This movie was parodying bible-belt Christian extremists. I just want to know why people got so offended when any sane person knows that the universe is billions of years old. To believe that the earth is only a couple of thousand is just denial, and completely absurd.
I taught you everything you know, but not everything I know.
Actually, the number is 6,000 years but... yes.
There are people (more than you might think) who believe in the Bishop Ussher timeline of The Bible that pegs the date of Creation at 4004BCE (October 22nd, to be precise).
-
Fox "News": We lie, you panic!
Young Earthers think it's between 6000-10,000 years. Part of this is due to the Usher chronology, part is due to what it mentions in the bible and part of it is due to our not being able to find evidence of a civilization older than 10,000 years.
Yes there are artifacts that are dated older than that but these folk just say all that stuff was laid down during the great flood so 10,000 years is the limit.
Yes there are artifacts that are dated older than that but these folk just say all that stuff was laid down during the great flood so 10,000 years is the limit.
Yes. Those people are called crazy.
shareThose are Christian cults. Catholics aka the OLDEST christian church aka the MAJORITY OF CHRISTIANS aka 1.2+ BILLION people
Believe in science and evolution.
It's sad how most people think they're so much smarter than "Christians" yet buy into all the anti-Christian Hollywood BS which just shows the minority of retarded ones and portrays them as "Christianity."
Actually, the progressive, intelligent Christians unfortunately does not make up a large percentage of the global population of Christianity.
share1.2 billion Catholics beg to differ
Most are "progressive and intelligent"
Look up things the pope says and with most issues he is "progressive and intelligent"
And most Catholics aka those not in the clergy are a lot more progressive than the top holy authority of the whole religion
So don't pull majority out your ass like you even have a clue what most are like. Have you met millions of Catholics in The Phillipines, Argentina, Poland, Canada, etc. all around the world? No? Than your sample size is too small to know jack
Agreed. Hollywood seems to tarnish all Christians as Creationists. There are plenty of us out there with PhD's who have more logical and cognitive abilities than a very high percentage of the Atheists trying to mock us.
share[deleted]
It's not just Hollywood BS though. First the US is majority protestant or evangelical. So the most POWERFUL CHRISTIANS are not Catholics.
Second anti-science is simply used as a talking point or propaganda to undermine climate change. If climate change threatens profits, there will be organisations and lobbyists that will fund a general propaganda effort to undermine ANY science. So the young earther movement can be seen as part of that. Of course anti-intellectualism is helpful for a wide array of political goals (not just right wing but to a lesser effect left wing also). Religion is simply used as a tool here, and if needed the pope is discredited as a hippie communist.
The pope has done very good things but you come to the wrong conclusion.
Most christians don't believe that, just like most muslims are not terrorists and most atheists don't have an orgy every night. And that is exactly why people get offended. The movie portrayed a stereotypical image of christians, which is always offensive, and demonstrates lack of basic decency.
shareif you believe in a man in the sky, you deserve to be ridiculed. get over it
shareMy point exactly is that most christians don't believe in stereotypical issues like a man in the sky - that is yet another dumbed-down stereotype which really doesn't even work as humor except maybe for the mentally challenged who fail to comprehend good parody. You seem to have some problems comprehending what you read, yes?
share[deleted]
Haha I used to think atheists were more intelligent than christians.. and then I joined the imdb boards. Anyway, anyone who is incapable of comprehending what they read deserve to be ridiculed. Get over it.
P.S. phrases like "go kill yourself" will get you on my ignore list, so no point replying here. :P
It parodied Christian fundamentalists, who deserve to be parodied
shareThat has absolutely nothing to do with my point. There is nothing wrong with a good parody - and a lot of good parody has, indeed, been made of christianity. There is, however, something seriously wrong with going into retard-mode just because someone deserves to be ridiculed.
Let me rephrase my argument: using cheap stereotypes as a mean for parody is absolutely positivily RETARDED - regardless of who the person is you are making fun of.
That's your opinion. Don't think the film went into "retarded" mode at all. The stereotype used was dead-on.
shareThere really is no such thing as a dead-on stereotype. They are called stereotypes in the first place because they are intellectually cheap and lazy. Making fun of a stereotype is like the fart joke of parody: even if you like it, you gotta admit it doesn't really show good taste or intelligence. No matter who you are making fun of. It's just bad taste, plain and simple. Yes, it is my opinion, and it's a pretty darn good one if I may say so. ;)
shareStereotypes come from what people observe. For every human stereotype, you can find tens of thousands of examples, if not more. So yes, there is VERY much such a thing as a dead-on stereotype. Making fun of them can be, but is absolutely not always in bad taste, lazy, or unintelligent, plain and simple. And if I may say so, your opinion is pretty darn lame.
You've obviously never dealt with a true christian fundamentalist. Many are actually worse than what the film portrayed. But again, you certainly have the right to what you choose to believe.
Stereotypes do indeed come from what people observe. Usually stereotypes arise when people observe the most superficial sides of things, to be more precice. Stereotyping pretty much equals lazy observation. That is why people are categorized almost as cartoon characters based on very few attributes in movies like this. It is easier to label people like that rather than to actually get to know what they are talking about. When you get to know people and phenomenom more, the less you appreciate stereotypes based on quick and easy observations. And the less you enjoy "humor" based on the assumption that it is funny when you make a parody of the most superficial sides of things. Real satire - good satire - makes fun of religion without resorting to cheap tricks.
Have I met fundamentalists? A few, altough none as bad as the people presented in this film. Most christians I know are not fundamentalists, though, but you never see them present in this sort of films. I suppose it wouldn't be cheap and easy enough to admit christians are people too.
And how many christians do you actually know on a personal level? You know, even though many of them can be idiotic at times, usually they are not cartoon characters. Most I know are rather thoughtful people and have not tried to convert me nor condemned me after I've told them my personal stand.
Besides, for me it is not so much about wether christians are right or wrong or stupid or clever. Hell, most of us are pretty dumb anyway, regardless of our belief system. It is just that once you get to know good satire, you no longer really appreciate cheap and lazy humor that much.
I know a lot of Christians on a personal level. I'm one myself. But the vast majority of them are normal people, not fundamentalists. They have their beliefs, and don;t try to force them on others. And most of those beliefs are reasonable. Again, the film was not attempting to paint all Christians with a broad brush; only fundamentalists, who are indeed, living breathing stereotypes.
shareIt seems we are interpreting the movie in a different way. To me, it seemed like the message was: "this is what christianity looks like, so if you don't like it, let's all be atheists". It wasn't like the woman might've adjusted her belief system a bit, she abandoned it entirely, as if atheism was the only alternative to extreme fundamentalism.
The stereotype is perhaps a bit more understandable if it is interpreteded like you do. Still cheap, though, but that I suppose is a matter of taste.
No, that wasn't the message. It was squarely aimed at fundamentalists. And, let's not forget, it was a movie.
shareI hope you are right.
It was indeed a movie, and one is right to claim movies shouldn't be taken too seriously. Unfortunately people seem to take movie-based stereotypes surprisingly seriously. For example the previous guy who I talked to on this thread seemed to base his conception of what christianity actually is entirely on cheap stereotypes that are mostly spread by popular culture.
Well, let's both be brutally honest .. "Unfortunately people seem to take movie-based stereotypes surprisingly seriously." That should read, "people of low intelligence..."
I know it sounds mean, but nobody who actually thinks is going to use a movie -- much less a science fiction comedy -- to shape their view of something like that.
I think its more a case that you're mis-interpreting the movie Rizzyay.
Also your argument about the intelligence of stereotypes is utterly pointless.
This is a silly light hearted comedy, its not meant to be some critical bold statement about the state of religion in the world today.
I don't judge a punch and judy show saying it doesn't accurately portray violence at home properly.
I suppose this is mostly the same discussion that has taken place above?
There is one major difference in that punch and judy show you mentioned. After viewing that show, people mostly don't run around the streets going "see, I told you domestic violence was okay and fun, didn't I?"
Was this ment to be just a light-hearted comedy? Maybe, maybe not. As I've pointed out above, an argument can be made that suggests otherweise. But one way or the other, still, let's face it: most people are not going to look at this movie as a light-hearted comedy, as can clearly be seen on this board. Most people are going to see it as an attack against a large group of people, and a lot of people are quite jolly about it as well, finding it humorous. I have already agreed that if (and that is a big if, since there are several arguments that indicade otherweise) the movie wasn't ment to be a statement about religion, then the real blame should be the people's reactions rather than the movie itself. Either way it is difficult to like a movie that raises such strong pro-stereotypical statements among viewers.
@Rizzyay
And most people don't view Paul and then decide to hunt down religious people to attack them either. All the stuff about evolution in the movie, well thats just fact. Sorry if that hurts your feelings, but there is such a huge amount of monumental evidence to support the origin of the species now that to argue against it is absurd.
If your assumption, and it is entirely an assumption, that 'most' people don't see this as light hearted and an attack, then the imdb score wouldn't be as high as it is. Indeed Christians have come out and said how much they've enjoyed this movie. The only thing that YOU can be sure of is that YOU personally have see it as an attack.
You've also seemed to have shifted your goalposts, earlier you were staying you didn't mind films poking fun at christianity and your main issue was with using stereotypes. Now you're talking about it as an attacking against a large group of people and how people are jolly about it being an attack. Well thats all in your head mate, clearly the truth of your feelings is now out and it hit a defensive nerve.
The question I would ask you is, if its affected your emotions so much, perhaps you are starting to question your own faith? I'm just amazed that your unshakeable faith has been soo rocked by what is just a comedy movie.
For the record I take no issue with films portraying bad or dumb stupid characters who happen to be athiests, and for those rare ultra christian cult videos that DO portray some evil or stupid athiest character, well they're just hilarious to watch :D
Your post is so filled with illogical statements that I do not know where to begin.. I will just point out couple of the most blatant ones.
1. When exactly have I claimed that evolution was not a fact? Do not put words in my mouth, that is just, well, extremely bad argumentation. Are you one of those people who just start making stuff up when they run out of reasonable arguments?
2. When did I change my position about stereotypes? That is, and has been, my point all along. I do get defensive when people mis-interpret my words either intentionally or out of pure stupidity, and bad argumentation makes me tick a little bit as well, that much I admit.
Let me rephrase my point once again, so that you will no longer mix up my words: I extremely dislike films that label individual personalities as nothing more than reflections of their sub-groups. I extremely dislike films that portray atheists in a bad manner based simply on them being atheists. I also extremely dislike movies that portray black people or jewish people in a bad manner based on their ethnic background. Et cetera, et cetera. Catch my drift already, or is this too difficult for you to comprehend? This one was about christianity. If it had been about atheism - and if it made people run around screaming bloody murder to all atheists and anyone who even remotely respected them as human beings - then I can assure you, I would dislike it equally.
3. All in my head? I don't know if you noticed, but my claim was ment as a reference on several posts in this very thread. In order for you to defend your position, you would have to prove that those posts were "only in my head" as well.
4. As for my personal faith - not that it has anything to do with the subject at hand, but even if I was a christian (which, BTW, is something you are just assuming based on me taking a stand for simple basic human decency, which for some illogical reason is assumed to be a christian quality by some people I quess?!) - even if this was the case, how would it change my point? Would it make a difference on my argumentation? Do you even know what "argumentation" is?
The question is not wether I'm a christian or not. The question is not wether you are atheist or not. The question is, wether I'm right or wrong about this movie stereotyping people in an indecent manner.
My post was never about religion. Your decision to read it as if it was tells more about your views than it does about mine.
Most christians don't believe that, just like most muslims are not terrorists and most atheists don't have an orgy every night.
The movie portrayed a stereotypical image of christians, which is always offensive
The universe being billions of years old is just as equally unbelievable and absurd.
Any sort of solution to how/why we are here is crazy and unbelievable.
I think it's absurd that anybody could adamantly believe anything, there's really no way to actually know one way or the other.
Slaytallica said: "The universe being billions of years old is just as equally unbelievable and absurd."
Wrong. The age of the universe is observable and measurable. You just need to have some moderate intelligence and education to understand it.
I thought they believed it was 5000.
shareAccording to Wikipedia, TODAY is considered to be the earth's birthday. At 6PM no less. What that UTC? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_22
_______________
My iMDB profile http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4297325/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1