Sunday, June 05, 2005

Freethought Movie On Sale Now

      As some of you may well know, there is a documentary called The God Who Wasn't There that has been in the making which critically examines Christianity, including whether or not Jesus ever existed as a historical figure (check out the trailer here ). Well, the wait is over, we can now order the DVD!
      It is a rare occasion that any sort of mass media, specifically a movie or documentary, strays from the basic idea that religion is true, and if not that, at least good for society. I believe it is important for all freethinkers to help support this movie for the following four reasons:

1). The selling of this DVD will help Brian Flemming (the creator) in his next movie which takes a stab at religous fundamentalism.

2). The selling of this DVD will show that there is a market for this kind of thing amongst the freethinking community. This will likely result in other creative, freethinking people to produce more media that examines modern religion in a skeptical nature, not because they know it can be done, but because they know they can make a profit. Oh yes, the almightly dollar.

3). This DVD will be, I suspect, damn entertaining. I've heard a couple of reviews so far and all of them have been great.

4). You could show this DVD to friends and family. Arguments that the average person sees on TV are generally considered by them to be more persuasive than those put forth by someone they know. They assume there is more authority behind it, more research, and less subjectivity. This provides for an excellent starting point to help a friend or family member break free from the clutches of religion and live their lives to their full potential.

      I plan to purchase my copy later today. For those of you who would also like to you may do it here .

20 comments:

Aaron Kinney said...

I saw this movie at the Vine Theater in Hollywood CA last Saturday. I was very impressed and will definitely be picking this up on DVD asap.

Its 62 minutes long, which left me wanting more (honestly it could have been 3 hours long and I still would have wanted more)!

The soundtrack and visual aids/graphics are very good. Brian knows how to edit and produce with skill. His case provided is very compelling. The interviews he has are awesome, and his interviewees are some well known names in the religion/atheist debate world. He even interviews Sam Harris, author of "The End of Faith"! That blew me away, as I am a big Sam Harris fan, and Mr. Harris had some great things to say in the interview.

Everyone who has any interest in religion or atheism should pick this movie up. And if its playing in your area, you should go see it at the theater.

Aaron Kinney said...

Hey Delta!

I cant find your email address. I wanted to ask you if you would like to include my blogs on your linked list of blogs? I like this site and I linked to your blog from mine already :)

My personal atheistic blog is Kill The Afterlife

And my team-atheist blog is Goosing The Antithesis Me and a few atheist friends post over on this one.

Delta said...

Sure AK, I'll add your links up and try to make my email more accessible. Your positive review on Raving Atheist was one of the ones I was referring to actually, and I'm glad you posted your thoughts here.

BEAST said...

Are they planning to sell it in Singapore? I will buy it and show it to my Christian friends, just to spite them.

Delta said...

Well, I'm not sure if they will sell it locally at some point. But if you go to the website you will see that they will ship internationally for $10.

Enlightenment said...

I know I'll be picking up a copy. From my perspective, I just can't believe that I ever used to believe in a higher power. I hpe those of us in the fundamentalist hell hole that has become southeastern Wisconsin will be able to get a copy of this.

Aaron Kinney said...

You can get a copy enlightenment, but because of the state you live in, you will have to pay a "Christ tax" for your blasphemous media.

j/k!!!

Bubbi said...

How does bashing people of faith, translate into free thought?

I would think that free thinking would require a critcal look at both sides of any issue.

Delta said...

    Today I got this from Beyond Belief media, the creators of the DVD. Seems like business is good :)

Dear "The God Who Wasn't There" DVD buyer,

We are very sorry to report that your DVD shipment will be delayed. We
were hit with an unexpected 2,000% spike in orders the weekend before
the June 6 release date, and that has overwhelmed our order-fulfillment
department. We have been and are continuing to work around the clock to
get orders out as quickly as possible.

We expect to ship your DVD on or before Friday, June 10. All U.S.
orders are shipping via USPS first-class mail.

We know that many buyers have been waiting quite anxiously for this DVD
and are sincerely sorry for the delay. Beyond Belief Media is a young,
independent company that simply doesn't have the infrastructure to
absorb such a sudden spike in orders. We are scaling up our efforts in
this area so this does not happen again.

Thanks for understanding.

Sincerely,
Beyond Belief Media




    And bubbi, first off thanks for posting! You are absolutely, undeniably right that freethought implies looking at both sides of the issue. However, that does not imply that freethought doesn't or can't entail a judgement being passed on one of the sides. There is no guaranteed neutrality.

    In my opinion, freethought can often be a very long process. For example, it took me over 2 years to go from christian to atheist. I am currently battling back and forth between liberal and libertarian (also liberal looks like it has the upper hand at the moment). This is mostly because I have to battle my own internal prejudices and pre-dispositions before I can get to the truth. Sometimes that takes time. If the movie would try to go through a process like this, it would take years! Therefore a freethought movie would not be a chronicle of the freethinking process that led to the final conclusion, but a discussion of the conclusion which was reached via freethought.
    And when you get right down to it, it doesn't take much reasoning or effort to debunk christianity (or religion in general for that matter). The existence of god is a true philosophical topic that can require a decent amount of time to ponder, but seeing that religions are false is as easy as seeing that Sesame Street doesn't really exist (once you've shrugged off the worldview that our parents taught us when we all still believed in Santa of course).

Bubbi said...

The use of the word religion in todays world is up for grabs.
Relgion points to a set of beliefs that may or may not include God.

Atheism it self becomes a religion.
For others--money is their religion. etc...

On the other hand--a belief in God is by faith.
Faith is something we all use each day regardless of what we believe.

Freethought brings conclusions and tha is as it should be but why the hatred for the conclusions drawn by the "other side"?

Delta said...

If you want to say that atheism and money are religions, then we indeed are using very different terms. In my posts you may assume that I use this definition:

a.Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b.A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

The "hatred" for the other side is because these beliefs are flagrantly untrue, and it severely damages the life of not only the believer, but because we are all in the same country, it influences my life too! This ranges from the fact that I couldn't buy some Bailey's from the liquor store on Sunday because they are closed on Sunday (religiously-motivated) to the other extreme in that my family and myself will not live as long because people's faith prevents biology research like embryonic stem cell research that could prolong my life. It's a very personal matter to me what other people believe.

And I'd like you to give me an example of how I use faith in my daily life, because I'm pretty sure that I don't, but I'm willing to listen to your argument.

And as always, thanks for posting =)

Bubbi said...

Ok--I will go with your definition of religion when reading your posts.
As for the other "side" believing in what is "untrue"--well once again that is a matter of opinion.

I will leave that for another day--in fact maybe I will do a post on this at my blog and you can explain my error as I do respect all dialog.

On the the use of faith on an every day basis. We all do it--we have to. For the sake of argument or example---

Lets use a simple can of soda--say Pepsi.
You buy one from the store and prepare to drink it--but before you take that first sip--you really have no clue whats in it. You have only the trust and faith in the producers and that lone soul on the production line, that it was actually Pepsi placed in the can. (products have been tampered with)

Since you where not there when it was made--no way you are able to be 100 % certain until you drink it, which is an act of faith.

granted--that is a rather simple illustration but each day every human operates in a mode of temporal faith. One is trusting someone or something--it is not that huge of a stretch that many have faith in a power as God.

You maynot believe in God but you believe in something---your belief that there is no God for instance and that to is faith since you can not dis-prove that God exists.

Or maybe you can--I await to hear how you do this.
Please--do not think I make light of you at all.
Thankyou for the dialog.

Delta said...

"I will leave that for another day--in fact maybe I will do a post on this at my blog and you can explain my error as I do respect all dialog"

    Let me know when you do, I'd like to read it =)

    In regards to your Pepsi illustration, that's the kind of example I expected you to give. Maybe you've been reading some C.S. Lewis? Anyway, that's not important. The difference here is that I don't rely on faith to determine that it is indeed Pepsi in the can (in all honesty, I don't drink Pepsi, but Dr. Pepper, but I'll go along with it for sake of argument :)). Instead, I have good reasons for believing that it is Pepsi. For one, it looks like the can hasn't been opened. Two, I've never had anything but Pepsi in there before. And three, I expect that the Pepsi company isn't trying to poison me. If they did, they would have a major lawsuit on their hands. It's in their best interest for there to be Pepsi in the can. Now, if there was an open, unlabeled bottle that I found in the sand at the beach, and then I assumed it was Pepsi, then that would be faith.

"You may not believe in God but you believe in something---your belief that there is no God for instance and that to is faith since you can not dis-prove that God exists."

    Well, I can't disprove that some arbitrary god can't exist. But the christian god can be easily disproved, just by logical impossibility. An omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being is just not realizable (if you are not familiar with these arguments I could find a good website which illustrates them; this is actually the content matter of Philosophy 101 at my university).

You speak of my inability to disprove god as if it were a problem to me. Can you disprove that the ninja turtles exist? Can you disprove that a horse that has 20 legs and only sleeps with turtles doesn't exist? Can you disprove *insert the most ridiculous thing here* cannot exist? No, unless something is logically impossible, it is impossible to prove that it doesn't exist. So the fact that we can't prove that something doesn't exist is meaningless. It's all about what evidence we have for things to exist. If someone's certain god is logically possible, then I will not say "it cannot exist", but merely that "there is no evidence for it existing".

"Please--do not think I make light of you at all.
Thankyou for the dialog."

No, no offense taken. I enjoy the conversation!

Bubbi said...

"You speak of my inability to disprove god as if it were a problem to me"

No--That was not my intent. It was your previous statements of how those that do believe impact your life on a personal level thus leaving no room for the "other side" in the world of free thought.

OK--Dr Pepper then :)
You said you have good reason to believe that it is Pepsi or Dr Pepper in the can.

You then listed your reasons, all of which still require an element of faith.

They maybe logical but your first one--"it looks like the can has not been open", skips the process of production. This you must believe on faith.

While it maybe in Pepsi,s best interest, they can only do so much to control what happens on the plant floor. (Have you ever been to visit a production plant for any food types?) It is am eye opener. But I degress.............

Point is--you can logically reason to a point--the rest is on faith.

Now I have a question for you. Many of my freethinker friends think every thing is relative, that there are no absolutes. Do you subscribe to this as well?

ps--I do not read Lewis :)

Delta said...

I will agree with you that it is definitely true that I don't have a way that I could say with 100% certainty, that it is in fact Dr. Pepper. In fact, before drinking Dr. Pepper I would never tell somebody that I knew for sure it was. However, I am reasonably sure that it is, and I have reasons for believing this to be true. I don't drink the Dr. Pepper thinking "I know this is definitely Dr. Pepper" but more like "well, I'm pretty sure this is Dr. Pepper, there's a 1 in a zillion chance that it's not, so if it isn't that's going to suck". Now in reality I don't think at all when I drink Dr. Pepper, but that's because I know there's essentially no chance of it not being Dr. Pepper. And besides, my worst case scenario is that it's Mr. Pibb =)

But to compare this to believing that a god came down from a place called heaven and sexlessly impregnated a virgin human, a man walked on water, a man died and rose again, the earth was created in 6 days a few thousand years ago, ect? If faith is that broad of a definition, how useful is that word?

Now I have a question for you. Many of my freethinker friends think every thing is relative, that there are no absolutes. Do you subscribe to this as well?

Yes, I agree with that. There's no way of me objectively saying what's "right" and what's "wrong". Now in my daily life, I make decisions based on what I believe to be right and wrong, according to my own worldview, but there is nothing absolutely "right" about my worldview. My philosophy (more or less) is to do things that maximize human happiness and further the success of human civilization. So actions that are in agreement with those beliefs I deem "good" and those against "bad". But I understand that this is just my personal idea how how I'd like the world to be, and I'm no more right than anyone else in this matter. However, it is how I want the world to be and I will take actions that are in accordance with that.

ps--I do not read Lewis :)

Ahh, I actually realized this morning that I thinking of something else actually. So I was mistaken, I'm sorry =)

Bubbi said...

Yes, I agree with that. There's no way of me objectively saying what's "right" and what's "wrong". Now in my daily life, I make decisions based on what I believe to be right and wrong, according to my own worldview, but there is nothing absolutely "right" about my worldview.
-----------------------

If this is so--does it not apply to the "other side" as well?

Delta said...

If this is so--does it not apply to the "other side" as well?

Oh no, of course it does. Perhaps I should have made my self a little more clear. If my purpose is to work towards a world where people are happy and enjoy their lives, there is a best method of achieving this. The only ambiguity is whether this is a "good" world or a "bad" one. I'm of the personal opinion that it is a good one. In order to determine what the best method for achieving this is, we need to use reason. If someone is simply using their "faith", then it would be like being in a dark room and throwing a dart at a dart board.

However, if someone is trying to create a world where people are unhappy and don't live long, there is also a best method for doing this. I can't tell them that their world is "wrong" but I can tell them that I don't want the world to be that way.

We've tried using religious beliefs to rule the world. It was called the Dark Ages. Scientists were censored, books were banned, and both of them were burned. Women were accused of witchcraft and were killed. 100,000 women were killed during the Inquisition alone for being "witches". Power was concentrated in the religious leaders and kings who derived their power from god. Peons put up with their crappy lives because they thought they would receive something better in heaven for being obedient. In my opinion, we need to try something else. And reason is the only other alternative.

Bubbi said...

Ok--granted--reason is how you believe and that is fine. You do not even have to like those of Faith but the suggestion or the hate that I see for thos "other" side troubles me.

Maybe it is because I grew up during an era of debate but along with that debate was the willingness to fight for the right of each person to have their own views and to pursue them--whether or not I or others agreed.

It was a different time, I suppose.

Delta said...

along with that debate was the willingness to fight for the right of each person to have their own views and to pursue them

Everybody does have the right to have their own views. That's what makes this country great. What did I say that made you think I was against free speech? However, free speech also implies the right to criticize other people's views. Not their right to have opposing views, but the views themselves. When someone else's views get into the political realm and start affecting your life, I don't think it's required that you sit by and let them do it. Homosexuals, liberals, scientists, and anyone who is anti-war is demonized by the far Christian right. Often they say we aren't even Americans. I think they are the ones that have the problem with tolerance.

Bubbi said...

"However, free speech also implies the right to criticize other people's views. Not their right to have opposing views, but the views themselves."

To comment about an opposing view, is called debate. Thats healthy. So much of it strays from critical debate to down right grade school bashing.

"When someone else's views get into the political realm and start affecting your life, I don't think it's required that you sit by and let them do it."

Ok--now I have to ask what you mean by this "sit by and let them do it"--if they have as much right as anyone--what beyond the normal channels of challenge do you do?

As far as the mud slinging--neither side will win any awards.