You can see pictures of women in jeans with the chador or niqab in pictures from Iran during the 70's too.
Joe Kanter i think the point isnt that muslim girls dont wear jeans, but that a strict muslim father who forces her to wear hijab would definitely object to it. Why force her to wear the headscarf, then be fine with her wearing short sleeves and skinny jeans?
The thing with Iran thought is that before the US put a dictator in charge and fucked up the country, they were considered one of the most liberal states in the middle east, so having jeans on in the 70s wasn't really a big issue for them. They were on the path of becoming a 1st world nation before we screwed everything up.
Pretty easy to win an argument when you write both sides.
Tell that to Plato lol
I want the Monty Python crew to make a spoof called "God's not quite dead, he's getting better!"
Im dying help
Or maybe, "God's Only Mostly Dead", starring Billy Crystal.
@wute aevere you have no taste
Haha yeah only the parrot is really dead lol
@@66fiveandahalf
He’s not dead he’s just sleeping
The main protagonist looks like a low budget josh hutcherson
Apparently, the main protagonist was the real life boyfriend of Bridget Midler of “Good Luck, Charlie.” He also played the role of the boyfriend in that show as well.
Haha that’s a pretty spot on description
I was trying to remember who he reminded me of, that's exactly it
Trapped on a Ethics class with Josh Hutcherson
@ LMAOOO true
Even as a kid being raised christian I thought it was weird how this movie either villainized or converted all the non-christian characters. I had to uncomfortably sit through this movie so many times when I was younger.
I used to think this movie was so good. But I was also a terrible person 😕. I'm glad I can look back and notice how bad and unhappy I was
(I'm not atheist now. I'm agnostic)
@@nym0s177 I'm sure you're a much better person now that you're Godless
@@occisorminotauri their point wasn't that being "godless" made them a better person? It was that as they grew up they assessed their views and are now happier as a person?
@@ollie_3948 finishing every sentence with a question mark makes you sound like a child?
@@occisorminotauri Why are you accusing them of something instead of taking on their argument?
In his first argument, he also got the science completely wrong. The big bang was not an explosion of light. The big bang was not an explosion of... anything. Because the big bang was not an explosion. There was not an outward release of energy but, instead, a rapid expansion of the very spacetime "fabric" of the universe that the energy was already inhabiting.
Even if you want to call it "functionally" an explosion - the next thing gotten wrong is that the big bang started about 370,000 years *before* photons had enough of a free path for the universe to become "transparent" and light (as we see it) could happen. Before then it was all super-dense plasma that couldn't emit any light because there were too many free charged particles everywhere scattering the photons.
Finally, no physicist believes that the universe was created out of nothing when the big bang happened. In fact, for the big bang to even happen, the energy of the universe had to have *already been there* in a singularity. As for where *that* energy came from... gotta go with a big ol' "?" because we have no way of learning anything about any events before just after the big bang started. That energy could be eternal or created or something else we can't even imagine yet.
Oh, it gets even worse than that... I am surprised that Joel didn't hone in on it, but regardless, his relation of the Big Bang Theory is so easily attacked from a learned Atheist's point of view AND an indication of how the kind of Christians behind this couldn't even throw a Catholic a bone; the Belgian cosmologist he referenced, Georges Lemaître, who started the whole BBT a'rolling, was a Catholic priest, so it's hardly revelatory that he believed it representative of God's existence.
Plus, I doubt Lemaître would have agreed with his wording of it, or even referenced Genesis as anything other than analogous or metaphor.
Ok bill nye
The white girl telling the Muslim girl she’s beautiful was pretty sugar gay if ur asking me
That's what I thought too.
This comment kinda implies Muslim is a race XD
Stellar Aevum well i knew the white girl was white but i have no idea what race the muslim girl is idk its the easiest way to identify them from the video
@Ruben Colon Uh yeah I have. Alot actually Depends if you mean "white" as in the skin, lots of arabs are white or you meant "white" as in European uh yeah. Ever heard of Bosnia? European country. 51% Muslim. Not from immigrants.
@@rollinthunder1000 Albanians and Bosnians
Wonderful video. As a Christian, I've been completely disgusted with this movie (and PureFlix in general) for years now. They're one-sided, they promote an "us vs. them" mentality that Jesus would despise, and they really only care about money when it comes down to it. The hilarious thing is, even as a propaganda film, this is poorly-constructed propaganda. As you pointed out, the internal logic doesn't make any sense, and it has self-proclaimed "intellectual Christians" such as myself rolling their eyes every other minute. Everything is so vastly oversimplified and pandering that it feels like it was written by a person who had 'studied' Christians, but is not one themselves. Anyone who looks at this film and says "that's the movie Jesus would make if he were a filmmaker today" is kidding themselves. Jesus would make a Shawshank Redemption or a Lord of the Rings. Ya know, something that accurately shows the love, glory, and *nuance* of God, instead of creating strawman stereotypes to tear down.
Anyway, once again, thanks for making this video. I've been enjoying the stuff coming out of your channel recently and didn't realize I missed this when it came out last year.
I never thought I’d see “Jesus,” “Shawshank Redemption,” and “Lord of the Rings” in the same sentence, but it oddly feels like it fits. I’m currently trying to work through theology, philosophy and science to figure out what religion makes the most sense (I include Atheism as a religion merely for ease of classification. I like my taxonomy-esc charts). I can’t help but learn towards Christianity, though Atheists whom I have talked with have brought up some good points. Honestly, I find debate to be more productive than wanking off to how right you are, and that problem appears on both sides.
Damn, I am rambling like a mad man. I don’t think any two sentences in there relate to each other.
Unfortunately, that type of false christian is the status quo. And the infuriating thing is, they make people like you look awful, and I legitimately fear that the US is headed towards some dark, dark events in the near future as a result of this religious fervor building up among the radical right.
Amen brother. I truly despise the somewhat warped version of Christianity that has become mainstream. This is an alteration of what Jesus and the Bible truly stands for.
Steve, no, I didn't realize I was retarded, thank you for enlightening me with logic and reason rather than simplistic name calling.
As for your source, it points out both violent right-wing groups and radical Islamic groups. My point was about those radical Christians that are doing all of the killing, because Christianity is evil, and anyone who defies this notion is obviously retarded and believes any facts are "fake news."
We can play the "no u" game all day long, though I find it about as entertaining and productive as gouging my eyes out.
Nerd Herd You know, you're pretty bad at this. But that's ok, don't get discouraged! You can say whatever you want, whether it's factual or not. That's the american way! I know how hard it must be for you, making your way through this hardscrabble life as a straight white boy. You're also can't bring in statistics from different countries to prove some half-baked argument that isn't relevant to the US in any way, as we are explicitly discussing the US. And lemme tell ya, of aaaaaalllllllllllllll the mass shootings and acts of domestic terrorism on US soil, the overwhelming majority have been perpetrated by straight white men.l
I know, I know, you're so fragile and delicate, even the mere mention that any white boy would murder anyone is a personal attack on you somehow. It's all my fault, really. I should have been more mindful to avoid stating objective facts in your presence.
Can we talk about how she has short sleeves with a hijab on
No.
Some people don’t really care. I didn’t until I just stopped wearing it.
@@acreativeusername9782 huh...some people just wear long sleeves no hijab then. Were you forced?
isnt the point of a hijab to just cover the hair
@@zapsoda4984 yeah but the point is to be modest. What's the point of covering your hair to be modest if I can see your cleavage. Same difference
"With no god there's no real reason to be moral"
Remember that time god said that it's fine to have slaves and that it's fine to beat the shit out of the slaves and if they die this is not even a bad thing? Yeah, we definetly need god to be moral...
Remember that literally *other* cultures with their own sets of moralities exist before, during, and after the death of Yeshua...
If God can't convince people to be good to each other without the threat of eternal punishment, then he's not much of a leader.
Demanding obedience and worship or else he'll get the belt is the tactic of an abusive parent, rather than one of a benevolent creator.
That was the God of the old testament, after Jesus came then God changed his ways and got better with the whole morality thing.
@@erockbrox8484 The new testament ain't any better buddy. Jesus literally had a temper tantrum over people doing trades
Oh , oh , remember when God said it was fine to fight nine wars against muslims , and whatever war crime commited was fine because it was a "holy war" ?
Even as a Christian, I never got these Christian stereotypes. I went to a good engineering school and met people from all walks of life. I never had a professor shove his atheism down my throat. In fact, I had the exact opposite experience. I had a great discussion with my quantum chemistry professor, who was an atheist, and we literally had lunch together discussing many different topics. It was a hard class but I learned a lot from him. We still keep in touch to this day. Not everything has to be made to make Christians out to be victims. Focus on the real issues like the growing income inequality in the US or the plutocracy that literally runs this country. Atheism won't bring this country down; it's Christian Nationalism that will literally let rich corporations bend Americans over, take our money, and then laugh their way to the bank. Now that's something atheists and Christians can get behind.
Based.
So, what, pray tell, is driving nationalism in China?
@@Mojave4ever y’all always got china in your mouths 😭 if they nationalist so what?? at least they got shit going for them
@@somethingisnotrighthere3831 China is bad I can't deny that, but Turkmenistan is worse than north korea
Ahhhhhh concerning the bit about the Muslim girl wearing the hijab, I have heard plenty of CHRISTIANS say that women shouldn’t wear swimsuits, shorts, and miniskirts and even decry them as “harlots” “sluts” “vixens” “temptresses” and the sort for wearing THOSE things. Now, isn’t THAT basically the SAME THING? Seems rather incongruous and hypocritical, doesn’t it?
"If there's no God, there's no reason to be moral." Right. I guess Christians don't know what empathy is.
I think their point was that empathy ultimately comes from God, and that empathy is evidence that a God exists, even if nobody believes in Him.
@@timothyissler3815 "I think their point was that empathy ultimately comes from God, and that empathy is evidence that a God exists, even if nobody believes in Him."
Empathy is a product of evolution, and no God was needed to get it, so it is not a good argument for the existence of God.
@@doctorwebman Explain how. Is not evolution survival of the fittest? Te stronger destroying the weaker? Where is there room for empathy?
To answer your question: God is empathetic to his creations, humans above all, as they were created in HIs image. And His love for humans was so great, that He gave them the free will to choose to accept Him or not (otherwise He might as well have made us like every other animal) and they chose to reject HIm. As such, evil (sin) came into the world, and humanity's nature became violent and inclined to pride, personal gain, and greed. But being still in the nature of God, they still had empathetic natures and sought to help other humans and animals, but from a twisted sense of pride, that helping these weaker persons will make the helper feel better about themselves or earn their way into heaven or force the helped person into some slave-debt to the helper. As such, even if people reject the existence of God, their desires to help prove that God exists.
@@timothyissler3815 A species that cares for one another will work together to survive, and that is survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest is not the strong destroying the weak.
@@doctorwebman Valid point. But in that case humans would be no better than packs of dogs or herds of sheep, where again the weaker ones may indeed be left to die for the survival of the herd. In which case we must follow the words of Spock from Star Trek II: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". If we tend to the need of the one to make them happy, the many will be left to fend for themselves. Hence so many revolutions against rich aristocracy: they were few, the revolutionaries many.
I can't think of a concise way to end my thoughts here, so I'll leave it at that and wait your reply.
When I was in 7th grade, a lot of my class mates in one of my classes found out that I was an atheist and they decided to make the wallpaper on all of the computers the God’s not dead movie cover… including mine.
Just an example of how we still live in a country where some of our founding principles are selectively enforced.
Just ask them why are religious people of the past dumb and violent but it improves from science over time to how we act today
Do they believe in witchcraft 😂😂😂
honestly the movie could have ended when he referred to evolution as being “sudden”. evolution took place over MILLIONS of years. it’s not “sudden”. we didn’t pop into existence overnight. the evolution of the great apes accelerated in the 66 million years since the dinosaurs went extinct because fewer massive predators allows for more species to evolve beyond basic survival. it also allowed us to stop sleeping in trees which facilitated the growth of our large brains which is the reason we have tik tok, KAREN.
ahahah this comment made my day
>3 billions years I believe
I believe he was referring to "punctuated equilibrium", a hypothesis that there are long periods with barely any evolutionary changes and periods of rapid changes, which he calls "sudden" in the geological timescale. evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-008-0049-4
I still don't see how it matches anything in the Bible, but I don't find this part THAT ridiculous.
@@Aterbrarum that’s... not what they were talking about. That’s why he brought up the clock thing, to say that it all just happened in the last second of time, boom outta nowhere
@2:30 Josh is talking about cosmology, in which the "Big Bang" or initial singularity likely burst forth with unimaginable levels of energy of ALL kinds, which shows Josh's embarrassing ignorance about the origins of the universe when Josh speaks of the bible deity (Elohim) saying "Let there be light". As someone else has pointed out below, light as we know it didn't exist in those first few moments (hours?) after the initial singularity. For that matter, most of the original stars produced after the initial singularity also died out, and what we see today are mostly second-generation suns/stars which came into existence as the first-generation stars decayed and recombined into the later stars, one of which is our sun.
@3:53 The "formless and primordial earth" mentioned is in reality the domain of a Babylonian creation goddess of chaos, Tiamat. Since Genesis and the rest of the 5 books of the Pentateuch were probably written during the Hebrews' Babylonian exile, that Babylonian goddess' power is being subjugated to the Hebrew god *Elohim* in a sly way of insulting one of the conquering Babylonians' deities.
@5:05 Seems to be referring to the "punctuated evolution" also mentioned elsewhere in the comments section. If I recall correctly the question of a steady, slow progression of evolution versus a "punctuated" slow process with occasional swift jumps forward was debated for quite a while amongst various scientists studying the new discipline of evolution - until mass extinctions were finally found in the fossil record.
@5:22 Is practically an outright lie. "Most major animal groups suddenly appear in the forms which they currently hold" is such dishonest bullsh*t, it's disgusting. Josh's comment here takes the Cambrian explosion and slams it forward through the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic (primitive life forms, primitive fishes, reptiles, dinosaurs and finally mammals) claiming that ALL of those various life forms have "suddenly appear[ed] in the forms which they currently hold". I would love to have Josh show me an Allosaurus or a T-Rex trotting around on earth today, if that's really the case.
Hope this helps explain how drastically Josh's speeches misrepresent current scientific knowledge about the universe, evolution of life (I think Josh eventually gets into abiogenesis too, but mangles it up with evolution in another significant mistake) etc.
Gotta love how he says "evil exists because god allows free will" without mentioning that god will also damn your soul to hell for all eternity even if you do stuff that wouldn't be considered evil with that exact same free will.
Also, if God is all-powerful, then why couldn’t he let us have perfect free will while also being free of evil and suffering? Surely he would have been capable of doing that, right?
@@elfin2865 The short version is that the classical definition of omnipotence excludes logical impossibilities, although my longer refutation of Epicurus includes things like compatibilism and the movie Minority Report
@@justineberlein5916 So, the classical definition of omnipotence isn’t actually omnipotence as we’d define it, then? Because an entity who can do anything except for logical impossibilities isn’t omnipotent, so far as I would use the term, because they have a limitation.
@@elfin2865 So... keep in mind as I attempt to explain things that this is very much a simplification. Like the philosophical concepts involved are the sort that I wouldn't be at all surprised if people have written entire essays about. Also, I'm going to try to use English terms, although I'll occasionally use Latin where English translations would obscure connections.
The main two concepts involved here are actuality and potentiality. Essentially, actuality is the state of a thing actually existing or happening, while potentiality is the potential for a thing to exist or happen. (Latin literally 'to move") The potentia, then, of omnipotentia is the ability to actualize something and "convert" potentiality into actuality. However, logical impossibilities lack even potentiality. For example, three-sided squares don't just not exist, but *can't* exist. Thus, omnipotentia needn't include the potentia to actualize such a thing, because they can't exist.
So basically, omnipotence is classically understood as the ability to make anything that can exist exist, but not to make things that can't exist be able to exist. And at least in my opinion, it makes a lot more sense when you mention things like three-sided squares, which are, by the definition of "square", impossible. They just aren't as interesting, because it doesn't stumble into the debate about compatibilism that becomes involved when you start discussing things like whether it'd be possible for an omnipotent being to create a universe with both predestination and free will.
@@justineberlein5916 tl;dr, logic is a more powerful force in the universe than God. Interesting.
I also like how this universe takes place in an alternate reality where Christian rock is the biggest thing on the goddamn planet.
🤣
Well, actually, certain acts (such as Newsboys) really do fill stadiums. I know it seems weird not being in that scene; you're really not even aware of it's existence from anything mainstream. But I came from that world and I've been to those concerts...they really are that big, believe it or not.
@@xSmittyxCorex
Damn. I mean there _are_ furrie conventions. I shouldn't be surprized this exists
@@xSmittyxCorex true. Where I live a local Christian Death Metal show sold out a venue.
Lots of people like the music for the sound more than the lyrics.
Personally, I'm more a lyric guy. But fuck with their guitar riffs weren't damn good live.
In their ideal world all other forms of rock are banned.
"Without God, why do we have morality?"
Buddy, have you ever heard about this thing called empathy? You know, the ability to relate to others and sort of experiance their suffering as if it was our own? The perfectly scientifically explainable process of our mirror neurons firing, prompting us to feel as the other person would, which is advantageous for organisms living in groups, like humans tend to do. Not a magical ability gifted by God and definitively independent of Him, as humans of all faiths have said abilit.
It's circular reasoning with chrstians man. Then they would argue that empathy is devout from God. But sin and evil? Ohhhhh God didn't create those things, they say. It's our fault, our own will, Satan's fault. Litterally every reason in the book, but no blame God that had unlimited power over fucking everything. What a loser God if he exists.
but that still doesn’t answer the question. Where do we get Empathy? From my understanding. Empathy is not just something that you or I are born with . But it’s Inherited even though the capacity for it is inborn. The best way to think about empathy is an innate capacity that needs to be developed or Programmed, and to see it as a detail in a larger picture. Because humans are naturally selfish creatures. By nature we want what we want . And that is Generated by our own selfish Desires. And without a higher authority that we look up to that set’s the moral standard it’s impossible for morality to exist . Because we become our own gods and we Decide what is right and from what is wrong . Even if that means my understanding goes Contrary to your understanding. It wouldn’t matter if my understanding is wrong. Because i would be my own god who i would be Entitled to my own standards. And No one can Tell me otherwise. Because I Decide what’s right from wrong. Here is an Example, is still any moral law in nature? No , does a lion think it’s right or wrong to attack and kill a sheep ? It doesn’t . Without a God we would just be like other Animals no different.
@@lisalatham4389 You wouldn't have this understanding without the divinity of man. We ARE our own gods, no higher power has ever tried to intertwine itself with our understanding. We are our own deities, that's exactly correct. And unless you can drag down the higher power that gave us "everything" you can shut your mouth about the fictional, imaginative crap you have to spout about a God that can't be measured or observed
@@debeb5148 Of course, I would never have come to that understanding if the Divine God did not exist. There has never been a higher power that intertwined itself with our understanding? You should study the death, life and history of Jesus Christ before making such bold statements. And you will see that your understanding is false .
@@lisalatham4389 I literally slapped my knee and laughed out loud when you told me to go read about Jesus. You're a fucking joke.
"Without God there's no reason to be moral!" You heard it here folks, empathy isn't real.
Empathy is not the reason for most of our morality.
Cat Suppository The Bible is against slavery but nice try
Cat Suppository they were talking about indentured servants read the KJV Bible
Cat Suppository verse??
Cat Suppository that still says servant
This film is basically the urban myth "Atheist teacher, theist student wins with one statement" in movie form.
FOR THAT TO HOLD TRUE, THE ANTAGONIST WOULD HAVE TO BE EATEN BY A CROCK IN A NEW YORK SEWER AFTER KILLING A MURDERER WHO LEFT HIS HOOK IN THE REAR BUMPER OF HIS MOM'S DESOTO
It’s like a Chic Tract turned to film.
It seems similar to those Christmas movies where the cynical character needs to learn to believe again.
CHRISTIAN STUDENT DESTROYS ATHIEST TEACHER BEN SHAPIRO STYLE #56
I never saw the movie, but my understanding from watching other reviews of the movie is that the "atheist teacher" was never actually an atheist. The movie doubles down on the myth that atheists hate god, because my understanding is that there is a scene where the teacher proclaims that he hated god because of some misfortune in the guy's life or something to that effect. * Atheists don't believe god exists. You can't hate something that doesn't exist. * The movie title is actually accurate. God isn't dead. For God to be dead, it would have had to have been alive at some point, which is pretty hard for something that doesn't exist to do.
Gods Not Dead reveals the only function christian propaganda ever has: to trigger an emotional reaction.
Literally every non-believer in this movie gets "saved" because of an emotional reason - just got hit by a car, just got kicked out of your home, just heard some pretty music.
I'm not just an ex-believer. I'm an ex-pastor, ex-missionary, and ex-evangelist. I've been responsible for literally THOUSANDS of supposed "salvation experiences" and confirm that it is ALL about emotional manipulation.
If you don't mind talking about it, I'm curious what made you decide to stop being Christian (if that's what happened). I'm the same way but I feel like I never hear stories about why people leave the church.
i too am curious, having left not long before i moved out after having been baptised i want to hear others stories
I've realized that too. I'm not a preacher or anything but looking back to when I was religious, I was hateful and disgusting. I was homophobic (internalized homophobia), probably racist (I really hope I wasnt), and just overall hateful. Christianity made me depressed and ruined my mental health. I finally started questioning the things that never added up and once I got old enough to unlearn what was taught to me, I became happier
@@nym0s177 - You are Religious Now, and Christianity doens;t make people Hateful. And how can You say You were "Probably" Racist? Wouldnt You Know if You er Racist or not?
All You're doing is repeating the Negative Things Christianity is said to cause by the Modern Atheist Religions Propaganda. And I did not call Atheism a Religion, I am calling the New Atheism a Religion. And I have already Heard the Dictionary Definition of Religion and Not Collecting Stamps is a Hobby.
Just like I Know the Bible has Talking Snake's and Donkeys, or condones Slavery.
Christianity didnt cause You to be Hateful.
And You aren;t Loving now.
And Christianity did not Harm Your Mental Health.
@@skwills1629 oh wow you are totally correct I've been so wrong my entire life. First off, you don't know me. You can't say that I'm not "loving" just because I'm not Christian anymore. I'm saying the negative things that I've experienced and still experience to this day so just because you had a good experience with it. Do not act like you know me
And 2nd off, you can't assume that I'm atheist. I incorrectly used religious, when I meant practicing religion but I'm Agnostic not atheist.
Don't make assumptions off people from a UA-cam comment less than a paragraph and pretend you know someone
In middle school my family forced me to go to church and they showed us a psa by the duck dynasty guys and they talked about how suicide is selfish and you should just love god instead
Bunch of non productive sheeple
Ugh. THOSE asshats... let them sink into obscurity.
Imagine being a student at a college and still sounding older and more irrelevant than your professor.
LoL
Happens often, especially with all those liberal professors
@@thegreatgmantheguy I don't think you understand what we're talking about lmao
@@awolf9843 Can you explain please?
The biggest problem with these movies is that they portray all atheists as not just atheists but anti-theists.
People really don't understand Nietzsche. The phrase "God is Dead" actually has nothing to do with arguing for Atheism. It's an observation that, after The Age of Enlightenment, mankind began to worship reason and science. As a result, society has been forced to replace its faith in omnipotent, omniscient beings with faith in itself. Nietzche predicted that in doing this, most people would find that they didn't measure up to the impossible standard they set for themselves and would, therefore, become nihilistic. Only a very few "over men" would be able to make the transition by freeing themselves from the slavery of their own constantly self-imposed morality (in whatever form it may take).
The very premise that we should have to rationally argue for the existence of God is proof that today's society prizes reason over faith. This proves Nietzche's point before the movie even begins.
The only arguments for "God is Not Dead" are based on the benefits and existence of faith. These are things like:
- Faith is inherently good for you
- Reason is flawed
- People treat science and reason like a religion
- self-imposed morality is subjective and therefore inferior
etc.
But... This implies that you actually understand the premise of the source material. Like I said: People really don't understand Nietzche.
How exactly does one worship reason and science? Do they build monuments to it, fall on their knees bowing to it and asking reason and science to magically fulfill their wishes and have mercy on them? Do they paint runic symbols on their labcoats and test tubes, declare jihads on competing science companies, and set up priesthoods?
@@Eisenbison it's called scientism and basically means you think only "hard" science (e.g. STEM) is valid while "soft" science (sociology, arts, etc.) have little to no value. While it is obviously nowhere near as extreme as religion (hardcore scientism followers are usually just massive tools instead of terrorists) it is still a philosophically shaky position to hold since it rests on certain assumptions that we cannot definitively prove one way or the other e.g. the assumption that we can 100% trust our senses (something philosophers like Descartes would have plenty to say about).
Which isn't to say that we ignore science and it's many discoveries - studying science and the scientific method are still two of the best ways we can understand our universe - but the people who hold up science (or at least their very narrow definition of it) as the *only* appropriate method are just fooling themselves
No sir, that is what's called a Strawman fallacy, in which you deliberately misrepresent someone's position in order to make it easier to attack. Your entire argument is, simply put, a lie.
Basic science obviously has value, but I challenge you to name ONE reputable scientist who has ever said that things like sociology (which is *absolutely* a legitimate field of study, and also an actual science in and of itself), and that *art itself* is worthless just because it's not "scientific". Do you legitimately think that scientists are like soulless robots who can't be moved by powerful music, enjoy all kinds of art, and don't even like watching good movies because they're stupid and pointless? How out of touch are you? You must have never met an actual scientist or even anyone who could be called a nerd _in your life_ if you think they're all like your Strawman construct.
Saying that science is just another philosophy is also logically invalid. Science has proven that it is the *only* way to reliably acquire knowledge and further our actual understanding of anything, from physics, to psychology (which you earlier tried to dismiss as not-real-science) biology, cosmology, physics, medicine, technology, geology, etc. Even if reality itself wasn’t real, even if we only exist within a dream of Brahma or if all we perceive is a computer-enhanced hallucination like the Matrix, it wouldn’t change the fact that the rules of that reality would still be real to us. We’re forced to assume that our perception is at least partially reliable, that we really do exist in a real world that is independent of us, and that other minds exist outside our own. Because it would be impossible to function otherwise. Consequently, such ponderings as solipsism are in my opinion meaningless philosophical nonsense.
Do you have a different method by which we can acquire reliable, practical knowledge? If so, I'd love to hear it. If not, your entire argument is invalid and essentially worthless.
@@Eisenbison How exactly does one worship science? Easy, pick up a theory, talk about it like it's a fact.
@@aoli8142 The only people I've ever met who have objections like yours to "theories being taught as facts" either don't understand what a Scientific Theory is, or they're knowingly twisting the definition to suit their argument, and have always turned out to be creationtists angry that Evolution is treated like fact while their own conjecture isn't taken seriously by science at all. At the risk of an incorrect assumption, I'm going to assume you're a creationist as well, but you can correct me if I'm wrong.
Those who object to science (such as creationists) like to exploit the academic meaning of "Theory" in favor of a colloquial one, as if a theory was only blind speculation like their own positions often are. But a scientific theory isn’t a guess or conjecture. Look it up.
Colloquial definition: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
Scientific/Academic Theory: an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations.
In most instances, a theory is in and of itself a field of academic study, which include things like Music Theory, the theory of Economics, etc.
No theory can ever be "proved" simply because that's against the rules imposed by the game of science. If music theory is a field of study, and as such can never be proved, then neither can the theories of evolution or even economics, and for the same reason: the notion is silly. Even if a theory passes every test forever, we still wouldn’t say it was proven, because positive proof exists only in matters of mathematics or law wherein evolution actually has been proven. Otherwise, in science, no theory has ever been proved, nor can one ever be.
A theory is an analysis of how reality works, but every theory has holes in it and no theory is complete. That’s why science must remain objective and ready to admit when our current concepts or understandings of anything may be inaccurate, because in reality there is no such thing as absolute truth. Logically, there can’t be; one reason being that “truth” requires validation while “absolute” denotes an unrestricted unconditional ultimate totality, independent of relation and transcending the limits of experience or observation. No mere fallible human can honestly claim knowledge of absolute truth because everything within the capacity of human understanding contains a degree of error, and everything men know to be true is only true to a degree.
Everyone is inevitably wrong about something somewhere. We don’t know everything about everything. We don’t know everything about anything! And what we do know, we don’t know accurately on all points nor completely in every detail. Nothing in science would ever be promoted to “truth,” because truth implies that there’s nothing more to learn. (Unless the truth is what the facts are, in which case theories would have to be demoted to truth, not promoted.) That’s why science, being objective, demands that everything be considered theory no matter how proven it seems to be.
Theories can only be disproved. And when that happens, a theory that doesn’t work must be replaced by one that does. We can’t discard any theory just because we haven’t perfected every part of it yet. You can’t trade something that works for nothing that doesn’t. If the original theory works at all, you’ll still have to use it, and perhaps fix it-but we can’t dismiss it until we can replace it with something better.
A fact is merely data, a demonstrably accurate observation that is indisputable because it can be objectively verified by either side arguing about it. So if we demonstrate the fact of gravity, we see that things tend to fall down. What’s that mean? Well, nothing yet; a fact on its own is meaningless. We need to understand it more specifically. When seen on an astronomical scale, we can determine a universal rule: that matter attracts matter. This is one of the laws of gravity (a law being a general statement of nature that is always true under a specific set of circumstances). Now _why_ does matter attract matter? *That’s* the theory!
Atomic theory has never been proven either -not even in Hiroshima. But just as evolution is the foundation of modern biology, modern chemistry is completely dependant on atomic theory. And there are huge holes in that theory! Just look at our classic model of atomic structure; it’s wrong, and we know it’s wrong, but we still teach it in school anyway, because despite their virtual invisibility and being understood only in theory, atoms are still a matter of undeniable fact. So we have to use that in a series of imperfect models because we’re still trying to figure out one that works in all instances.
We’re also trying to devise a single theory to blend quantum theory with the theory of relativity, and act as a unifying theory of everything. The closest we’ve come is string theory; which really isn’t an actual theory yet; because it hasn’t been vindicated by substantial empirical evidence, and it hasn’t born itself through the battery of critical examinations which every hypothesis must endure before it can graduate to the highest level of confidence science can attain: A Theory.
No branch of creationism has ever met even one of the criteria required of a theory. They can’t, because science demands both accuracy and accountability. So there has to be a way to detect and correct any errors in a given explanation, and determine for certain whether it’s wrong in whole or in part, or whether any of it is true to any degree at all.
A theory has to be tested indefinitely. It demands understanding instead of belief and faith like religions do. So it must be based on verifiable evidence; It must explain related observations with a measurable degree of accuracy; It must withstand continuous critical analysis in peer review, and it must be falsifiable too. If it doesn’t fulfill all these conditions at once, then it isn’t science. If it meets none of them, it may be religion.
Intelligent Design isn’t a theory at all; it’s a scam, a scheme conceived solely to undermine legitimate science. It doesn’t even count as a hypothesis, because it isn’t based on evidence, offers no mechanism, and isn’t falsifiable either. It's backed by nothing and produces nothing because it is nothing but untestable conjecture. None of it has been shown to be right and lots of it has been proven wrong. So it’s useless in any field, because only accurate information can have practical application. That’s why we have billion-dollar industries in medicine, toxicology, agriculture, and biotechnology, where we have Nobel prize-winning research that is all dependent on the functionality of evolution and would only work if evolution were factually correct.
Evolution has survived every test the greatest minds of the modern age have ever been able to pit against it. It’s been demonstrated myriad ways with lab and field experiments, and is further enhanced by compounded revelations in paleontology and systematics, as well as developments in embryology and advances in genomic research and bioengineering. Evolution is now one of the strongest theories in science. There is no fact it doesn’t agree with, and it’s never failed any test.
I’m a Christian and when I was a kid my church went to see this. And the youth pastor ended up apologizing to the parents and students for taking them to see the movie.
I took a one semester philosophy class in 10th grade and there was more open discussion about religion there than there is in this entire film. Like, I genuinely believe none of these people understand how philosophy classes work. My teacher was a Christian man and was more than willing to explain the viewpoints of people who aren't religious and what they're rooted in. He even talked about some of the paradoxes about how God can't possibly exist according to ____ philosophy or worldview. Funnily enough, that teacher can no longer teach a philosophy class at the school because a Christian student told their parent about what was happening in the class and they complained to the school.
That's screwed up. That teacher sounds pretty rad!
holy crap if that teacher teach me about philosophy I wouldn't mind considering converting to christianity.
Abi I took a lot of philosophy credits in college and my experience was very similar.
Janlingchen lol weakling
My first degree was philosophy, and I can vouch for the fact that the philosophy class depicted in this film is 0% like real philosophy classes.
I also have been lolling at this movie for it's title ever since it came out because it is obviously a reference to the "God is dead" speech in one of Nietzsche's works. The irony is, the character who made that speech not only did not hate God, but was mortified at the prospect of proceeding into a future that didn't include God. And the further irony is, nobody listened to him because they were distracted by a concurrent trapeze act, and he couldn't figure out why they would not also be mortified at the realization he was sharing and take serious action to think about how life could possibly go on, so he threw his lantern to the ground and left, saying, "I have come too soon."
16:10 so "evolution was thought and believed in nazi germany so its bad." That has to be top 5 worst arguments i've ever heard...
oh didn't you know? nazi germany believed that we don't live in a simulation, so obviously we do.
Funny how they never mention that Nazi Germans were practicing Christians, they had military chaplains, religious services and had even “gott mit uns” (god is on our side) on their belt buckles. And Hitler was a believing Christian, according to his own autobiography.
@@pansepot1490 huh
* The More You Know intensifies *
I'm pretty sure Nazism was built on ideas about social darwinism and scientific racism not the hard science of evolution.
Paul Heidnische this reads like an always sunny quote
I think it's very telling how the script writers portray the professor and then kill him off. Very Christian.
The guys helping him don't even call 911 for police or an ambulance.
Lol seriously
I laughed way to hard in the train when I read this 😂
Not to mention them also giving the leftist journalist cancer. (also I think she converts in the sequel and then is cured??, but don't quote me on that.)
You're right, she is cured
I am a science-friendly Christian (yeah, there are a few of us) and when I was in a group that started watching this movie, I had to stop and go somewhere else. It was so unrlelievedly terrible that I couldn't stomach it. There are deep and serious ways to probe the subject of God's existence, but you will never encounter them in pop Christian entertainment.
There's more than a few of you. The Big Bang was discovered by a Catholic Priest, and a Pentecostal proved birds were dinosaurs. America has been full of Christians since we stole it from the Indigenous peoples and it has been a technological superpower. Christianity can be a very benevolent, peaceful, and science-compatible religion, it's the decay of American education and socio-political manipulations that have created the American Christian Right.
do you really believe in an abrahamic god?
Being a science friendly chrstian isn't stellar unless you are actually using scientific models to observe data. That's why I admire monks like Gregory Mendelle, the father of genetics. He was a religious man who clearly used generation breeding to discover the genes in his pea garden.
Then there's 99% of other chrstians who just say "That's how God did it right there, trust the process lol" I personally hate these kinds of chrstians particularly because they don't aim to learn, just label everything as God's property and glory. It's foolish
lmao they freaking compared teaching evolution to nazis.
I think it was the Nazis who were opposed to evolution with their need to be supermen. Eugenics would be more God-like than secular.
That part had me laughing so hard my neighbors came over to make sure I was alright. What a load of crock.
HAHAHAHAHA
As ridiculous as it is, this is one of the most common arguments I've heard from those who want to stop teaching evolution in public school biology classes (or teach creation alongside it)
In fact, "Reductio ad Hitlerum" is inevitably going to be appealed to in any argument that goes on long enough. Don't like something? Find and point out something it superficially shares with Hitler or the Nazis.
@@brianhamilton3582 "Evolution is real, we have bones and genetic structures to prove it" "**GHASP** NAZIS HAD BONES! R U A NAZI? NAZI!"
The thing I wish Christian movies portray more is the Man Vs Self Conflict rather than the Man Vs. Man or Man. vs Society. Since the conflict is always an outside source, the film can present a "holier than thou" mentality and it's more or less stroking Christian egos rather than what it means to truly believe in God. Where are the doubts, the struggle, sometimes even asking yourself why is God just letting things happen.
It would be interesting to see a Christian film star a prison inmate who finds about the word of God, but is struggling with himself because he committed a crime heinous crime (murder, burglary, what have you) and you just see this struggle that makes the compelling argument that the love of God stretches even to those who have sinned. Hell, it could be the fact that a father lost his son and is cursing God, asking why he didn't save his son.
I feel movies like that would strengthen faith, make the situation more relateable, and at the same time, make a movie that's actually compelling.
You Earned a kewkie from me
I am soooo late to this but you really should check out Sufjan Steven's song Casimir Pulaski Day. It's about a boy reconciling his belief in god after a tragedy happens to someone he loves. It's a beautiful song to listen to religious or not
@BTIsaac depends on if the Christians are retarded or not. The people that made this movie were retarded. They actually believe in the Bible, lol. EDIT: I am Christian
@BTIsaac Being an atheist with a brother who is… religious… and married to a Christian woman…
What you say is absolutely incorrect. Doubt in your faith and fighting to retain your faith, dealing with doubt, exploring and understanding it are all part of the religion of the Christian people I know personally.
That may not be true for Christians in general, but I'd be wary to make almost any claim about Christians in general at all.
@BTIsaac You know what I mean, they think of it like it's 100% right, when in reality it's a terrible source and not the word of God. It was written in the 1200s btw, not a good source.
“You’re beautiful. Wish you didn’t have to wear that :(“
Alright fam, say that to a nun then. Or traditionalist Christian societies that restrict what unwed women can do. What’s that about Islam being bad bc it “forces” women to cover themselves? Hm?
I think as long as you are not forced to wear it, you can wear whatever you want whether it is a burqua or a skimpy bikini
thesparitan Well to fundamentalist Muslims wearing a t shirt with uncovered arms is “too slutty”. It’s almost like that’s in the eye of the beholder or something.
@@Kittsim The first thing I noticed that she was wearing the scarf with uncovered arms, they clearly didn't do their homework.
Islam forces women born into to wear hijabs. Traditionalist Christian societies too. Nuns are not appliable because they chose to be nuns
islam also enforce fgm and punishes women by death for being raped
As a Christian, this movie made me roll my eyes so much it gave me a migraine
@CheetCat me and my class went to the movies for the last day of 8th grade and our teacher gave us a choice between that and Godzilla. It was a Christian school so ig they were like “you can see anything that has God in it” 😂
Literally same 🙄🙄
As an Atheist I always felt bad for Christians when it comes to media options.
Like sure, Pureflix sorta movies paint us in the whole "lying dirty sinner" light, but ho lee SHIT they somehow have even less respect for their Christian audience. Like sure all our tropes as Atheists in Pureflix stuff are evil and liars and nasty and all that, but there's at least usually a layer of intelligence to them (I mean can't have a useful villain if they're too stupid to be one).
I'd be more insulted by the implication that these kinds of movies are what they "think Christians like". Everybody kinda likes the villain trope, no one likes the mindless busybody do-gooder that judges you constantly trope. And it's not like Good Biblical movies don't exist, Ten Commandments and Prince of Egypt are famous for a damn good reason.
Y'all deserve better media.
@@patchwurk6652 I 100% agree and appreciate your sympathy 🙏🏽
@@patchwurk6652 As another Christian who is routinely horrified by the quality of the Christian subculture's media in 21st century America... thank you.
The one thing that comforts me is the fact that it's mostly the pop culture stuff that really sucks, and also it wasn't always like this. If you look before that, we have a lot of very good paintings. Some sweet epic poems. Handel's Messiah absolutely slaps. Bernini's Ecstasy of Saint Teresa is effing sick. Et cetera.
Is it weird that, more than anything, I’m bothered by the unrealistic quality and intricacy of the graphics during the main character’s lectures? Full animation and everything? I’ve never seen a college student do anything more complex than having images bounce around in a PowerPoint. Come on, movie.
My first thought was "I hope he cited the source he used those graphics from... or else he definitely plagiarized those animations."
My Mom forced me to see this movie when it first came out in theatres when I was 13. Im still a Christian but I remember hating this movie when it first came out but I felt like it was a sin for me to dislike it lol
I’m a Christian too and this film makes me so nervous because I don’t want people to think we’re like this. This film was sooooo bad!!!!
@@astrobabecosmicwaves7587 I agree, it tries to push Christian messages using tactics that aren't Christian. All it did was make more people mad
@@WiloPolis03 Yeah, this movie acts like people who aren't christian are our enemies. we're all just human at the end of the day.
@@astrobabecosmicwaves7587 Exactly! I kind of see religion as different types of studies based on things we experience. We each have different interpretations of things we believe to be beyond full human understanding, and I don't think it's as simple as "my interpretation is right and all others are wrong". I think there's truth and value to lots of different religions, even if someone believes theirs to be the _most_ true.
And if someone never really got religious than fine, that's also 100% understandable. Would be self-contradictory to say it isn't
@@WiloPolis03 you're totally right!!! I try to explain to people that christianity is a personal experience and God is personal connection that only you can explore. I also try to explain that some christians aren't homophobic or judgmental like the other crazy ones are.
A person who is moral WITHOUT a reason is more moral than someone who is moral for the sake of a god.
Really? Doesn't seem as though there's much point in being moral by accident. Being moral for good reasons, reasons that can be updated in light of new evidence seems eminently superior to both states of affairs that you mention.
@@COEXISTential I am a moral person because I WANT to be, not because I HAVE to be.
Yes, because people HAVE to be religious and subscribe to moral laws. That's why religion is on a steady decline...
Yeah, we call those people pansies.
The thing is, what is “being moral” different cultures have had different versions of “morality” and the one you are most likely talking about is western morality which came from very specific sources (bible)
I was at a Lutheran high school where they did a big assembly to show God’s Not Dead when it was first released, but I don’t think it had the effect on me that the school intended. I’ll be applying to PhD programs in philosophy within a year.
YEAH! GO LEARN, AND MAKE THE WORLD BETTER BY TEACHING OTHERS
i hope all is going well for you that is so baller
“The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians: who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, walk out the door, and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.”
― Brennan Manning
I think this applies a lot to this movie.
I have to disagree with that idea. The single greatest cause of atheism in the world today is probably the proliferation of the internet. It's possible to study all the arguments and apologetics and develop an informed belief - which for me and many others is that it's highly unlikely that a god or gods exist due to poor arguments and lacking evidence.
@@jacoblang7840 not really sure what you're trying to get at here. That we don't have existence of what happens after death? I don't think death sucks more or less of we don't know what's next, you still die and knowing wouldn't change that. The circumstances of life and death determine most afterlifes, and you can fill them without knowing anything
hendrixnava well, in my opinion it would be better to know but everyone is different
@@jacoblang7840 i mean, it might make us feel better, but as far as I'm aware there's no schrodinger's cat version of death, where knowing what happens after death changes what happens after death. So in the end, we might like to know but it doesn't really matter or affect the results
@@jacoblang7840 of course it would be better to know. The problem with that is that we don't know and can never really know. We can make up stories and pretend they're true but that's about it