Make Your Picks

Movies That You Found Offensive

Tools    





Ya know, that's a funny thing, by the way.
As an Atheist, I actually don't get offended by Religion the way so many religious people seem to get offended by any questioning, or even perceived questions or slights of, their religion.
The only thing I ever get offended about is people acting like my beliefs are not relevant or deserving of respect because I don't believe in something.
Yeah, I guess that actually does oftend me.
So I would probably find GND offensive as I have read it's incredibly dismissive to the beliefs of Atheists.
God's Not Dead not only doesn't respect the beliefs of atheists and Muslims, but it wholly misrepresents them as being "just mad at God" and "hates Christianity."

It even argues that it's a good thing th Athiest gets killed because a preacher was there to convert him right before he died.

CR, it's not only propaganda, but it's outrigut hateful propaganda against non-Evangelicals. There's a reason it's "star power" is Kevin Sorbo and Dean Cain.



Ya know, that's a funny thing, by the way.
As an Atheist, I actually don't get offended by Religion
Just so long as they're not in your face, sure. But many of them still think you're going to hell. And here's the kicker. The ones who are polite and mind their own business, don't really care enough to try and save you from hell. It is only the obnoxious do-gooders, the ones who actually do care enough, who are willing to risk public censure and your annoyance in the attempt to save you. God's Not Dead is offensive precisely because it cares. It seeks to change you and that is offensive.

The converse is true. Obnoxious turbo-atheists are true non-believers who wish to save people from oppressive fairy tales about places like hell. They want your life to be better, so they're also do-gooders and they harass religiosity wherever they find it in the attempt to make the world a better place. Polite atheists don't really care that the theist is in the position of twisting themselves into knots over an afterlife that isn't waiting for them.

This is not unique. The basic message of all marketing is that you're not young enough, smart enough, rich enough, strong enough, pretty enough, happy enough, etc., to live your life without this brand soap. There is always this sort of accusation in advertisements. You are offended because of the implicit insult in the marketing (you believe you already have this bit of your life sorted out well enough, thank you very much).

the way so many religious people seem to get offended by any questioning, or even perceived questions or slights of, their religion.
That's just the same thing moving in the opposite direction. They have that part of their lives sorted out well enough in their own estimation, that they don't want to see ripples in this part of their pond. I mean, you're only talking about some of the most intense attitudes, beliefs, and values in people might partake, right?

The only thing I ever get offended about is people acting like my beliefs are not relevant or deserving of respect because I don't believe in something.

Yeah, I guess that actually does oftend me.
So I would probably find GND offensive as I have read it's incredibly dismissive to the beliefs of Atheists.
There is no way to be a theist and NOT be incredibly dismissive of the beliefs of atheists. How can you think that people are passing up paradise and/or risking hell and NOT be dismissive of the "acceptability" of that stance? The theist makes claims about reality which are not consistent with your own. To the extent that they really believe it, they really dismiss your viewpoint (and vice versa).

The only way to avoid this problem is to not care enough to have intercourse with those you believe are headed for disaster or suffering unnecessary pain. To do this, the film would have to be titled

What if God wasn't dead?
or,

God's Dead, but Wouldn't it be Nice if He Weren't?
or,

"God's Not Alive in Any Way that Would Require You to Change Anything Significant About Your Life."


But for the "He Is Risen!" crowd this not only doesn't quite cut, it is, by their lights, also a lie.

If you go see a personal trainer, she might tell you that you're fat and lazy. Now, we can call that fat-shaming, we can give her a listen, or we might ask why we spent time and money to listen to her if we knew that she might insult us. A Godsploitation film's chief weakness is its earnestness. They're so bad because they're trying to be good. This is not the faux-earnestness of Sharknado or some post-modern winking annoyance. No, these are those rare unicorns of earnest badness. And this is what makes them hilarious.



Victim of The Night
God's Not Dead not only doesn't respect the beliefs of atheists and Muslims, but it wholly misrepresents them as being "just mad at God" and "hates Christianity."

It even argues that it's a good thing th Athiest gets killed because a preacher was there to convert him right before he died.

CR, it's not only propaganda, but it's outrigut hateful propaganda against non-Evangelicals. There's a reason it's "star power" is Kevin Sorbo and Dean Cain.
Oh yeah, the "mad at God" thing really makes my blood boil.
Will avoid.



Victim of The Night
Just so long as they're not in your face, sure. But many of them still think you're going to hell. And here's the kicker. The ones who are polite and mind their own business, don't really care enough to try and save you from hell. It is only the obnoxious do-gooders, the ones who actually do care enough, who are willing to risk public censure and your annoyance in the attempt to save you. God's Not Dead is offensive precisely because it cares.
I wonder if that is true.
I mean, I think a lot of people want to "save" other people but it's really not for the other people it's for how it makes them feel about themselves. Which is not caring at least not caring about others. It's actually selfishness and self-righteousness dressed up (very much in a costume) of altruism.
As a "turbo-atheist" (probably not really in the way you mean, I don't proselytize or try to convert anyone, particularly the evangelicals or other religious extremists, but if I did it would not be to help them it would be to save the rest of the world from them.



Victim of The Night
That's just the same thing moving in the opposite direction. They have that part of their lives sorted out well enough in their own estimation, that they don't want to see ripples in this part of their pond. I mean, you're only talking about some of the most intense attitudes, beliefs, and values in people might partake, right?


There is no way to be a theist and NOT be incredibly dismissive of the beliefs of atheists. How can you think that people are passing up paradise and/or risking hell and NOT be dismissive of the "acceptability" of that stance? The theist makes claims about reality which are not consistent with your own. To the extent that they really believe it, they really dismiss your viewpoint (and vice versa).

The only way to avoid this problem is to not care enough to have intercourse with those you believe are headed for disaster or suffering unnecessary pain. To do this, the film would have to be titled

What if God wasn't dead?
or,

God's Dead, but Wouldn't it be Nice if He Weren't?
or,

"God's Not Alive in Any Way that Would Require You to Change Anything Significant About Your Life."


But for the "He Is Risen!" crowd this not only doesn't quite cut, it is, by their lights, also a lie.

If you go see a personal trainer, she might tell you that you're fat and lazy. Now, we can call that fat-shaming, we can give her a listen, or we might ask why we spent time and money to listen to her if we knew that she might insult us. A Godsploitation film's chief weakness is its earnestness. They're so bad because they're trying to be good. This is not the faux-earnestness of Sharknado or some post-modern winking annoyance. No, these are those rare unicorns of earnest badness. And this is what makes them hilarious.
But the difference is that, as a non-evangelical atheist, I am actually not trying to wake people up from their dreams. I mean, I think it would be great if they did because I believe that those who believe too vigorously in these dreams constantly do harm to those around them, but I actually don't need to convince anyone else that I believe it is better to live in reality. Live where you want, I say, as long as you don't let it dribble over onto other peoples' plates.
Then we have a problem.



Oh yeah, the "mad at God" thing really makes my blood boil.
Will avoid.
Indeed. Also, it doesn't "care," as Corax suggests. All of these Evangelsploitation flicks are made to push the narrative that their point of view is the right one and everyone else is hateful, ignorant and wrongly against them. It helps them keep up their persecution complex even when theyre the majority.

Nothing in this film (or the whole trilogy, I've seen them all, because I hate myself) is an attempt to reach out to non-believers. It is simply an angry shout to the choir of how good they already are for being converted.



Mine is Hounddog with Dakota Fanning.

Spoiler alert / trigger warning
 
This is on a very short list of films I would say I "hate".
__________________
Captain's Log
My Collection



Is it possible to be equally irritated by a theist so convinced of their own beliefs they can't conceive of anyone believing anything else, and an atheist who thinks any sort of belief is somehow an intellectual failing? Because both of those groups are deeply ****ing annoying.



I wonder if that is true.
Well, it is what they should be doing if it were true.



It is, of course, not true in all cases. Some are just trying to meet a quota to secure their own salvation. Others, darker, revel in the idea of the damned being damned and are damned happy to tell you you're damned. In the main, however, I think that those who proselytize for any belief do so out of genuine concern and caring for the greater share of their efforts.

I mean, I think a lot of people want to "save" other people but it's really not for the other people it's for how it makes them feel about themselves. Which is not caring at least not caring about others. It's actually selfishness and self-righteousness dressed up (very much in a costume) of altruism.
"A lot" is just a provocative way of saying "some" and I am sure that some atheists are jerks.

If I did it would not be to help them it would be to save the rest of the world from them.
And indeed, there are theists who would wish to protect the rest of the world from you.



Tolerance, however, does not require that people accept or approve or promote, let alone celebrate. It just means that we politely stay out of each other's way and allow for co-existence. True diversity involves diversity of viewpoint and diversity of viewpoint always involves friction and such friction requires tolerance as a lubricant to allow people to live their own lives their own way. Otherwise, we must submit to some orthodoxy.



But the difference is that, as a non-evangelical atheist, I am actually not trying to wake people up from their dreams. I mean, I think it would be great if they did because I believe that those who believe too vigorously in these dreams constantly do harm to those around them, but I actually don't need to convince anyone else that I believe it is better to live in reality. Live where you want, I say, as long as you don't let it dribble over onto other peoples' plates.
Then we have a problem.
The way I view it, Jesus himself said in John that the most important thing is to "do unto others," and that it's even above the ten commandments. I interpret that as it being more important to try to be a good person than to claim to worship God,since lots of evil people profess his name. At least that's my take. As a result, I love having religious chats with atheists on occasion. Find the right website and it gets into some very cool areas.

Don;t get me wrong. I do believe there is a God-like entity in the universe. But if there's not, then that would mean I didn't lose a God since there wasn't one. Besides, I;ll be happy as long as I can at least make a mark on the world.



God's Not Dead not only doesn't respect the beliefs of atheists and Muslims,
Don't forget Jews and Hindus and Pantheists! But so what? The positive position is a denial of other possible positions. One cannot claim that Jesus is the Son of God and also agree that the Jewish faith has it right. You cannot endorse the Christian god (Thou shalt have no other Gods before me) without denying Odin and that kid of his who has that bitchin' hammer.


You have some unpacking to do to justify this as a legitimate objection.

but it wholly misrepresents them as being "just mad at God" and "hates Christianity."
Why? Just because that was Kevin Sorbo's character? Do you imagine that he is the representative anecdote of all atheism in that film?



I've met plenty of atheists mad at God (mostly for not being real, it seems) and plenty more who hate Christianity (in the West, our tradition is to hate things Western). Heck, I've spent years mad at God and decrying the Western Christian tradition. Do I not exist?



Sorbo's character is not out of the realm of motivation of an atheist character. And yes, a Christian film will contend that atheism is wrong. Go figure.

It even argues that it's a good thing th Athiest gets killed because a preacher was there to convert him right before he died.
I love that bit. You can tell that the makers of the film are feeling a little bitter. Nah, you must die for your salvation, sucka! LOL. However, he does get eternal life, so it's all good that he dies in the gutter.



And this is nothing unprecedented. Consider how The Guilty handles the character of the "bad cop" (this generation keeps screaming that all cops are bastards, so it is enough to identify him as a cop)





Jake Gyllenhaal's "Joe" is filled with rage, disrespectful, and probably racist. He is shown to be a cop who hates life and is angry at everything and everyone. He is a nuisance to his ex-wife, a jerk to everyone he talks to, and strikingly lacks empathy and consideration for everyone he communicates with.



WARNING: "Spoilery Spoilers Within Ye Be Warned Arghh!" spoilers below
And at the end he must basically burn himself down to find any redemption - confessing to murdering a 19-year-old because he just wanted to kill a kid. You know, because he's a cop. And the film ends with the statement that this only the 4th time that a cop has confessed to such a crime in LAPD history -- hint! Hint! HINT!!!! You damned dirty cops need to take the hint. In short, Sorbo cannot be a good man as an atheists and must die. Joe cannot be a good man as a cop and so must fall on his own sword and confess. This is as much quarter as the modern hack writer can give to the conjectural cop and Sorbo's professor gets all the quarter that the brassed-off theist can still spare. Nah, bruv. You gotta die. You gotta cry. You gotta confess. And then you clear the stage. -- the pattern is the same in both films.

CR, it's not only propaganda,
LOL, of course it's propaganda. That's the point! It's a pro-God film. So what? Any film with a point of view is propaganda.

but it's outrigut hateful propaganda against non-Evangelicals.
Now you're just being silly.



Do you know how many "Mrs. Carmody" characters theists have had to endure from Stephen King's pen alone?



It is far far more common for the theist to be besmirched on screed than the atheist. Indeed, it is so common that when one finds a religious character you can generally guess that the character will be a caricature.

There's a reason it's "star power" is Kevin Sorbo and Dean Cain.
LOL.



Have you seen God's Not Dead?



Have you seen God's Not Dead?

Yes, and it was hilarious.



Is it possible to be equally irritated by a theist so convinced of their own beliefs they can't conceive of anyone believing anything else, and an atheist who thinks any sort of belief is somehow an intellectual failing? Because both of those groups are deeply ****ing annoying.
Amen, bro.



Remember that it was nominated as the first HoF. I actually didn't want to see it because I was afraid it was the kind of movie that would make the more religiously chill people like me look bad. I was right. I mean, it wasn't the worst religious movie I've ever seen. It raised a little discussion and the filmmaking quality was so-so in comparison to some of the worst movies I've seen. I gave it a 4/10.

On this subject, I'm an autistic man curious about the movie Music.



Is it possible to be equally irritated by a theist so convinced of their own beliefs they can't conceive of anyone believing anything else, and an atheist who thinks any sort of belief is somehow an intellectual failing? Because both of those groups are deeply ****ing annoying.
I find myself drawn to write stories where both religious zealot priests and pretentious atheist professors are both the villains, and the not so zealous are often the victims until pride bites both the villains in the ass. The beliefs may be different, but the attitudes can be exactly the same. I often practice writing about similar subjects.

In other words, your question is literally what I think about most days of my life.



When I watched God's Not Dead, I found myself bouncing back and forth over whether the film makes the argument that Radisson's "I hate God" characterization is meant to represent all atheists, but while I wouldn't say the film is solely saying that, I do think it's obvious that the film paints atheism in a highly negative light. Every atheist character is unlikable and, in some cases, cartoonishly bad, while every Christian character is painted in a positive light. Virtually no middle ground exists for either group. Therefore, I think it's pretty obvious that the film takes an anti-atheism stance and that the atheist characters in the film are intended to represent the group as a whole.

Also, that hit-or-run scene was stupid. Both in regards to it being completely unnecessary and the celebratory reaction from the preacher.
__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd



Because it is so hamfisted. Because Professor McAthiest is such a caricature, a theistic Mrs. Carmody. Because it is so sincere. Because they thought that this would be a good persuasive message for people on the fence. Indeed, they thought this might persuade you. Bless them, it is just horrible.



However, if this does deeply offend you, then you may have the slightest sense of how I find modern film and television offensive, to watch stories written by people who hate and fear you trying to evangelize so clumsily by checking boxes. The difference is, it is very very easy for you to avoid Godspoitation films and productions churned out by the Daily Wire. For me, new releases from studios and streaming services are a Clockwork Orange of endless sermonizing by insipid brats who condescend to be the new moral majority -- the crowd that hates Top Gun: Maverick not for being generic action with a thin story (it's not a very good film, let's face it), but because it is (allegedly) fascistic and white supremacist for being vaguely patriotic.