The Unbelievers 2013

joseph brand

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxDLkoK8vQQ

Can't wait to watch this with some satanic beer and a bucket of KFB. (Kentucky fried babies)

"That's the point about beliefs: They don't change the facts. Facts, if you're rational, should change your beliefs."
Ricky Gervais

Published on Feb 8, 2013
'The Unbelievers' follows renowned scientists Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss across the globe as they speak publicly about the importance of science and reason in the modern world - encouraging others to cast off antiquated religious and politically motivated approaches toward important current issues.

The film includes interviews with celebrities and other influential people who support the work of these controversial speakers, including:

Ricky Gervais
Woody Allen
Cameron Diaz
Stephen Hawking
Sarah Silverman
Bill Pullman
Werner Herzog
Tim Minchin
Eddie Izzard
Ian McEwan
Adam Savage
Ayaan Hirsi-Ali
Penn Jillette
Sam Harris
Dan Dennett
James Randi
Cormac McCarthy
Paul Provenza
James Morrison
Michael Shermer
David Silverman
...and more.

Branch Meeting

Hopefully this film makes a wad of money for the atheist movement.

Chuck Stone

Ricky Gervais?

There goes about half the audience.

ShooterSF

"who support the work of these controversial speakers"

It's sad that it's controversial to say something that there is no evidence for probably doesn't exist.

The Mad Hatter

Branch Meeting wrote: »

Hopefully this film makes a wad of money for the atheist movement.

What movement?

Branch Meeting

Sorry I forgot, say no more.

Galvasean

If you just listened to the music you could be forgiven for thinking that they had packed in the science stuff and become full time rock stars...

[-0-]

Can't wait for this.

fisgon

Any news as to whether it will be shown here, and if so, when?

Dades

I hope it's not an hour of these lads knocking on doors and handing out pamphlets. :pac:

philologos

This seems to be a documentary about dishonestly passing off personal beliefs as science and ignoring the fact that there are many scientists who believe in God.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

This seems to be a documentary about dishonestly passing off personal beliefs as science and ignoring the fact that there are many scientists who believe in God.

Have you seen the film?

krudler

philologos wrote: »

This seems to be a documentary about dishonestly passing off personal beliefs as science and ignoring the fact that there are many scientists who believe in God.

As opposed to passing off personal beliefs and events with no proof or basis in reality as fact? there are many scientists who believe in god, but it isnt a documentary about that?

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

Have you seen the film?

In fairness, he did say 'seems'. That said, I do think he's missed the point somewhat. A bit like pointing out how a documentary about tigers ignores cheetahs.

[-0-]

philologos wrote: »

This seems to be a documentary about dishonestly passing off personal beliefs as science and ignoring the fact that there are many scientists who believe in God.

You seem to be a person spreading dishonesty, passing off personal beliefs of the super natural and ignoring the facts.

[-0-]

Also, this documentary would be so much better if The Hitch was still kicking ball.

philologos

[-0-] wrote: »

You seem to be a person spreading dishonesty, passing off personal beliefs of the super natural and ignoring the facts.

I half-didn't want to ask this question, but I half did, and I guess the latter half won out.

What "facts" am I ignoring?

[-0-]

The fact that God doesn't exist.

philologos

[Quote=[-0-];83694045]The fact that God doesn't exist.[/Quote]

Is that a fact? I thought you guys were meant to be "agnostic" atheists

[-0-]

philologos wrote: »

Is that a fact? I thought you guys were meant to be "agnostic" atheists

Of course it's a fact. There are a few of us who are anti-theists.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1%3A25-27&version=KJV

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2%3A18-19&version=NIV

Why does the bible, the true word of God, have so many contradictions? Is it because it was written by a bunch of sand farmers without any influence from a super natural being?

Paramite Pie

I'm an atheist but I never cared for Mr. Dawkins. I didn't need to read a book to be an Atheist and to be honest I think he has a very condescending air about him.

He also takes his Atheism way too 'religiously'... I don't give a crap what other people believe as long as they don't try and force it down my throat and won't force my views down theirs.

So I probably won't watch this.:P

Obliq

Paramite Pie wrote: »

I'm an atheist but I never cared for Mr. Dawkins. I didn't need to read a book to be an Atheist and to be honest I think he has a very condescending air about him.

He also takes his Atheism way too 'religiously'... I don't give a crap what other people believe as long as they don't try and force it down my throat and won't force my views down theirs.

So I probably won't watch this.:P

I like your style. I probably will watch it though - when it comes on the telly. Good luck with your second last sentence btw! I gave that view an airing once and once only.....!

the culture of deference

Paramite Pie wrote: »

I'm an atheist but I never cared for Mr. Dawkins. I didn't need to read a book to be an Atheist and to be honest I think he has a very condescending air about him.

He isn't being condescending, it's disbelief and bewilderment at the irrationality of the believer.

Galvasean

Paramite Pie wrote: »

I don't give a crap what other people believe as long as they don't try and force it down my throat

And yet they constantly do. I suppose that's why Dawkins, Krauss etc. feel the need to go around making their points in public.

Also, re: Dawkins' condescending mannerisms. I don't think he is too bad. He has the same air about him as David Attenborough, but you don't get many people calling him smug. I guess it's a combination of his accent and the subject matter really.

the culture of deference

Paramite Pie wrote: »

I don't give a crap what other people believe as long as they don't try and force it down my throat and won't force my views down theirs.

What are your feelings about Irish primary schools then?

Obliq

Galvasean wrote: »

And yet they constantly do. I suppose that's why Dawkins, Krauss etc. feel the need to go around making their points in public.

Also, re: Dawkins' condescending mannerisms. I don't think he is too bad. He has the same air about him as David Attenborough, but you don't get many people calling him smug. I guess it's a combination of his accent and the subject matter really.

Yeah, your first point completely. But Dawkins having the same air as the permanently excited Attenborough? No son, No.

I'm half English, and I have a horribly diffucult love/hate relationship with the middle class English accent. Dawkins I also find condescending. Attenborough I find transcends the class of accent straight into being excitable in any language. Great stuff - can't be duplicated. What will nature programming have when he breathily narrates his last penguin documentary? sigh...

Galvasean

Don't worry. I believe he has said every word imaginable at this point. We can isolate each individual word, edit them together and he can continue to narrate long after he's gone.

Paramite Pie

the culture of deference wrote: »

He isn't being condescending, it's disbelief and bewilderment at the irrationality of the believer.

I always perceived him as condescending but that's subjective. Just because he can't get through to the 'believers' in debates doesn't mean he should openly insult them either... that reflects on all of us Atheists. He get's easily frustrated, also takes digs at other atheists and needs some lessons in diplomacy.:cool:

Galvasean wrote: »

And yet they constantly do. I suppose that's why Dawkins, Krauss etc. feel the need to go around making their points in public.

Well the emptiest vessels always make the most noise when it comes to the more extreme religious rants from the far right but we should show ourselves to be the better people and not stoop to their level.

I have no problems with public debates, it's just how he goes about it that bothers me personally. *shrugs*

the culture of deference wrote: »

What are your feelings about Irish primary schools then?

Primary school? It's a distant memory. But I'm firmly against prayers and the likes in public schools but my primary school wasn't so bad in that respect, they never pushed it. There weren't any crosses or religious symbols like there was in my secondary school. (or else I never noticed!)

Obliq wrote: »

I'm half English, and I have a horribly diffucult love/hate relationship with the middle class English accent. Dawkins I also find condescending. Attenborough I find transcends the class of accent straight into being excitable in any language. Great stuff - can't be duplicated. What will nature programming have when he breathily narrates his last penguin documentary? sigh...

Yeah I don't see any link between Attenborough and Dawkins' mannerisms. If I had to worship one of them I know who I'd choose.;)

Obliq wrote: »

I like your style. I probably will watch it though - when it comes on the telly. Good luck with your second last sentence btw! I gave that view an airing once and once only.....!

I'm confident I can stand by it, I did say 'I think' which covers me!!!:D

pH

Paramite Pie wrote: »

He also takes his Atheism way too 'religiously'... I don't give a crap what other people believe as long as they don't try and force it down my throat and won't force my views down theirs.

You do realize you're living in a country that has 95% of schools handed over to churches of one denomination or another, a country which still has a bitter sectarian divide based around religious lines, a county that. mainly because of pressure from an entrenched religion didn't allow the sale of condoms until 1985 and decriminalized homosexuality in 1993, and still fights to stop marriage equality for homosexuals and abortions for women whose lives are at risk.

And a world, where for the last 10+ years the major divisions and fault lines have been around religion, thousands of people dead in part due to their beliefs and the beliefs of their killers.

But hey, they're not forcing it down *your* throat.

swampgas

Paramite Pie wrote: »

I always perceived him as condescending but that's subjective. Just because he can't get through to the 'believers' in debates doesn't mean he should openly insult them either... that reflects on all of us Atheists. He get's easily frustrated, also takes digs at other atheists and needs some lessons in diplomacy.:cool:

I've always thought Dawkins manages to keep his cool remarkably well. A lot better than I would, given the nonsense that's often thrown at him. I for one am glad for what he (among many others) has done a lot to bring atheism out of the shadows.

Dades

How many priests, preachers, rabbis, imams, televangelists do we know that presume to preach to the world from one pulpit or the other?

And how many atheists does the average person see putting their view about? Dawkins? A small percentage of people might know of Hitchins or Harris.

Complaining about Dawkins is just another way of saying STFU atheists, you never spoke up before and we don't like you doing it now. It's awkward.

Hotblack Desiato

Yeah. I just can't understand the hatred Dawkins gets. I think it's anti-intellectualism really, which is never good. Also his work inevitably pushes the buttons of the cultural christians who don't really believe but don't want to be told that (and don't want to be made think about what they do or don't believe in.)

I haven't read any of his books yet :eek: but on the recent TV series he did, I thought he came across extremely well. NOT patronising, condescending, intolerant, etc. etc. all the crap he's constantly wrongly accused of.

Mrs. Ninja was quite wary of him given the crap she's heard about him on the radio etc. so seeing him in his own TV series was an eye opener for her. Much better than the Late Late Show etc. where idiot presenters just attack him. They'd never dare treat a follower of any religion in the aggressive and disrespectful way Tubridy treated Dawkins.

Popinjay

Galvasean wrote: »

Don't worry. I believe he has said every word imaginable at this point. We can isolate each individual word, edit them together and he can continue to narrate long after he's gone.

Does this mean that as technology advances it might be possible to some day have your day to day life narrated by a semi intelligent (intelligent enough to recognise what words it needed to select to narrate your current actions, at least) Attenbot, while you're actually living it?

So heaven is at least theoretically possible.

"Here we see the male Popinjay desperately try to avoid doing any gardening work, despite the fact that the strimming clearly needs to be done. This age-old step in the battle of the sexes clearly indicates that, today at least, mating will not occur.

Our Popinjay retreats, to await a more favourable moment."

obplayer

philologos wrote: »

This seems to be a documentary about dishonestly passing off personal beliefs as science and ignoring the fact that there are many scientists who believe in God.

As has already been asked, have you seen the film? If not then why the pre-judgement? Do you intend to see the film? If yes then discus it when you have otherwise please STFU and leave discussion to people who have seen it.

Geomy

Reading this thread makes me sleepy very sleepy,same old us against them.
Your this I'm that...great stuff keep up the good work

philologos

obplayer wrote: »

As has already been asked, have you seen the film? If not then why the pre-judgement? Do you intend to see the film? If yes then discus it when you have otherwise please STFU and leave discussion to people who have seen it.

As others have pointed out I used the word seems, and not without basis from what is said in the trailer, or what I have heard from Dawkins and Krauss trying to pass off their philosophy about God as science.

The film isn't out yet, so how has anyone seen it?

obplayer

philologos wrote: »

As others have pointed out I used the word seems, and not without basis from what is said in the trailer, or what I have heard from Dawkins and Krauss trying to pass off their philosophy about God as science.

The film isn't out yet, so how has anyone seen it?

Why did you bother guessing how it seems, rather than waiting to see it? I know the film is not out yet, I understand that no one including you has seen it. That was my point.

Grayson

philologos wrote: »

As others have pointed out I used the word seems, and not without basis from what is said in the trailer, or what I have heard from Dawkins and Krauss trying to pass off their philosophy about God as science.

The film isn't out yet, so how has anyone seen it?

their philosophy of God? Do you mean the fact that they look for evidence? Not just blindly believe in a book that has had many areas proven to be false?

philologos

Grayson wrote: »

their philosophy of God? Do you mean the fact that they look for evidence? Not just blindly believe in a book that has had many areas proven to be false?

No I don't mean that at all

I welcome scrutiny and examination, and I don't blindly believe in a book that has been "in many areas proven to be false".

It's this type of preconceived nonsense that prevents any meaningful discussion between Christians and atheists really, and that's pretty disappointing.

Let's not go into a tangent. My main point was that Krauss and Dawkins claim that science backs up an atheist worldview when it does nothing of the sort. If it did you'd have to wonder why there are still scientists who believe in God.

Geomy

philologos wrote: »

As others have pointed out I used the word seems, and not without basis from what is said in the trailer, or what I have heard from Dawkins and Krauss trying to pass off their philosophy about God as science.

The film isn't out yet, so how has anyone seen it?

I don't know much about Krauss but I seen Dawkins in philosophical conversations and conversations about faith etc

Dawkins is better at the scientific argument.

Good Philosophers can turn things inside out and make arguing with them impossible...

philologos

Geomy wrote: »

I don't know much about Krauss but I seen Dawkins in philosophical conversations and conversations about faith etc

Dawkins is better at the scientific argument.

Good Philosophers can turn things inside out and make arguing with them impossible...

What actual scientific argument is there against God's existence? - I mean iron clad scientific proof that God doesn't exist.*

* I'm expecting a particular response, but my point is that one can't claim that an atheist position is based on science when there is no reason to assume that science voids the existence of God as a possibility.

[-0-]

philologos wrote: »

I welcome scrutiny and examination, and I don't blindly believe in a book that has been "in many areas proven to be false".

You ignored my questions relating to a contradiction as early as Genesis.

philologos wrote: »

What actual scientific argument is there against God's existence? - I mean iron clad scientific proof that God doesn't exist.

Let's not start there. How about starting with scientific evidence for God? We need iron clad scientific proof that God exists, because the rape victims, babies with cancer, women with miscarriages, aids victims and starving people in Africa are all wondering where he is and why he does absolutely nothing while they all suffer. What do you have to say to those people? Have a little faith lads?

Geomy

philologos wrote: »

What actual scientific argument is there against God's existence? - I mean iron clad scientific proof that God doesn't exist.*

* I'm expecting a particular response, but my point is that one can't claim that an atheist position is based on science when there is no reason to assume that science voids the existence of God as a possibility.

I have had conversations with atheists about the existence of God and they wont take anything other than scientific proof.

They don't believe in God but yet they think they know what God is about...
They go off on a tangent about the church,morals, contradictions in the bible etc

There are Pagans,Christians,Muslims and many more religions out there.

Newage Spirituality Oldage spirituality,the Native Americans had their own ideas about God and creation.

Science cant prove the existence of God but if a scientist believes in God and he has faith what more does he need.

I know some Atheists who don't believe in the deity type of God but they do believe in being grateful to mother earth for what is given to them.
They love the stars,Sun,moon cosmos etc

It's the dogmatic Atheists and Religious people that get on most people's tits

Geomy

[Quote=[-0-];83705787]

You ignored my questions relating to a contradiction as early as Genesis.



Let's not start there. How about starting with scientific evidence for God? We need iron clad scientific proof that God exists, because the rape victims, babies with cancer, women with miscarriages, aids victims and starving people in Africa are all wondering where he is and why he does absolutely nothing while they all suffer. What do you have to say to those people? Have a little faith lads?[/Quote]

Well personal faith is fine,but telling someone who is suffering to have faith is downright ludicrous and pushy.

As you can see I have a problem with authority

Galvasean

Paramite Pie wrote: »

Well the emptiest vessels always make the most noise when it comes to the more extreme religious rants from the far right but we should show ourselves to be the better people and not stoop to their level.

It's only well and good to say 'live and let live' if others are willing to do the same. If people didn't stand up to religious intolerance every now and again they'd be crapping all over us (more so than they do currently).
For example, the RCC aren't going to secularise the school system by themselves. Sometimes you have to turn around, speak up for yourself and make sure you're getting the same rights everyone else is entitled to.

Sofaspud

philologos wrote: »

Let's not go into a tangent. My main point was that Krauss and Dawkins claim that science backs up an atheist worldview when it does nothing of the sort. If it did you'd have to wonder why there are still scientists who believe in God.

Nobody claims that science "backs up an atheist worldview", rather that science tries to fill up gaps (and has spent millenia achieving this) that the religious fill with "God did it!"
The point of the film (as with Dawkins' "proselytizing") seems to focus more on the fact that religion is content in its ignorance (accepting "God did it" as the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything) while scientists try to figure out the actual answers, as well as pointing out that a god isn't necessary.

philologos wrote: »

What actual scientific argument is there against God's existence? - I mean iron clad scientific proof that God doesn't exist.*

Russell's Teapot, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorn yadda yadda yadda yadda.

krudler

[-0-] wrote: »

You ignored my questions relating to a contradiction as early as Genesis.



Let's not start there. How about starting with scientific evidence for God? We need iron clad scientific proof that God exists, because the rape victims, babies with cancer, women with miscarriages, aids victims and starving people in Africa are all wondering where he is and why he does absolutely nothing while they all suffer. What do you have to say to those people? Have a little faith lads?

God lives in this lovely bubble where since you can't use any scientific evidence to disprove the supernatural aspects of christanity then it must be true, even though there's no scientific evidence to suggest it is either.

philologos

I ignored the Genesis thing because I'm trying my damnedest to keep this on topic so I don't get blamed for derailing the thread as I usually do here

Feel free to ask on the Atheist / Christian debate thread on the Christianity forum.

Hotblack Desiato

Geomy wrote: »

I have had conversations with atheists about the existence of God and they wont take anything other than scientific proof.

It would be very surprising indeed if they said anything else.

They don't believe in God but yet they think they know what God is about...
They go off on a tangent about the church,morals, contradictions in the bible etc

And? God may not exist but religion certainly does and it has had, and continues to have, a huge influence on the lives of believers and non-believers alike. Frequenly not a positive influence alas.

It's the dogmatic Atheists and Religious people that get on most people's tits

What's a dogmatic atheist?
Actually, back up a bit there and start by telling us what atheist dogma is supposed to be...

Geomy

ninja900 wrote: »

It would be very surprising indeed if they said anything else.



And? God may not exist but religion certainly does and it has had, and continues to have, a huge influence on the lives of believers and non-believers alike. Frequenly not a positive influence alas.



What's a dogmatic atheist?
Actually, back up a bit there and start by telling us what atheist dogma is supposed to be...

Sorry dogmatic might be wrong,my mistake.

I think strident Atheists and Strident Religious people get on the average Joes and Josephines tits

You get the gist of what I mean but your trying the old "explain yourself more and ill prove I'm more intelligent **** aren't ya"

Popinjay

philologos wrote: »

* I'm expecting a particular response, but my point is that one can't claim that an atheist position is based on science when there is no reason to assume that science voids the existence of God as a possibility.

All this line says to me is "I've had the flaws in the argument presented in my post pointed out to me on numerous occasions and despite this have decided to trot out the same tired old horse-manure regardless. I don't actually learn from anything pointed out to me in any debates I have on this board and engaging with me seriously is bordering on a complete waste of anybody's time."

I must admit, that blatantly admitting that you're expecting to be corrected and deciding to press on anyway with an argument you know to be spurious is, ironically enough, the most intellectually honest thing I've seen associated with your posts.

So... thanks, I suppose