Topic: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines

[redrat]

Religulous

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religulous



Synopsis from http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/religulous/

Bill Maher travels to Israel, England, the Netherlands, Vatican City, and across America, speaking to people about faith and religion in the very funny documentary RELIGULOUS. Maher, a stand-up comedian who has hosted the talk shows POLITICALLY INCORRECT on ABC and REAL TIME on HBO and has written such bestsellers as DOES ANYBODY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT? and WHEN YOU RIDE ALONE, YOU RIDE WITH BIN LADEN, reaches out to religious leaders as well as regular folk on the street, discussing the existence of God and the importance of organized religion. Maher makes it clear from the start that he is not a fan of religion and does not believe in God, and he has fun skewering people who do--including Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Mormons, rabbis, priests, politicians, scientists, evangelical ministers, and even a preacher whose church is a converted truck. He also visits such places as the Holy Land Experience in Orlando, Florida, where he interviews the actor who plays Jesus in a live show there, and the Red Light District in Amsterdam, notorious for its legalized drugs and prostitution. As he has done on his television programs and in his books, Maher questions literal interpretations of the Bible, seeing it more as a collection of fairy tales. Director Larry Charles (BORAT, CURB YOUR ENTHUSIASM) intersperses clips from Hollywood films about religion to punctuate Maher's points, often to hilarious effect. The soundtrack is also used effectively, including such songs as the Doobie Brothers' "Jesus Is Just Alright," Ben Folds's "Jesusland," and Billy Bragg and Wilco's "Christ for President." Like such Michael Moore documentaries as FAHRENHEIT 9/11 and BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, Maher's RELIGULOUS uses humor--and lots of cynicism and sarcasm--to examine controversial theories and topics that people feel very strongly about, no matter what side of the fence they are on. In addition to making audiences laugh, RELIGULOUS will make them think.

[redrat]

Creation - The True Story of Charles Darwin

http://creationthemovie.com



Synopsis from http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1205717-creation/

CREATION is the powerful and true-life tale of Charles Darwin and the most explosive idea in history.

A world-renowned scientist, and a dedicated family man struggling to accept his daughter’s death, Darwin is torn between his love for his deeply religious wife and his own growing belief in a world where God has no place. He finds himself caught in a battle between faith and reason, love and truth. This is the extraordinary story of Charles Darwin and how his master-work “The Origin of Species” came to light. It tells of a global revolution played out in the confines of a small English village; a passionate marriage torn apart by the most provocative idea in history – evolution; and a theory saved from extinction by the logic of a child.

[redrat]

The Man From Earth

The best science fiction movie without the star trek like special effects 

http://www.manfromearth.com/



From imdb.com

An impromptu goodbye party for Professor John Oldman becomes a mysterious interrogation after the retiring scholar reveals to his colleagues he is an immortal who has walked the earth for 14,000 years. Written by Eric D. Wilkinson

[redrat]

Collision: Christopher Hitchens vs Douglas Wilson



http://www.collisionmovie.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkGPceR-pIs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM4tHNV9SjE

SYNOPSIS
COLLISION carves a new path in documentary film-making as it pits leading atheist, political journalist and bestselling author Christopher Hitchens against fellow author, satirist and evangelical theologian Douglas Wilson, as they go on the road to exchange blows over the question: "Is Christianity Good for the World?". The two contrarians laugh, confide and argue, in public and in private, as they journey through three cities. And the film captures it all. The result is a magnetic conflict, a character-driven narrative that sparkles cinematically with a perfect match of arresting personalities and intellectual rivalry. COLLISION is directed by prolific independent filmmaker Darren Doane (Van Morrison: Astral Weeks Live at the Hollywood Bowl, The Battle For L.A., Godmoney).

[redrat]

Constantine's Sword

http://constantinessword.com



Synopsis:

Constantine’s Sword is the story of James Carroll; a former Catholic priest on a journey to confront his past and uncover the roots of religiously inspired violence and war. His search also reveals a growing scandal involving religious infiltration of the U.S. military and the terrible consequences of religion’s influence on America’s foreign policy.

Carroll focuses on Christian antisemitism as the model for all religious hatred, exposing the cross as a symbol of a long history of violence against Jews (and, most recently, Moslems). The film brings the history of religious intolerance to life, tracing it as a source of the fanaticism that threatens the world today. At its core, Constantine’s Sword is a compelling personal narrative — a kind of detective story — as one man uncovers the dark areas of his own past, searching for a better future.

[choy]

so far i've only seen religulous and what i can say is that these documentaries are very short sighted and biased

they only seek to discredit and destroy religon and faith without showing the good side of it.  its not even opening a light from a neutral perspective.  its heavily biased and Bill Maher is a religion hater and staunch atheist who seeks to end all religion in the world

[dorian_gray]

So is this a good side of religion?

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20100316-258940/German-Catholics-fume-at-popes-silence

German Catholics fume at pope's 'silence'

[choy]

So is this a good side of religion?

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20100316-258940/German-Catholics-fume-at-popes-silence

German Catholics fume at pope's 'silence'

we're spoiled by the internet
we want instant answers, instant responses

the Pope, being in his position, needs to gather all the facts before he makes a statement, like all world leaders would.  you can't just go babbling to the press only to keep changing your statements later as more facts arise

[indie boi]

so far i've only seen religulous and what i can say is that these documentaries are very short sighted and biased

I'll have to agree in so far as Religulous is concerned that there is indeed bias in how Maher presents his case. What could've been a very enlightening topic was marred by his attempt to railroad his beliefs without allowing it to develop naturally.

Having said that, there are also some nice scenes in this docu, most prominently Fr. George Coyne's segment where he reasoned why the Bible should not be used as a source for scientific thought.

Redrats, thanks for the recommendations. I'll track down these titles. 

[choy]

I'll have to agree in so far as Religulous is concerned that there is indeed bias in how Maher presents his case. What could've been a very enlightening topic was marred by his attempt to railroad his beliefs without allowing it to develop naturally.

Having said that, there are also some nice scenes in this docu, most prominently Fr. George Coyne's segment where he reasoned why the Bible should not be used as a source for scientific thought.

Redrats, thanks for the recommendations. I'll track down these titles. 

well, thats the point of these movies.  even Michael Moore is very one sided with his docu-movies.  while Sicko sure made my happy i moved to Canada instead of the US, i know that Moore didn't show the dark side of the healthcare systems in other countries for the purpose of ridiculing the healthcare system of the US.  although i believe that Canada still has a better healthcare system than the US, despite the flaws.  but thats for another topic.  hhhmmm...i should start one

the best docu-movie i have seen so far is Supersize Me

and i agree the bible isn't a scientific book.  the purpose of Scripture is salvation for the soul.  what does math or physics have to do with the human soul?

[indie boi]

and i agree the bible isn't a scientific book.  the purpose of Scripture is salvation for the soul.  what does math or physics have to do with the human soul?

Agree on this point as well, that's why I don't understand the YEC movement or the admittedly bizarre way some denominations read into scripture as sources for physics and electronic inventions.

[choy]

Agree on this point as well, that's why I don't understand the YEC movement or the admittedly bizarre way some denominations read into scripture as sources for physics and electronic inventions.

LOL, but i for one consider myself a creationist, mainly because of theological issues.  although i'm open to a creation event that coincides with the evolutionary theory and the big bang

the most amazing thing i find about Genesis is that the creation sequence is in the same sequence the universe was actually created.  except for the part where the oceans and the land existed before the sun and the stars.  but the fact that the universe began its existence when God said, "Let there be light," and where else can this light come from but the Big Bang?  after which the heavenly bodies were created, then flora and fauna, then man.  this comes from people who have no idea about the modern science we rely on today

[bumblebee]

A lot of civilizations believed that in the beginning there was darkness and chaos. And if ever you notice that the Bible contains texts matching scientific discoveries, well, it is because they have observed those in their times hence they write about them. As as example, it was believed that world was round way back before Magellan but they couldn't prove it then.

[choy]

A lot of civilizations believed that in the beginning there was darkness and chaos. And if ever you notice that the Bible contains texts matching scientific discoveries, well, it is because they have observed those in their times hence they write about them. As as example, it was believed that world was round way back before Magellan but there was no proof.

and the fact that creation stories are similar support single origin.  although geneticists now offer further proof in the single-origin theory

[bumblebee]

and the fact that creation stories are similar support single origin.  although geneticists now offer further proof in the single-origin theory

Did anyone here tell you otherwise?

[choy]

Did anyone here tell you otherwise?

that humans have different points of origin?  i remember someone who didn't directly mention it but was suggesting that, it could have been you!  LOL

[dorian_gray]

I guess it is really that easy to post something here without proof.

[bumblebee]

that humans have different points of origin?  i remember someone who didn't directly mention it but was suggesting that, it could have been you!  LOL

Me? If Noah is your single point of origin, then yes, I don't believe that.

[dpogs]

Correct me if I mali ang interpretation ko:


Atheist (or freethinkers) believe (and practice) anything is right and correct as long nobody is hurt.

[barrister]

No.  There are good atheists and bad atheists, just as there are good theists and bad theists.

Atheists do not believe in the existence of God.  Theists believe God exists.  No need to complicate things.  Doing what is right has nothing do do with it.  

There are atheists who do charity work.  And there are religious nuts who firebomb abortion clinics.

What atheists are objecting to is the impression that all atheists are automatically evil simply because they don't believe in God.

[indie boi]

No.  There are good atheists and bad atheists, just as there are good theists and bad theists.

Atheists do not believe in the existence of God.  Theists believe God exists.  No need to complicate things.  Doing what is right has nothing do do with it.  

There are atheists who do charity work.  And there are religious nuts who firebomb abortion clinics.

What atheists are objecting to is the impression that all atheists are automatically evil simply because they don't believe in God.

Clear as day. Though I'm pretty sure that one of the inevitable questions will be how atheists would know right from wrong if they don't believe in God/read the Bible.

[dpogs]

No.  There are good atheists and bad atheists, just as there are good theists and bad theists.

hmmm... how atheist differentiate good atheist and bad atheist???

[bumblebee]

Simple lang. I'll cite an example. Kapag me sign na "No U-turn", the good atheist will not make a U-turn while the bad atheist will.

[Clondalkin]

hmmm... how atheist differentiate good atheist and bad atheist???

Dpogs serious ka talagang hindi mo makuha eto?

Lahat ng normal na tao can distinguish between right or wrong di ba?  If I do something that MOST people accept as good based on common knowledge and experience, do I have to doubt myself na it could be bad?  Tawag ng Japanese dito ay GIRININJO or literally, basic duties and responsibilities ng isang tao sa society at sa kapwa na base sa compassion - hindi mo kailangang magbasa ng Bible to know these...and karamihan ng patakaran ng bansa at ng society ay base sa ikabubuti ng karamihan.   Kailangan mo lang maging BUHAY.   Maski mga Atheist alam eto desu ne.

[alistair]

Correct me if mali ang interpretation ko:

Religious fundamentalists believe only they are right and everyone else be damned.

This means Roman Catholic evangelists are right and Protestants are damned.

This means Biblical fundamendalists are right and RC/Orthodox/Anglicans are damned.

This means Muslims are right and Christians and Jews are damned.

This means Jews are right and Christians and Muslims are damned.

How do religious fundamentalists differentiate between good religious and bad religious?

If their pastor/priest/rabbi/imam says it's good, then it must be good. Otherwise it's bad. Religious fundamentalists cannot be trusted to make moral decisions by themselves.

Tama ba?

Or, alternatively: if it agrees with their interpretation of the version of the Bible/Qur'an/Tanakh they believe in. Since none of them can readily agree with each other, everyone else is bad according to their respective holy texts.

[dpogs]

Dpogs serious ka talagang hindi mo makuha eto?

nope... im serious... i really dont know how atheist call their fellow atheist a bad atheist or a good atheist? ano criteria nila to call a certain atheist 'bad'...

kasi kung atheist ako ngayon... eto lang magiging prinsipyo ko.... hanggat wala akong naagrabyado o nasasaktang ibang tao... tama ang ginagawa ko... i thought ganito ang pag-iisip ng mga atheist?

Lahat ng normal na tao can distinguish between right or wrong di ba?

Nope. He cant. a new born child must be guided accordingly as he/she grows.

If I do something that MOST people accept as good based on common knowledge and experience, do I have to doubt myself na it could be bad?

hmmm.... if most people accepted abortion as good... atheist will accept it as good?
hmmm.... if most Filipinos accepted homosexuality as bad will it be bad also to some atheist?

it depends sa takbo ng panahon??? if mali ngayon naging tama later, atheist will just accept that change???



is there particular distinction... or an specific line between what is good atheist and bad atheist???

[dpogs]

Simple lang. I'll cite an example. Kapag me sign na "No U-turn", the good atheist will not make a U-turn while the bad atheist will.

hmmm... kapag may sign na "kill them"... the good atheist will kill them and the bad atheist will not kill them???

we know na mali talaga ang nag u-turn sa no u-turn area on the ground na not following instructions....

what if the instruction is:

"Kill all Theist"... good atheist will do it ... and bad atheist will not do it


any distinction... between bad atheist and good atheist??? or it depends sa kung ano ang gusto ng karamihan???

[indie boi]

Here's another way to look at it.

Do you need to be a good Christian in order to follow a "No U-Turn" sign or a "Bawal ang Umihi dito" sign? If you'll be able to answer that then everything will be clear to you.

[bumblebee]

Yes. Kapag me "Kill them" sign, susundin yun. Let me know pala kung me makita kang ganung sign ha?

[dpogs]

Here's another way to look at it.

Do you need to be a good Christian in order to follow a "No U-Turn" sign or a "Bawal ang Umihi dito" sign? If you'll be able to answer that then everything will be clear to you.

hmmmm... following instruction eh...

if there is no sign... how atheist will behave???

if there is no one telling that killling is wrong... will atheist kill because no one telling them it is wrong...
if there is no one telling that homosexuality is wrong... will atheist consider it right...
if there is no one telling that adultery is wrong... will atheist consider it right...

example: dito sa Pilipinas... a marriage must be between man and woman - most accepted that and that was the sign in our constitution... how atheist view a marriage between same gender... will they follow the sign "marriage between man and woman"... or will they make their own sign "marriage must be also between same gender"?