God's Not Dead 2 Trailer - Reaction

ArtherEld · Nov 27, 2015

One look at my profile and you may think, "Well, of course he's gonna have a problem with this movie."

Well... yeah... but would it mean anything if I told you that I had a problem with the first movie when I still called myself a Christian?

As the trailer for the promised sequel just came out, as an atheist I feel my duty to inform Christians why nonbelievers will be mostly laughing at this than converting:

My first reaction is, well it'd be nice to see a Christian version of "Anchorman". But of course it's not meant to be funny, it's serious. The over-the-top, ridiculous drama you find in an Adam McKay comedy seems present in "God's Not Dead 2". But no, they're really serious here.

The thing is, yes, "God's Not Dead" was a terrible movie. But if they could have left it there it would be fine. I remember criticizing the first movie saying, "This is not how atheists act." And a Christian friend of mine actually made a good point and said, "No, that's just the few atheists in this fictional movie." Yeah, good point (doesn't make things better but it is what it is).

Now we've got a sequel though. And where you could maybe write the first movie off as an isolated incident as well as it being fictional, this second movie - though also fictional (I hope, for Pure Flix's sake) - is much bigger and obligates itself to represent a bigger group. I mean where the first movie took place at some college campus, and maybe... MAYBE... you could say that it's possible for an atheist professor to walk into a classroom of about a hundred students and say "well, as you all know, there's no God, so let's move on," and only get one student to resist him... ah, man, that movie... I can't even... I just wrote down that premise and I'm giving myself a major facepalm. But okay, whatever. Suspend your belief and say that the premise of the first film... could happen.

This next film though? We got a court case that's being followed nationwide. The implication from the trailer is something that looks bigger than the OJ trial.

Just... you know 20 years ago, I was a Christian, and if I had seen this movie I'd be like, "Yeah! God's not dead! Christianity for the win! You go, Sabrina! Yeah!" And I think that's the value of this film. It's not made for atheists, even though atheists are represented in the film (poorly it seems). We'll watch this film, criticize it, laugh at it, and Christians may just shrug, roll their eyes, and say, "Well, of course, you hate the movie." (actually I'm grateful that there were plenty of Christian critics coming out against the first film).

There's one way, and only one way that I will not view this movie as complete trash. If they have a stone cold atheist in this film, who is also a nice and charitable humanitarian, and he/she stands up for religious freedom, and (here's the major catch) even by the end of the film (I mean the credits roll and lights come up), not once does the atheist character waver in his/her nonbelief in God. Because 10 bucks says that the atheists in this film are either evil (and I mean supervillain, Bond badguy evil), or if they show any ounce of goodness it'll be because they're struggling with religion and by the end of the film they'll convert to Christianity. This movie wants to prove that wrong? Oh, man please do. Put my cynicism in its place. Make me go, "Oh, so the people at Pure Flix do listen after all. Was that a pig flying I just saw?"

BookofMatt · Nov 27, 2015

As a Christian, I agree 100%.

It doesn't matter if you're atheist or theist, 'God's Not Dead' was a terrible movie: a poorly-made, wretchedly-acted mess of broken theology and straw man fallacies designed only to push its own exclusionary political agenda rather than say anything relevant about the Christian faith or the teachings of Jesus Christ. The sequel again seems to throw Jesus to the side in favor of buying into the falsehood of "Christian persecution" to quench the raging narcissism of the Evangelical right.

These are not Christian movies. This is pure propaganda, and I'm concerned for anyone who feels it's an accurate representation of their faith, just as much as I am for anyone who buys into corrupt snake oil televangelists who only want their money. That's essentially what these movies are: crass hucksterism bordering on straight exploitation. It's extremely disappointing to me, because it's possible to make a good, pro-faith movie about Christianity (heck, even in the last year or so, 'Heaven is for Real' and 'Captive' weren't that bad), but movies like these are cheaply-produced trash which care more about politics than God.

And yes, in these films, all atheists or agnostics are depicted as vile, puppy-kicking heathens who exist solely to destroy religion for everyone on Earth, while all Christians* (*that is, the specific Fox News strain of Protestant...we don't take kindly to those more "left-leaning" denominations) are all flawless angels in disguise who can save the world by cherry-picking some Bible verses. And not only are atheists themselves depicted poorly, atheist theory is intentionally misrepresented as poorly-structured and inherently fallible solely so it can be knocked down by the most simple of theist counter-arguments.

There's so much problematic about this. If we don't depict opposing viewpoints with any grounding in reality, what lesson is there to be learned by Christians from these films? If these films had actual, genuine faith, they'd have no problem presenting atheists as actual people with actual philosophies, and civilly countering with their own theistic perspective (exactly as I've justified my own faith with my atheist/agnostic friends, family and co-workers, none of whom - to the best of my knowledge - kick puppies). If these films had actual, genuine faith, they'd present their ideas in a rational, thought-provoking manner to the widest possible audience (or at the very least, agreeing to disagree), instead of making films which preach specifically to the converted while stroking their egos over how "morally superior" they are to others. It's like Mike Huckabee's wet dream. Ugh, that's an image I didn't need in my head.

Needless to say, I'm not a fan of 'God's Not Dead', and neither were any of the other few Christians I know who actually saw it (the most glowing review I heard: "Well, I'm sure it meant well."). I actually know more atheists/anti-theists who saw it simply because of the unintentional humor of how badly its made and how poorly it presents its arguments. I'll reluctantly be seeing 'God's Not Dead 2', albeit with the intention of dissecting its logical and theological fallacies.

Also, what is it with these recent Christian films bringing all these C-list TV stars to the big screen? Melissa Joan Hart and Ray Wise in 'GND2'? Kevin Sorbo and Dean Cain in the first? Ted McGinley and Lee Majors in 'Do You Believe?'? It's the most bizarre casting I've ever seen in mainstream movies...truly, the most thought-provoking part of 'God's Not Dead' for me was trying to remember if I'd ever seen Kevin Sorbo in a theatrical movie. Man, that movie would have been so much better had he just pulled out a broadsword and fought a Medusa.

Soyeong · Nov 27, 2015

ArtherEld said:
One look at my profile and you may think, "Well, of course he's gonna have a problem with this movie."

Well... yeah... but would it mean anything if I told you that I had a problem with the first movie when I still called myself a Christian?

As the trailer for the promised sequel just came out, as an atheist I feel my duty to inform Christians why nonbelievers will be mostly laughing at this than converting:

My first reaction is, well it'd be nice to see a Christian version of "Anchorman". But of course it's not meant to be funny, it's serious. The over-the-top, ridiculous drama you find in an Adam McKay comedy seems present in "God's Not Dead 2". But no, they're really serious here.

The thing is, yes, "God's Not Dead" was a terrible movie. But if they could have left it there it would be fine. I remember criticizing the first movie saying, "This is not how atheists act." And a Christian friend of mine actually made a good point and said, "No, that's just the few atheists in this fictional movie." Yeah, good point (doesn't make things better but it is what it is).

Now we've got a sequel though. And where you could maybe write the first movie off as an isolated incident as well as it being fictional, this second movie - though also fictional (I hope, for Pure Flix's sake) - is much bigger and obligates itself to represent a bigger group. I mean where the first movie took place at some college campus, and maybe... MAYBE... you could say that it's possible for an atheist professor to walk into a classroom of about a hundred students and say "well, as you all know, there's no God, so let's move on," and only get one student to resist him... ah, man, that movie... I can't even... I just wrote down that premise and I'm giving myself a major facepalm. But okay, whatever. Suspend your belief and say that the premise of the first film... could happen.

This next film though? We got a court case that's being followed nationwide. The implication from the trailer is something that looks bigger than the OJ trial.

Just... you know 20 years ago, I was a Christian, and if I had seen this movie I'd be like, "Yeah! God's not dead! Christianity for the win! You go, Sabrina! Yeah!" And I think that's the value of this film. It's not made for atheists, even though atheists are represented in the film (poorly it seems). We'll watch this film, criticize it, laugh at it, and Christians may just shrug, roll their eyes, and say, "Well, of course, you hate the movie." (actually I'm grateful that there were plenty of Christian critics coming out against the first film).

There's one way, and only one way that I will not view this movie as complete trash. If they have a stone cold atheist in this film, who is also a nice and charitable humanitarian, and he/she stands up for religious freedom, and (here's the major catch) even by the end of the film (I mean the credits roll and lights come up), not once does the atheist character waver in his/her nonbelief in God. Because 10 bucks says that the atheists in this film are either evil (and I mean supervillain, Bond badguy evil), or if they show any ounce of goodness it'll be because they're struggling with religion and by the end of the film they'll convert to Christianity. This movie wants to prove that wrong? Oh, man please do. Put my cynicism in its place. Make me go, "Oh, so the people at Pure Flix do listen after all. Was that a pig flying I just saw?"

I do know of at least one professor whose mission it is to deconvert his students, so there are people like him out there, but I don't think the movie was ever intended to say that all atheists are like that and that none have positive attitudes towards religion. If they had thrown in an atheists or two like that, would that have really made the difference between a good and a terrible movie? It doesn't have to be the professor, but the fact is that many Christians lose their faith in college, so they had their faith challenged by someone and they weren't prepared with how to respond. The purpose of the movie was to encourage Christians to stand up for their faith, to introduce them to apologetics, and to get them to start having these sorts of conversations, and in that regard the move was a success. Perhaps they will have a better representation of atheists in the new movie, but again the point is to encourage Christians to stand up for their faith, so it will again require a person or two is antagonistic, which again not all non-believers are like. However, I do agree that it is cheesy that it seems like Christian moviemakers almost feel compelled to have someone convert to Christianity by the end of the movie.

ArtherEld · Nov 28, 2015

Soyeong said:
I do know of at least one professor whose mission it is to deconvert his students, so there are people like him out there,

Then why wasn't the film based on one of those real life experiences? I mean that reminds me of something else wrong with the movie. The filmmakers knew that atheists were going to be like, "Nah, that doesn't happen." So at the end of the movie, after the credits, they post a list of real life incidents of (alleged) Christian persecution on college campuses and other places. Why not have a movie based on one of those true stories?

Well... there's one possibility. If they do a "based on a true story" film, they'll probably feel the obligation to be more objective with it. And while secular docudramas take a lot of artistic license with it and inject opinionated caricatures into the story, such a method would be clear dishonesty in a Christian film. So... avoid that altogether, make a fictional movie (based on a chain mail myth story mind you), that way you can make your good guy look as good as you want, and the bad guy as bad as you want.

There's no way for me to prove that's what happened, but I think that's something that wouldn't surprise me if it was real.

Also, you say you know of at least one professor whose mission it is to deconvert his students. Well, taking your word for it, that professor should be fired. But if I let my skepticism out to play with that I would have a question: are you exaggerating? Is it possible the professor wants to challenge beliefs? That would actually be a more realistic portrayal of a philosophy class. My philosophy professor was atheist, but he challenged everyone's beliefs, everyone. Which is basically what philosophy is all about (the "are we really here" stuff, that even a lot of atheists find preposterous).

The point is all these stories of alleged persecution of Christianity, once they are examined closely, more often than not there's more to the story. The fictional aspect of "God's Not Dead" allows for the writers to not bother with "more to the story".

Soyeong said:
but I don't think the movie was ever intended to say that all atheists are like that and that none have positive attitudes towards religion.

You're right. As I said in my original post. But the thing is, okay, if the movie is not intended to say all atheists are like that, then as an atheist, I would still have to offer my criticism that if Prof. Radison were a real atheist, he is the worst atheist ever (or one of).

I think other and my criticisms of the first movie are pretty sound, unfortunately the criticisms also allow for the simple response from apologetics: "Well... of course..."

Some examples:

- You're an atheist professor. You do not walk into an American classroom of 100 +/- students and go, "Well, as everyone knows there is no god, so let's get that out of the way. Just write that on a paper, turn it in, and we can move on." In a country where most people still believe in God, and only one student resists? (Yeah, I'm paraphrasing that scene). How much do I have to suspend my belief here? I'm a fan of scifi and fantasy so I know about suspending belief. I just didn't know I needed that much for a mundane drama.
* Apologetic response - Well... of course. Nobody said the atheist professor was smart. He's already on the wrong side of belief. He doesn't believe in God. Why would it be so far fetched that he'd think 2+2=7? *shrug*

- Okay, getting past that. You're an atheist professor. You start out by showing a list of philosophers who are all atheists, okay, boom. You tell your class there's no god, let's move on. Then there's the student who refuses, that whole thing happens. So you assign the rest of the class some homework. What's their homework? Descartes. Wait... wait... Descartes!? Back up. You list atheist philosophers, you tell the class there's no god, and imply, there's no need to even discuss it. But the homework you already had picked out was... Descartes? A philosopher who claims to mathematically prove the existence of God? Don't you think that'd be problematic to your cause?
* Apologetic response - Well... of course. Nobody said the atheist professor was smart. He probably doesn't know that much about philosophy in the first place. Yeah, he's probably a horrible professor. *shrug*
-- On a sidenote, my "in universe" theory with this, is that due to the fact that Josh's arguments were so bad, the real reason why the students all stood up at the end was because they read Descartes, and because Radison didn't use this opportunity to refute Descartes (not that he'd be any good at it, since his argument with Josh was facepalm horrible), the students owe their conversion to Descartes, not Josh.

Soyeong said:
If they had thrown in an atheists or two like that, would that have really made the difference between a good and a terrible movie?

Yes! Maybe not good. But certainly an attempt to be more honest with the character development.

Soyeong said:
It doesn't have to be the professor, but the fact is that many Christians lose their faith in college, so they had their faith challenged by someone and they weren't prepared with how to respond. The purpose of the movie was to encourage Christians to stand up for their faith, to introduce them to apologetics, and to get them to start having these sorts of conversations, and in that regard the move was a success. Perhaps they will have a better representation of atheists in the new movie, but again the point is to encourage Christians to stand up for their faith, so it will again require a person or two is antagonistic, which again not all non-believers are like. However, I do agree that it is cheesy that it seems like Christian moviemakers almost feel compelled to have someone convert to Christianity by the end of the movie.

The only audience that this movie was a success with (Christians included) were people who don't have a full understanding what atheism actually is, what they say, what their beliefs really are, etc. And the film got a standing ovation which is someting that should be (and is from what I see) troubling to other Christians who didn't like the film.

The movie wasn't just cheesy, it was bad and potentially more harmful to those who hope to "stand up" for their beliefs.

One of atheist friends commented about the movie, "Well, if that's what they think this all ammounts to, then atheists have little to worry about."

You want to prepare them for what they're going to expect in college? For the challenges to their beliefs? Have them watch real, actual debates. We got youtube. There's tons of atheist vs. theist debates there. Have them check out Matt Dillahunty's atheist debates project.

Or at least, have a movie that better represents these debates. From both sides! I mean this isn't just the atheist bias talking here. William Lane Craig and Ken Ham (as bad as I think they are) should be slapping their faces and shaking their heads at this movie.

This is a movie whose premise should have made it more important. And such a film requires research. And I saw very little evidence for that in "God's Not Dead". The second movie looks the same.

Soyeong · Nov 28, 2015

ArtherEld said:
Then why wasn't the film based on one of those real life experiences? I mean that reminds me of something else wrong with the movie. The filmmakers knew that atheists were going to be like, "Nah, that doesn't happen." So at the end of the movie, after the credits, they post a list of real life incidents of (alleged) Christian persecution on college campuses and other places. Why not have a movie based on one of those true stories?

Well... there's one possibility. If they do a "based on a true story" film, they'll probably feel the obligation to be more objective with it. And while secular docudramas take a lot of artistic license with it and inject opinionated caricatures into the story, such a method would be clear dishonesty in a Christian film. So... avoid that altogether, make a fictional movie (based on a chain mail myth story mind you), that way you can make your good guy look as good as you want, and the bad guy as bad as you want.

There's no way for me to prove that's what happened, but I think that's something that wouldn't surprise me if it was real.

You would have to ask the creators of the movie why they didn't base it on a real life story, but I don't see that as particularly relevant. What is relevant is that Christians in college do run into situations in college where their faith is challenged and they should be be prepared with how to respond when that happens.

Also, you say you know of at least one professor whose mission it is to deconvert his students. Well, taking your word for it, that professor should be fired. But if I let my skepticism out to play with that I would have a question: are you exaggerating? Is it possible the professor wants to challenge beliefs? That would actually be a more realistic portrayal of a philosophy class. My philosophy professor was atheist, but he challenged everyone's beliefs, everyone. Which is basically what philosophy is all about (the "are we really here" stuff, that even a lot of atheists find preposterous).

The point is all these stories of alleged persecution of Christianity, once they are examined closely, more often than not there's more to the story. The fictional aspect of "God's Not Dead" allows for the writers to not bother with "more to the story".

Peter Boghossian has published a manual for how to create atheists:

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17937621-a-manual-for-creating-atheists

I'd call some of his tactics as deliberately misleading, but I'll let you look him up on your own, and I don't think I'm exaggerating.

You're right. As I said in my original post. But the thing is, okay, if the movie is not intended to say all atheists are like that, then as an atheist, I would still have to offer my criticism that if Prof. Radison were a real atheist, he is the worst atheist ever (or one of).

I think other and my criticisms of the first movie are pretty sound, unfortunately the criticisms also allow for the simple response from apologetics: "Well... of course..."

Some examples:

- You're an atheist professor. You do not walk into an American classroom of 100 +/- students and go, "Well, as everyone knows there is no god, so let's get that out of the way. Just write that on a paper, turn it in, and we can move on." In a country where most people still believe in God, and only one student resists? (Yeah, I'm paraphrasing that scene). How much do I have to suspend my belief here? I'm a fan of scifi and fantasy so I know about suspending belief. I just didn't know I needed that much for a mundane drama.
* Apologetic response - Well... of course. Nobody said the atheist professor was smart. He's already on the wrong side of belief. He doesn't believe in God. Why would it be so far fetched that he'd think 2+2=7? *shrug*

- Okay, getting past that. You're an atheist professor. You start out by showing a list of philosophers who are all atheists, okay, boom. You tell your class there's no god, let's move on. Then there's the student who refuses, that whole thing happens. So you assign the rest of the class some homework. What's their homework? Descartes. Wait... wait... Descartes!? Back up. You list atheist philosophers, you tell the class there's no god, and imply, there's no need to even discuss it. But the homework you already had picked out was... Descartes? A philosopher who claims to mathematically prove the existence of God? Don't you think that'd be problematic to your cause?
* Apologetic response - Well... of course. Nobody said the atheist professor was smart. He probably doesn't know that much about philosophy in the first place. Yeah, he's probably a horrible professor. *shrug*
-- On a sidenote, my "in universe" theory with this, is that due to the fact that Josh's arguments were so bad, the real reason why the students all stood up at the end was because they read Descartes, and because Radison didn't use this opportunity to refute Descartes (not that he'd be any good at it, since his argument with Josh was facepalm horrible), the students owe their conversion to Descartes, not Josh.

There are a number of atheists who sadly have a poor view of philosophy, with no help from people like Neil deGrasse Tyson. My main criticism is that they didn't spend enough time developing the arguments, so I do agree with you that that could have been improved. On the other hand, I think you're exaggerating about atheists being represented as unintelligent puppy kickers.

The only audience that this movie was a success with (Christians included) were people who don't have a full understanding what atheism actually is, what they say, what their beliefs really are, etc. And the film got a standing ovation which is someting that should be (and is from what I see) troubling to other Christians who didn't like the film.

The movie wasn't just cheesy, it was bad and potentially more harmful to those who hope to "stand up" for their beliefs.

One of atheist friends commented about the movie, "Well, if that's what they think this all ammounts to, then atheists have little to worry about."

You want to prepare them for what they're going to expect in college? For the challenges to their beliefs? Have them watch real, actual debates. We got youtube. There's tons of atheist vs. theist debates there. Have them check out Matt Dillahunty's atheist debates project.

Or at least, have a movie that better represents these debates. From both sides! I mean this isn't just the atheist bias talking here. William Lane Craig and Ken Ham (as bad as I think they are) should be slapping their faces and shaking their heads at this movie.

This is a movie whose premise should have made it more important. And such a film requires research. And I saw very little evidence for that in "God's Not Dead". The second movie looks the same.

As I said, the purpose was to introduce them to apologetics, though I agree the introduction could have been better, but hopefully it will move them on to watching those type of debates. Christianity has a long history of intellectual giants, which sadly many Christians have never even read, let alone heard about.

ArtherEld · Dec 5, 2015

Soyeong said:
You would have to ask the creators of the movie why they didn't base it on a real life story, but I don't see that as particularly relevant. What is relevant is that Christians in college do run into situations in college where their faith is challenged and they should be be prepared with how to respond when that happens.

A movie more grounded in reality would be better at preparing people for College. Yeah, I know, movies are unrealistic. Even the docudramas. But here's the thing, even the worst films Hollywood spews out show some sort of effort to depict good and evil a little more realistically. The good guys aren't always all good, the bad guys aren't always all bad. This movie seems like it was made by my conservative pastor who would get up and preach about how, "These movies nowadays... I tell you what, you don't even know who's the good guy and who's the bad guy." The only thing missing from Professor Radisan was a white cat and an eyepatch. "I've got a basement full demon minions all trained to go after the Christian children as soon as I press this big red button. Mwahahahahaha!"

Soyeong said:
Peter Boghossian has published a manual for how to create atheists:

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17937621-a-manual-for-creating-atheists

I'd call some of his tactics as deliberately misleading, but I'll let you look him up on your own, and I don't think I'm exaggerating.

The beauty of atheism is that there are no sacred texts. There's no manifesto. Actually there's a book Michael Onfray, but again I don't have to agree with it. So a "Manual for Creating Atheists" has little value to me especially if "his tactics are deliberately misleading". If that's the case I could write something better, and I'm not a professional writer.

Soyeong said:
There are a number of atheists who sadly have a poor view of philosophy, with no help from people like Neil deGrasse Tyson. My main criticism is that they didn't spend enough time developing the arguments, so I do agree with you that that could have been improved. On the other hand, I think you're exaggerating about atheists being represented as unintelligent puppy kickers.

Not just atheists, but all the nonbelievers in this film are horrible. Like it's trying to prove the Christian's "morality without God" argument. Like it'd be one thing if it was just Professor Radison. But the abusive Muslim father (which I don't know what the film was doing here. It was about arguing the existence of God, and apparently it was "going there" without saying like, "Yep, we're talking specifically about the Christian God, because Allah is evil), the reporter who was really... look, I know reporters are invasive, but that character was clearly created by someone who's like "mainstream media hates Christians" and this reporter girl was like a caricature of that, and Dean Cain... no, I joked about Professor Radison being some Bond villain, and I agree that was exaggerating. Dean Cain's character would scare the gold out of Goldfinger. I kept waiting for him to put the chokehold on his grandma.

The only time nonbelievers in this film showed some "goodness" shining through was when they started getting into the transition phase of "maybe I'm wrong, and God is real, and maybe I should get right..." The Asian kid seemed alright, but then he was in the transition phase the moment he shows up. So looking at how they depicted the other nonbelievers, I expect the prequel for the Asian kid would be him egging people's houses and curbstomping babies.

Soyeong said:
As I said, the purpose was to introduce them to apologetics, though I agree the introduction could have been better, but hopefully it will move them on to watching those type of debates. Christianity has a long history of intellectual giants, which sadly many Christians have never even read, let alone heard about.

Right and they'd be in for a surprise, which is a crack in the whole "this movie is meant to prepare" idea. Because look, the snide, better-than-you, atheist is the stereotype. So you're expecting it. If you're told that atheists are overbearing and hate God and Christians, because something bad happened to them, this movie confirms it. Then you get to college, you meet someone like Matt Dilahunty and you're like, "Oh, he's not like that at all." They'll get thrown off by the nice atheists, and that may not have to desired effect. Because I saw an example of this, but the other way around. I read an article about a girl who was raised atheist. And she dealt with the problem Christians all her life. There was a story about a fellow student threatened to come to her house and kill everyone for not believing in God. Then she gets to college and meets a nice guy who's a Christian, and she's like wow, this is different, a nice, nonjudgemental Christian. Long story short, she's a Christian. Her article didn't open up about the actual arguments that she dealt with. It was just, this guy challenges my beliefs, we'd argue about morality and existence of God, but it was healthy and we fell in love and now I'm not an atheist anymore.

If the movie (and maybe the sequel is better) wanted to really prepare people, show them what they're not expecting, we wouldn't have a movie that's really guilty of overpredictability. Because the conservative Christian depiction of the "spiritual warfare" that's going to happen when sending their kids away to the evil secular colleges, that's already expected, and that's what's in the movie. A lot of atheists went and were like, "This movie's gonna just... yep, it just... that's what I was expecting. Thanks for not disappointing, Pure Flix."

"Oh, this is a movie about debating the existence of God? So are we going to get Kalam's cosmological argument? The 'default position' and 'burden of proof'? Oh, no they're both going to just participate in the world's most fallacious debate. 'Appeal to authority'? Yeah, throw that in there."

There you go. Everything I ever heard my angry conservative uncle complain about secularism is crammed into one movie.

Goodbook · Jan 5, 2016

I think some atheists are just miffed one of them was portrayed not in a good light.
Of course atheists like to emphasise their humanity and compassion on one hand while denouncing christianity on the other. Uh. You can't have it both ways.

I think what you do see in the movie -obviously the movie is slice of life, would be what a student would actually see of a professor, not all of his life..but just some of it.

And I have encountered a lot of atheists like that, just cos they don't believe, they want everyone else to not believe either. Sorry, its not gonna happen.

BookofMatt · Jan 5, 2016

Goodbook said:
I think some atheists are just miffed one of them was portrayed not in a good light.

Uh, no. I'm the direct opposite of an atheist, and there are many, many reasons to dislike 'God's Not Dead', not the least of which is presenting a completely unrealistic portrayal of both atheists and Christians. That's what these types of movies do. 'God's Not Dead', 'Do You Believe?', etc.: they exist only to glorify the American Evangelical Church. Any character who's not a specific strain of Protestant - whether atheist or Muslim or whatever - will always be depicted in the most negative and inaccurate light. Do you honestly believe a "Christian" movie would present an atheist character in a good light? The viewpoints they express are either intentionally flawed or misrepresented because they exist solely to have the "good" Christian characters prove them wrong and play into the audience's false sense of moral superiority. Swap out "atheist" for "Jew" and these movies are no different than Nazi-era propaganda.

I mean, if you liked 'God's Not Dead' or found personal relevance in it, that's absolutely, 100% okay; I'm not here to take that away from you. I'm not the kind of jerk who would criticize someone for liking something. However, it's important to realize 'God's Not Dead' doesn't speak for all Christians: it doesn't speak for my own faith nor does it speak for the faith of my own brethren or my own church. I'm hardly the only Christian who found it detestable, and I object to people claiming all the negative backlash for bad Christian movies comes from "atheists" (on the contrary, I have atheist friends who loved 'GND' because of how cartoonishly inaccurate it is). I'm a Christian, and I'm just miffed that (I feel) 'God's Not Dead' is an awful movie.

Cute Tink · Jan 5, 2016

Goodbook said:
I think some atheists are just miffed one of them was portrayed not in a good light.

Oh no. I find it very entertaining to hear from sensationalists what "atheists" are like.

If people walk away from the movie thinking this is what "atheists" are like, then the movie is doing a disservice to their desired audience.

Fireinfolding · Jan 5, 2016

Wow, thanks i usually dont watch movies but I will have to keep this one in mind for one I wouldnt mind seeing.

Goodbook · Jan 5, 2016

I know some atheists and they were like that. Very angry and thinking christians were out to convert them all the time. Uh no. They can keep their unbelief.

Goodbook · Jan 5, 2016

Its not as if christians havent encounterd atheists before. They come in all kinds of personalities, but the main thing is that they are vociferous to the point of being annoying.

Goodbook · Jan 5, 2016

Lol.

Yea seems like the movie has really ticked off athiests here, judging by their reaction.

Cute Tink · Jan 5, 2016

Goodbook said:
I know some atheists and they were like that. Very angry and thinking christians were out to convert them all the time.

I know some Christians and they were like that.

Fireinfolding · Jan 5, 2016

To me seems like how it is, you hear on the news about issues with prayer, and God forbid someone bows at the knees (and speaks to the invisible man) ^_^

BookofMatt · Jan 5, 2016

Goodbook said:
Its not as if christians havent encounterd atheists before. They come in all kinds of personalities, but the main thing is that they are vociferous to the point of being annoying.

Are you talking about Christians or atheists? We've got to learn to point the finger at ourselves, too.

God's Not Dead 2 Trailer - Reaction

Member

Jesus is Lord

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Reading the Bible

Jesus is Lord

Blah

Well-Known Member

Reading the Bible

Reading the Bible

Reading the Bible

Blah

Well-Known Member

Jesus is Lord

Similar threads