Biblical Blockbusters Soon to Flood Theaters

Even if you never saw The Passion of the Christ when it first hit theaters (and I have yet to see it), you probably couldn’t escape hearing about it. The Mel Gibson-directed, hyper-violent, all-Aramaic-and-Latin telling of Jesus’s last days was an enormous hit, with the faithful showing up to see it by the busload. Recently, the ironically-named History Channel had its biggest hit yet with a miniseries based on the Bible. The lesson here is that giving religion the Hollywood touch can mean big, big bucks.

Well, get ready, because there’s about to be a flood (ahem) of biblical blockbusters coming our way. But this time, they won’t be subtitled or relegated to basic cable. As reported by Nick Allen at The Telegraph, the A-listers are about to take on several episodes of God’s book.

In March audiences will be treated to Noah, a $150million special effects-laden extravaganza, in which Russell Crowe will build an ark and rescue mankind from the Great Flood. Harry Potter actress Emma Watson will play his adopted daughter, and Sir Anthony Hopkins is portraying Methuselah.

Here’s the trailer for Noah, and as you can see, this is no niche affair. This is the full blockbuster treatment.

We’ll soon be getting a telling of the Exodus with Christian Bale as Moses (he’s the prophet the Jews deserve, but not the one that they need), directed by Ridley Scott, who’s done religious conflict before in the so-so Kingdom of Heaven. Ang Lee will do his own Moses movie later on, Will Smith will do Cain and Abel, and even a movie with Brad Pitt as Pontius Pilate. (If he doesn’t deliver the 39 lashes to the beat of the opening riffs of Jesus Christ Superstar, then what’s the point?)

Now, on the one hand, this is somewhat frustrating. It means that the religious right will be able to point to these big movies and say, see, the American public is hungry for God and Jesus. All the while, churches and religious organizations benefit, putting the wind into the sails of explicitly-Christian studios (like Rick Santorum’s) to produce more garbage.

But on the other hand, the Bible is full of crazy, bizarre stories that if done for the sake of telling a good story, an amazing fantasy, rather than for promotion or proselytization, having the full muscle of Hollywood behind these films could make for some really compelling cinema. I mean, Noah is about the end of the world and a boat full of animals! That’s crazy!

Anyway, we’ll know soon enough.

"We can't afford healthcare for white American children because we need to be bombing somebody ..."

GOP Lawmaker/Pastor Kills Himself Over Child ..."
"Yes, it does. The boundary of night and day is a circle on a sphere. ..."

This Pastor Thinks He Disproved Evolution ..."
"That was...amazing. I've never heard of fill in the blank tombstones, though it would be ..."

GOP Lawmaker/Pastor Kills Himself Over Child ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Marie Alexander

    Hey, if they’re epic movies, no complaints here. Just so long as no-one tries to tout this as fact to me.

    I mean, cinema has made some awesome stuff based off of other myths (Greek, Norse, other magical bullshit) let’s see what they can do with these.

  • Castilliano

    Exactly.
    If anything, the movies highlight the ridiculousness of the Bible.
    Just ready your responses for when they do praise Yahweh in light of such brutality and impossibility.

    Cheers.

  • http://www.paulcaggegi.com Paul Caggegi

    Yeah from the trailer, it seems there’s loads of magic rather than shoe-horned science, creationist style. Loads of fundie websites are already poo-pooing it, while still talking up the fact it “proves” USA was founded by jesus.

  • Robert Jory

    Yea, based on the trailer I can see why Emma Watson’s character goes to Noah, he’s a fire wizard. Did you see near the end of the trailer he does some kind of fire wave spell and burns all the grass for some reason. Noah is a dick to grass.

  • MerchantMariner

    I don’t think he was being a dick at all. He’d been so busy building the world’s first self-loading break-bulk barge, he didn’t have the time to get out his wooden lawnmower and cut the grass the normal way.

  • Jacqui H

    I was so upset to see Emma Watson in them, and you made it work, thanks!

  • Dave

    Watched the trailer, no kangaroos, bullshit just like the book.

  • viaten

    I didn’t see any penguins either. But lots of snakes, bugs, birds, rodents, mammals though. It looks like they aren’t going to bother with that “kinds” nonsense where the kinds will rapidly and perfectly micro-evolve (and suddenly stop) to recreate all the species again. It looks like all the species will be packed into the ark.

  • Psycho Gecko

    Yeah, I bet they don’t even have any of the nylon-eating bacteria or a pair of London Underground mosquitoes!

  • Aussie

    In Australia we have some strange animals when asking a creationist how did these animals get to Australia after Noah’s flood they told me ” A volcano exploded and the animals were caught up in it and flew from one side of the world to the other and landed in Australia ” needless to say after I nearly killed myself from laughing imaging wombats, koalas and other animals flying through the air holding their breath as the trajectory would take them into space for a while and landing softly onto land with their tiny parachutes so the fall didn’t kill them I couldn’t get my breath back for ages. This person was absolutely serious !
    I love a good comedian don’t you.

  • allein

    tiny parachutes

    So that’s why so many of them have pouches? They turn them inside out and jump from high places?

  • http://www.paulcaggegi.com Paul Caggegi

    I’m a creationist now! Why did I not see this before?! LOL

  • MerchantMariner

    Let me guess – a Queenslander or someone from Hillsong? : )

  • viaten

    I’m afraid people will still take it that it could likely be fact if Hollywood is willing to spend lots of money on it, showing how it “could have been”. Next to the creation of the world, Noah’s Flood has the most miracles overriding nature than anywhere else in the Bible. It’s God intervening to the max which people love to see and entertain as being true. That it happened “long ago” makes it easier.

  • mobathome

    viaten “It’s God intervening to the max…”

    Is this right, or would that be an all powerful god just wrapping things up cleanly: disappear the bad to hell, and keep the good?

  • viaten

    A flood killing all other living things to “wrap things up cleanly”? Really? The killing of the first born, as bad as that was, was much “cleaner”. But they’re all examples of God saying, “Look what I can do”.

  • mobathome

    viaten “A flood killing all other living things to “wrap things up cleanly”? Really?”

    I didn’t get myself understood. A flood is NOT “… God intervening to the max…” An all-powerful god “intervening to the max” would just poof things to be the way they want.

  • viaten

    ‘An all-powerful god “intervening to the max” would just poof things to be the way they want.’
    I’m using a figure of speech, but what is “clean” about a using a flood to destroy more life than is necessary? Why couldn’t or didn’t God just “poof” away all the evil?

  • mobathome

    Are we agreeing that an “all-powerful god `intervening to the max’ would just poof things to be the way they want?”

  • http://youtu.be/fCNvZqpa-7Q Kevin_of_Bangor

    I think I’ll pass.

  • WalterWhite007

    Now the faith heads will claim the Noah story is a fact since it’s a big budget movie. Good luck trying to get them to see the Theory of Evolution as fact after they see bible idiocy on the big screen.

  • phantomreader42

    It’s not like it’s a surprise that they can’t distinguish between reality and fantasy…

  • A3Kr0n

    With a $150 million movie coming out about Noah, I bet Ken Ham’s Ark park will be getting more money than they need to complete it, with extra money for a Creation Museum super upgrade.
    I’m not watching the trailer, I just ate an orange, and I want to keep it.

  • Guest

    You get sick from the success of others?

  • http://www.dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

    When that success adds to the misery of humankind, yes.

  • Guest

    Has it personally added any misery to yours?

    Much misery has been added due to science e.g. atomic bombs, Tuskegee syphilis experiments, animal experiments, man-made pollution, Japan’s WW2 human experiments etc. to name a few.

  • http://www.dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

    Religion is the immediate source of much of the world’s misery- probably the primary source. Faith is a mindset that is encouraged by religion, and is responsible for creating the ignorance at the core of our social problems. So yes, religion definitely impacts my life in an extremely negative way.

    If we’re lucky, these sorts of movies will turn people away from religion. But I’m more inclined to think they’ll strengthen religious belief in those who choose to see them (the already religious). If so, the makers of these movies are profiting from increasing human misery.

    And that is sickening.

  • Guest

    So you’re just going to ignore the examples of science’s negative impact on the world? Okaaay…

    You’re wrong though, friend. Religion is not to blame. Plenty of people can live decent lives practicing any number of the thousands of peaceful religions out there. When you say “religion”, we all know you mean Christianity mostly, because you have some biased reason for it. Fair enough. But the human race’s natural greed and selfishness are to blame for most of the world’s ills. It’s instinctive. Humans want power and control to survive, at the expense of anyone else.

    Religion and spirituality are nothing more than scapegoats for people to mask their true intentions. The sooner you learn that, maybe the more enlightened you will be about the world.

    Oh, and space pollution, that’s a bad one too.

  • TCC

    So we’ve established that you’re anti-science and espousing those views using technology made possible by science. Gotcha.

  • Guest

    Since when did I say I was anti-science? I adore science. I simply pointed out some negative aspects because science, like religion, has caused a lot of misery for people.. all in the “name of science”

    Geez, I thought the realm of science was the one place where you could contradict and ask questions. Oh, the hypocrisy.

  • Conuly

    No, “science” hasn’t. People have done awful things to other people. Sometimes they cloak their awfulness with the claims that it helps aid scientific understanding, sometimes with the claims that their religion demands it. But “science” doesn’t do anything, no more than “mathematics” does, or “literature” or “ideas”.

  • http://www.dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

    Science has absolutely no direct impact on the world. Science is nothing but knowledge, generally accurate knowledge.

    How knowledge gets used is a matter of ethics, of social policy, of politics, of philosophy. And these things are heavily influenced by the way people think. Belief systems that are based on faith lead to poor choices.

    None of the bad uses of knowledge you list have anything to do with science. They are based on bad decision making, and that in turn can be blamed on either religion directly, the defective ethics that religions spawn, or the defective reasoning that religion and faith encourage.

  • Guest

    Wow, you really do have a victimization complex. You just cannot take criticism and can never seem to admit you are wrong. Strange considering I bet you work in the science realm.

    If science/scientists do not impact the world, why do so many proclaim science is doing such wonderful things? By your own definition, scientists live a pretty pointless, meaningless life since they aren’t impacting the world around them.

    People seem to cherry pick from good and bad science more than religious folks pick from the Bible. Science experiments in the hands of humans directly impact the world, friend. Otherwise, you would be writing to me in pen than on your computer…

  • God’s Starship

    I appreciate you stepping up to the plate. Really, I do. Sort of. But this “my friend” shit is just bad netiquette. It’s comes off as pompous. Best left out.

  • Blacksheep

    wait – so it’s OK for LB to call us “Christian f–ks” but you call out use of the word “friend?” Is it because arrogance is worse than outright hatred?

  • God’s Starship

    I wasn’t making a comparison. Take it up with “Christian fucks” guy.

  • ChristianGuest

    “Christian fucks guy” seems to be the embodiment of an angry atheist and doesn’t reflect the majority of atheists who are on here

  • Carmelita Spats

    I use “Christian fuck” or “Christ fucker” sparingly since they would constitute a pleonasm …I usually reserve the terms as descriptors for those who would obligate a nine-year-old in Brazil to squat and squirt out her attacker’s semen demon. ANYONE who would obligate a raped child to birth because of Jeeeezus is a Christian fuck. Curiously enough, if Jesus impregnated his own mother with himself since the Father and Son are one, does that make Jesus a motherfucker?

  • Guest

    Maybe you should look at the people in the countries committing the atrocities themselves instead of the religion. The Latin Americas are certainly a violent place in some cases. They were ripping people’s hearts out long before Christianity arrived at their shores…

    Then again, I guess you have those European Christian explorers and “rapists” to thank for diluting the barbaric genes that were so prevalent in your ancestors and introduced the Latins to a somewhat civilized society today

  • purr

    A brutal Spanish dictatorship for hundreds of years + Catholic authoritarianism and this is why today the Southern Americas are so fucked up. All they’ve ever known is poverty and totalitarianism.

    Life was preferable under the native tribes, brutal as they were. For one thing, they even managed to wash themselves and excelled in city planning. And women had more rights then than they ever did under the RCC.

  • Guest

    You can’t blame modern drug cartels on Spanish explorers from hundreds of years ago, friend. The Romans excelled in city planning and all that and they believed in many gods, just like many a great civilizations before them.

  • purr

    No, you can blame modern drug cartels on the failed drug war.

  • Guest

    Too bad they can’t just resort to Humanism :( that would fix all the problems and bring world peace.

  • purr

    No, probably not. Because people are greedy shits.

    Point is, religion isn’t the wonderful thing you think it is either. People just kill in the name of their deity and somehow that is supposed to legitimize the land grabs etc.

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    Well, to be fair, the US decision in 1905 that Central and South America were our playground didn’t help. We fucked around in Cuba for decades before Castro took over. We funded the Contras in Nicaragua. We literally created Panama as the playground of a wealthy American businessman. We undermined then overthrew Allende in Chile, then supported Pinochet. We supported the Dirty War in Argentina. We created the School for the Americas, in which many army units and future dictators were trained in the fine arts of torture and suppression of dissent. We supported numerous right-wing dictators in Central and South America for decades, suppressing democratic movements and attempts to redistribute wealth in a number of exceptionally unequal countries.

    Note, this is a very incomplete list of things we’ve done there. Those are just the ones I remember off the top of my head. But there are reasons other than religion that it took until recently for Central and South America to regain their footing.

  • purr

    Yeah, that’s an obvious one. My bad for completely missing it lol. Basically, one form of dictatorship + constant war and slavery is all the people in those regions have ever known.

    The USA basically ran some of those countries like their own private fiefdoms. Banana republics. Stole people’s land, grew bananas, and when the people rebelled, killed them! Sickening.

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    Yeah. I’m glad Brazil is taking a pretty big role in the world right now. Brazil’s got a lot of problems, of course, but they’ve got their shit together in a lot of ways too.

  • Duuude

    Like women with really big booties

  • CamasBlues

    Wow you are a racist creep. (BTW, you are thinking of the Aztec religion and Aztecs did not rule all of “Latin America”).

  • Blacksheep

    Nah – he’s always pissed off and self-righteous.

  • http://www.dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

    Because science is doing wonderful things. Everything science does is wonderful, because it increases our knowledge of the Universe. There is no “bad” science (except in the sense of fraud or pseudoscience).

    How knowledge is used is not an issue of science. I’m not writing this on my computer because of science. Yes, the knowledge had to be there. But the real reason has to do with economics, with business models, with the culture that allowed engineers and businessmen to utilize the knowledge.

  • Guest

    So one minute you say science does nothing to impact the world and now you say it does wonderful things.

    Also, that culture you have to thank that allowed engineers and businessmen utilize knowledge, is partly thanks to religion. Many civilizations before us — built upon by religion and religious ethics/laws — have influenced the way we view the world and the things we take for granted. One of the earliest computers was created in England (a religious country with an established church).

    I can’t say much about countries with State Atheism…

  • http://www.dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

    So one minute you say science does nothing to impact the world and now you say it does wonderful things.

    Actually, I said science has no direct impact on the world. That distinction is important. But you’re just choosing to play games with semantics, not addressing my actual argument.

    Science has no moral value. It is neither good nor bad, although the knowledge that it produces is always good. But the societal impact of that knowledge- for better or worse- has nothing to do with science.

    I can’t say much about countries with State Atheism…

    That’s certainly true. And I’m glad you have decided to not follow that tired and silly path. But if you decide to, be sure to consider countries with State Religion, as well.

  • Pattrsn

    You seem to be confusing science with the purposes to which people put technology, something that’s predated science by thousands of years. Just look at the effect the hunting technology of the first arriving humans had on the mega fauna of North America 40-17,000 yrs ago, or the effect of agricultural technology on the desertification of the middle east over the past 10,000 yrs.
    A more telling example today is global warming, which scientists have been warning us about for over 60 yrs but have largely been ignored due to general ignorance of science, but also active attempts by religious organizations to downplay the dangers of climate change as to quote some, god would never allow that to happen.

  • LesterBallard

    We’re not selfish Christian fucks, so we tend to think of the misery of others.

  • Guest

    “We’re not selfish Christian fucks”

    Ouch… I’m sensing a little displaced aggression. Nice true Scotsman, though. When atheists are revered for their generous charity, then I’ll be more inclined to believe you.

  • Blacksheep

    I thought “Guest” called out some good examples of scientists not giving a f__k about the misery of others.

    (“atomic bombs, Tuskegee syphilis experiments, animal experiments, man-made pollution, Japan’s WW2 human experiments etc.”) He didn’t even mention the misery in countries that were based on State Atheism (who thought less of human suffering than perhaps any system out there in my opinion, especially when you go by the numbers).

  • Guest

    I know what happened in those countries are more or less chalked up to the dictators (Stalin, Kim Jong) imposing themselves as “gods” to the people.

    I think people often ignore that many evils that have been done “in the name of science” just like atrocities have been done in the name of God, Allah, Zeus etc. The problem is that as we become more advanced, we get more “creative” with ways to cause misery to our fellow man e.g. Nazi experiments or Agent Orange in Nam.

  • Blacksheep

    Correct – they may have put themselves out there as “gods to the people” but fair is fair, and it’s only fair to point out that there is a list of countries who practiced official, state atheism, and those very countries, at those times, have arguably the worst human rights records in history if one goes by the numbers. What is it about state atheism that produces so much more misery than countries that have secular constitutions?

  • Guest

    I don’t know, but every time you bring it up here, it is brushed aside by atheists and “doesn’t count”

  • Carmelita Spats

    Cómo chingas…Lordy, you must be high on the Jesus blood to blather on like that…It’s TOTALITARIANISM, and I loathe it whenever it rears its hideous crown of thorns! I’m atheist and I’ve supported, financed and produced “decadent” blasphemous art in my country. There are many of us who would have fared no better in Eucharist-munching Catholic Mexico, under the rabid Cristeros, than in Stalinist Russia. For fuck’s sake, READ the debates on aesthetics in Russia circa 1920 and see how they felt about artistic expression….same as the Roman Criminal Church attacking the Robert Mapplethorpe exhibit in Mexico City. Better question: What is it about Christoholism that makes Christoholics in the American Bible-Meth Belt feel they can abrogate secular constitutions when they conflict with Jeeeebus? I’ll take DOMINIONISTS for 500 bucks and three camels, Alex!

  • Guest

    What is it about your illegal immigrants always trying to jump the border?

    See, I can be offensive too. The fact remains, the majority of communists were atheists, and Soviet Russia is a prime example of what can happen when atheists are given power.

  • Blacksheep

    You are way off point – What’s your opinion of regimes that practiced State Atheism – and why did so many suffer under those regimes? They were not totalitarian religious countries, they were totalitarian atheist countries.

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    There are no State Atheist regimes. I believe you are referring to Communist regimes. They were totalitarian regimes that first crushed, and then coopted, religion. Stalin got pretty buddy-buddy with the Orthodox Church, after all, and the Kim family set themselves up as God-Emperors. China seems to be the only state that has maintained its officially atheist status, and that is only as a subset of Communist doctrine. In fact, while religion is highly regulated and barely tolerated in China, there are officially sanctioned religions there. Many forms of Christianity are among them.

    So yeah, totalitarianism sucks. Why you think the “officially atheist” part is the relevant bit, instead of the “totalitarian communist” part, is beyond me. The harms of Communist regimes are definitely not done in the name of atheism …

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    You do realize that it was good Christians who initiated both the Nazi regime and Agent Orange, right?

    Which is not to say that Christianity makes people worse people. It just obviously doesn’t make them better ones.

  • Blacksheep

    Why would you refer to them as “good”?

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    Why wouldn’t I refer to them as good? They didn’t do anything their god wouldn’t do.

    I mean, clearly not good people. But also clearly not breaking the laws and norms of their religion, either.

  • Blacksheep

    yeah… you’re way off here. If they are “Good Christians” then they are following Christ, the example of Christ, and the Gospel of Christ. I’ll admit that they may have technically been Christians (not doing a “no true scotsman” thing – but not in any way “good” Christians.

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    If you asked them, would they have described themselves as good Christians?

  • LesterBallard

    And it was because they were scientists?

  • Blacksheep

    Not sure what this question refers to… there where two topics, the first was the point that science is not immune from doing evil, then the conversation shifted to the topic of State Atheism.

  • LesterBallard

    Ask the people who were already living in the “Americas” when Christians arrived how they felt.

  • Blacksheep

    You may have missed my earlier point – that’s why I said you need to go by the numbers. Every life is precious, and evil has been done by almost every nation on earth – but by the numbers, they all pale in comparison to nations that had state atheism as part of their politics.
    The other important point is that we’re not talking about the faith of individuals, we’re talking about government policy. Is America constitutionally a Christian nation? Certainly not according to FA. I’m not talking about the personal faith of despots, I’m talking about what they wanted their governments based upon.

  • LesterBallard

    Despots generally base their governments on themselves.

  • Blacksheep

    I agree – but that doesn’t take away the fact that some of the worst ones were either atheists themselves or ran the country that way.

  • LesterBallard

    What the fuck is the atheist way to run a country?

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    Gonna have to disagree that Communism (which is distinct from state atheism, which has literally never existed as a governing philosophy) thinks less of human suffering than a system that is literally built upon human suffering by telling people that their God wants them to suffer in this life so he can be nice to them in the next life. Religions that glorify suffering and are also the theocratic political governing structure are terribly indifferent to/actively encourage suffering.

  • Blacksheep

    Yes, State Atheism has existed as a governing philosophy – not sure why you would want to refute that. In fact, “governing philosophy” is the perfect way to word it.

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    Except it hasn’t. There is no government in the history of the world that I am aware of that took as its governing philosophy the ideal of State Atheism, and I’m a political science major. We studied this stuff a lot- all the various ‘isms that people take as governing philosophies is rather a big part of a political science degree. Communism, capitalism, socialism, fascism, democracy, republic, monarchy, theocracy, secularism, benevolent and malignant dictatorships- those are all real things. State atheism is not, and never has been, a governing philosophy.

    I’m not sure why you’d want to argue this. It’s an absurd claim you’re making.

  • Blacksheep

    State Atheism is defined as “the official promotion of Atheism by a government”, as practiced in France and Mexico during revolutions, Communist states, including the USSR, China, and Cuba, Cambodia, and North Korea. The term “atheist State” is not a made up one, and is a very real term. I have no need to debate semantics with you, the term “governing philosophy” is a broad one – and one can certainly make the claim that part of North Korea’s “Governing philosophy” is state atheism. Are you saying that state atheism is a made up concept?

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    There are atheist states, sure. There are states that practice or practiced the suppression of most or all religions. But at no point in time has there ever been a philosophy for governing called State Atheism, nor has any state made it their primary goal or statement of principles. Atheism has always been one of a number of planks of a greater whole, such as Communism, but never the primary governing philosophy. No one has ever said they will govern based on atheism, nor that they will use atheistic principles as their guiding tenets. Thus, one cannot argue that State Atheism is a governing philosophy.

    As for France and Mexico during their revolutions- they were not explicitly atheist, but rather killing the members of and dismantling the influence of a powerful and rich institution that supported the previous tyrannical regime and enriched itself off the suffering of the people. The fact that that institution happened to be the Catholic Church doesn’t make those revolutions anti-religious or atheist, but rather anti-establishment as most revolutions are. The USSR started off very anti-religious, but as stated Stalin and later leaders were very cozy with the Orthodox Church. North Korea has God-Emperors, which is pretty explicitly not atheist. China allows some religion, though only under the auspices and blessing of the state. I don’t know enough about the Khmer Rouge regime or Cuba to definitively state their official policies on religion, but in Cuba at least they’re probably not as anti-theist as you want them to be.

    P.S. Who, exactly, defined State Atheism for you? Because if you’re going to cite an authority, you should actually cite them. Granted, arguments from authority aren’t good arguments, but still. It’s just polite to cite your sources.

  • Blacksheep

    Please read my comment – I don’t want you to have to waste time going back to earlier posts. We’re talking about state atheism, not whether or not it should be described by the term “governing philosophy.” No need to go down a path of uncertainty.
    With all due respect, your facts are wrong. Stalin and Lenin specifically wanted atheism, North Korea is absolutely atheist, and so was communist China during it’s worst years. Cuba has embraced the old-school communist ideal of atheism as well, it was all about getting rid of God in favor of science and reason, as you know. And while those things sound good, my original question was simple. Rephrasing it again: Why has the greatest evil against humankind- measured in terms of sheer numbers of oppressed, killed, and imprisoned – been perpetrated by idealistic states that upheld atheism as part of their philosophy?
    I’m really not trying to do an intellectual dance around word definitions or anything like that. It’s clear and fully on record that Revolutionary France and Mexico, China, Cuba, the USSR, Albania, North Korea, and Cambodia had very strong atheist/ant-religion facets in their philosophies/laws/manifestos – whatever you like. Let’s not split hairs. Castro, a terrible human rights violator, had a statue of John Lennon erected in Cuba because he admired his stand on atheism expressed in the song “Imagine” (Which I’m sure JL would not have liked).
    Don’t do the “no true scotsman” thing for atheists. I’m accepting evil done specifically in the name of Christ (the Inquisition, The Crusades, etc). You should do the same.

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    Why has the greatest evil against mankind- measured in terms of the sheer percentage of people oppressed, killed, and imprisoned- been perpetrated by idealistic states that upheld a religion as part of their philosophy? Why has the greatest good for mankind- measured in terms of the sheer percentage of people uplifted, saved, and freed- come from secular and atheist ideals that rejected religion as part of their philosophy?

    It’s clear and fully on record that modern-day Arab theocracies, Medieval Europe, and every Puritan society ever were terrible human rights violators. It’s equally clear that modern secular nations that are composed mostly of atheists are the safest, wealthiest, happiest countries in the world, while the ones caught in religious or ideological vises are doing less well. Shockingly, when you have a tyranny motivated by an ideology, it does terrible things. Whether that ideology is Communism, Puritanism, Catholicism, Islam, or Capitalism, taking any religion or ideology to its extreme is going to lead to very bad outcomes. Since atheism is, by definition, only a statement of what one doesn’t believe, it’s impossible to use atheism to justify anything. Another ideology must be used as justification. In the case of Stalinism, that’s the ideology that was used.

    The very fact that you think atheism can be seen in the same light as religion or ideology tells me you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism is. Do I admit that atheists can be terrible people and do terrible things? Freely. Obviously. But it wasn’t their atheism that led to it. The Crusades and the Inquisition were the direct result of Catholic doctrine, of religious thought. The Great Leap Forward was a direct result of Mao’s thoughts on how economic development worked and had nothing whatsoever to do with gods or the lack thereof. You see the difference?

  • MerchantMariner

    I doubt it. Poor old Blacksheep can’t grasp the simple and obvious fact that the main reason the Commos got stuck into the churches was for no other reason than to remove any potential opposition and/or threat to their authority. That’s what totalitarian governments do – nobble the competition. And I’ve no doubt too that they wanted to pay them back for all the shit they’d put on them when the churches had the whip hand. I don’t condone it, but at the same time if I’d suffered the dead hand of the Russian monarchy and the Orthodox church all my life I’d probably want to return the favour.

    And anyone who seriously claims North Korea practices “state atheism” has their head firmly so firmly wedged in their arse they probably need an oxygen mask to breathe. Calling it a personality cult is being disingenuous in the extreme – Kim Jong-un is venerated as a living god, so was his dad. Even now he’s dead… I was in port at Hungnam in 2002, and spent a bit of time ashore. It was fascinating to see the monuments statues, posters and billboards all “glorifying” Kim Jong-il as the god of the North Korean people. The message of these displays was anything but atheist. Talking to the locals only reinforced the message. I travelled there again in October 2004, and saw a bit more of the place. What’s the bet though that Sheepy will claim his 54 squillion google hits trump my actual experience of the country, and other “atheist states”.

    There’s also one other thing Blacksheep studiously fails to mention in these discussions. I reckon it’s safe to say that there’s not one atheist on this blog who wants to live in a mythical ‘state atheist’ nation of the kind he seems to think are so prevalent. And I also reckon nobody here is advocating or agitating for the creation of one, either. Advocating a properly secular state that doesn’t privilege one religion over any other, or discriminates against non-believers is an entirely different proposition. Most importantly, I reckon there’d be very few – if any – of us here who worship, venerate or deify the leaders of the nations he continually refers to. Any mention of Che Guevara t-shirts will be ridiculed*. He can rage and rant all he likes about these “atheist states”, but we don’t care for them any more than Blacksheep does.

    Contrast that with what I see, hear and read about christians in America, and to a lesser extent elsewhere in the world. (And sadly we do have them here in Australia.) There’s an alarming number of them who DO want to live in a theocracy, and they ARE advocating and agitating to establish one that DOES privilege one religion over all others, and DOES discriminate against non-believers. And they worship a deity who is by any reasonable standards a totalitarian despot. How they can hold those views while claiming to hold the moral high ground is an absolute bloody mystery to me. Perhaps they should consider else to live – Iran sounds nice.

    Anyway, enough from me – to all you heathens, all the best for 2014!

    (*Although, I will cheerfully admit to owning a t-shirt featuring an image of Fyodor Fyodorovich Ilyin that I picked up in St Petersburg. I have a thing for ancient steam river gunboats. : ) )

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    I’ve been tempted to buy a Che shirt, just for all the ironies that go into it, but haven’t because most people just don’t get them :(

    Happy 2014! To everyone, including our misguided friends like Blacksheep, who braves the atheist boards even when ze knows ze will get a lot of disagreement.

  • MerchantMariner

    No, sadly they don’t. I’ve got one that’s a beauty, my darling wife got it for me – mainly because she reckons I looked a lot like him when we first met!

    Disclaimer: Only because I had a scruffy beard and mo, and wore a beret, not that I had smouldering good looks or anything! :)

  • Blacksheep

    Sorry, forgot to respond to your PS point:

    If you google State Atheism, you get 54 million hits. The word is used to describe the attitude toward religion by certain states.

    BTW – it’s not the word that matters to me as much as the laws, practices, philosophies, and histories of certain states. The term, I believe, is just an easy way to describe countries in which religion is either banned outright or kept under tight control for appearances, as in the USSR when churches were told that there congregation numbers must either go down or reman the same under threat of Siberia – or worse.

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    Control of religion does not atheist state make, sir. That’s just control of a competing source of authority, and dictators have done that for … well, ever.

    I am aware the word is popular. It is, however, new and poorly defined, as well as being terribly inaccurate. To describe a state by its least meaningful ideological plank for the purpose of smearing a modern belief stance by blaming all the ills of that state on this unimportant plank is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. No reputable political scientist uses the term State Atheism to describe any governing philosophy or state that has ever existed. The states you refer to were/are Communist or Stalinist. That describes their governing ideology and philosophy accurately, as well as accurately describing the ideological economic and social planks that led to them making very poor decisions with very terrible outcomes.

  • MerchantMariner

    Defined by who? Conservapedia?

    This phrase crops up so often lately I can only wonder where it originated, and who is promoting/disseminating it.

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    Lately, but not before about a year ago. It’s an extremely new turn of phrase.

  • Blacksheep

    Based on the actions of governments. If Atheism is the official religion of a state (not my words, so relax) and if clergy is imprisoned, and if an outsider can be sent to prison for bringing a bible in their luggage, call it whatever you like – I’m not one to get caught up in words – it is those nations who have the highest death tolls against their own people and the worst human rights abuses in history – by the numbers.

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    Straight numbers is A) still inaccurate (hello Hitler, you were Christian, and you deliberately murdered over 12 million people as well as the death tolls of your wars) and B) an very poor measure, since as population increases so do the number of people you can theoretically kill. What percentage of the population were killed in religious purges?

    Do note that people killed for political reasons or sheer ineptitude (Great Leap Forward, for example) don’t count as dying due to whatever the fuck you think State Atheism is. They died to tyrannical, ideological Communist ineptitude and political purges. Do also note that while atheism may have been an official state plank, it didn’t motivate many policies, especially the deadly ones. Those were due to other political and ideological planks.

    The highest death tolls, percentage of population-wise, in history? Probably the Middle Ages in Christendom during the plague years, because the church blamed witches and encouraged people to murder cats. That’s an explicitly religious justification for ineptitude and ignorance that killed millions of people. There was not, and never has been, an explicitly atheist justification for ineptitude or ignorance that killed millions. Other ideological justifications? Of course. It doesn’t take religion to make people willfully stupid. Blame Communism or Stalinism for what can rightfully be laid at that ideology’s feet.

    If it is the action of governments that matter, then you know as well as I do that explicitly secular governments run mostly be atheists are the best ones.

  • MerchantMariner

    I bet poor old Sheepy doesn’t think so. To him, places like the Scandinavian or Benelux countries must be hell on earth. If nothing else they utterly disprove his contentions about the evils of so-called “state atheism”.

  • MerchantMariner

    “If Atheism is the official religion of a state (not my words, so relax)”

    If not yours, then whose?

    “I’m not one to get caught up in words”

    On the evidence of your previous posts, you are. You remind me of Humpty Dumpty.

  • MerchantMariner

    And I’d bet London to a brick it’s not his.

  • Blacksheep

    …still not sure if you are defending state atheism, saying it didn’t exist, or purely debating the term “governing philosophy”?

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    State Atheism never existed. I would be hard-pressed to defend imaginary things, though people do it all the time, and of course I do not defend even nonexistent tyrannies. Also, your definition of “governing philosophy” appears terribly flawed.

    So no, yes, and yes.

  • God’s Starship

    Dude, science is just a system of organizing knowledge. Stop talking about it like it’s Sauron’s magic ring or some shit.

  • Guest

    “A system of organizing knowledge” sounds like a religion to me, friend.

  • God’s Starship

    No, religion is system of organizing belief.
    When you start your car, there’s science behind that. When you sneeze, there’s science. When you use your eyes to see something in front of you, there’s science. There’s something there to observe and learn from.

    It’s not just some weird thing that runs amok in a 50s b-movie.

  • Pattrsn

    Probably because you don’t know what it means.

  • Guest

    Define it then, because to me, a system of organizing ‘knowledge’ sounds like any number of things, including a religion or science.

    Is ‘knowledge’ specifically defined to the realm of science?

  • Pattrsn

    You’re righty to a certain point in science the knowledge has to be testable and is knowledge about the universe. Religion is an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies and rules based on supernatural entities, the knowledge required is entirely self referential, and has no validity except to the practitioners of the particular religion, by it’s nature it can’t be tested. That’s why science is universal and religion is always sectarian.

  • CamasBlues

    Science rests on testable, repeatable results. Religion isn’t.

  • randomfactor

    Because there wasn’t any syphilis in the world before science, and animals were all vegetarian.

  • WallofSleep

    Just for clarification, the Tuskegee experiments denied treatment (usually giving only placebos if they gave anything) to the already afflicted. Truly horrible by itself, indeed. But they did not infect anyone for the purpose of the experiment, as the myth often goes.

  • Pattrsn

    Likely more due to Ham’s shameless profiteering from the ignorance of others. Not to mention his attempts to bilk people with his junk bond scam.

  • Guest

    I just think the original comment is jumping to conclusions. Most people have never heard of Ken Ham. I doubt a Hollywood blockbuster is really going to booster any more money to the Creation Museum.

  • Timothy R Alexander

    I get sick from Russel Crowe’s “acting”

  • Guest

    The Titans Series, The Percy Jackson Series and the Judeo-Christian Series. Nothing wrong with that.

  • Greg G.

    I am waiting for the Hollywood announcement that says, “We will wewease Wazawus!”

  • bearclover

    Kill the wabbit!

  • https://twitter.com/#!/OffensivAtheist bismarket

    TBH i’m looking forward to these movies, especially Noah. Hollywood has done this a lot in the past & is always sourcing Greek & Roman mythology so i look at the biblically based stuff in much the same way (as i’m sure some of the producers & actors do). So what if the religious freaks take it seriously, i doubt many took Percy Jackson & the Olympians to be a documentary.

  • MichaelNewsham

    When Gore Vidal was working as a screenplay writer in Hollywood, he discovered that the standard way to refer to Biblical epics was “Teats and Sand” movies

  • Eric

    I kinda feel ashamed to admit that I liked Passion of the Christ somewhat, mostly because of it’s epic soundtrack. Not so sure about this one though.

  • Rodney Barnes

    Hope they show Christian Bale as Moses slaughtering 300,000 men, women and children because afterall, the bible is fact!

  • Nancy Shrew

    He has the highest movie body count in Equilibrium, why not top that?

  • Nancy Shrew

    I can understand making the Noah, Moses, and Jesus stories into movies. I actually quite like The Prince of Egypt for instance. You don’t have to believe they really happened. But… Cain and Abel? I’m actually interested in how they are going to flesh that one out.

  • ChristianGuest

    This is from a movie news site…

    “Rather than being a tale ripped straight from biblical passages, however, there is a bit of a twist to this one. Titled The Redemption of Cain, apparently the story will somehow involves vampires.” Cain is often considered the first vampire in legend, which is kinda ripped from the World of Darkness games. I imagine the demon Lilith (Adam’s first wife) and a horde of supernatural baddies will be in this so it could be entertaining…

    Then of course the uproar that will be caused by Will Smith most likely playing a black Adam or Cain (out of Africa theory mixed with Genesis)

  • Nancy Shrew

    That actually sounds kind of neat. I’m all for more Lilith.

  • ChristianGuest

    Yeah, I just hope it isn’t Will Smith as Adam and his son (whatever his name) as Cain or Abel

  • Anonymous Atheist

    Will’s son is Jaden Smith.

  • Timothy R Alexander

    The prince of Egypt is actually one of my favorite religious movies, all though I ignore the religious aspects of it and instead focus on the story of two brothers pitted against each other. That’s the best part of that movie because it makes me feel like these are real people.

  • http://scoop.it/t/secular-curated-news-views Secular Antitheist Liberal

    The History channel had a big hit with a fake story on proof of mermaids. People actually believed it was a real true documentary. So yeah, a fake god is big business!

  • Matt Bowyer

    That was Animal Planet, actually. All the same, I was appalled by that.

  • Timothy R Alexander

    didnt they also have a documentary on dragons? I liked that one, can not seem to find it anywhere though.

  • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ WMDKitty — Survivor

    Yeah, they did. I rather enjoyed that one, too. The mermaid one was really pretty, sure, but other than being eye-candy? Not much substance.

  • Matt Bowyer

    My problem with things like the mermaid “documentary” is that if we were to really discover that such creatures actually existed, the discovery would be all over the news. It would be on the front pages of every major newspaper, every news networks would be covering it, blogs and internet news sites would be erupting over it. It would not be limited to some documentary on Animal Planet.

  • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ WMDKitty — Survivor

    Yeah, I know that. That doesn’t really change the fact that the visual effects were downright stunning.

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/chidy/ chicago dyke

    not really upset about it. i actually kind of like a lot of biblical film. Heston’s 10 commandments was a tradition growing up in my atheist household, because it was so over the top and the sets and costumes were fun. i usually fell asleep by the time it got all preachy towards the end, but the egypt sequences are masterful fun. the Noah movie worries me not at all; DA is one of my top ten film makers and if anyone can make people see the cruelty and horror of the concept of a god who kills everyone, he can. and even if it’s a sympathetic portrayal it should still be visually stunning.

    big epic film is the only thing that gets me into the actual theatre anymore, there’s just no point in this age of home theatre to pay those prices for anything less. if the studios know that they probably can’t make a movie that does well based on other mythologies, well, that’s just the sad truth of the market. but that fact won’t stop me from enjoying silly, epic, special effects laden movies about impossible things and god creatures that are ‘real.’ nothing else in hollywood is, and i’m betting that media-sophisticated younger viewers will treat these films in the same way they perceive ‘avatar’ and ‘thor.’

  • randomfactor

    “The Ten Commandments” is on my VERY short list of “movies better than the books they were made from.”

  • jhgyfrdte

    I’ve always said the bible is a really great /story/.

  • http://www.dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

    It’s not even good fiction. The prose is largely ugly, as are most of the attempts at poetry. Most of the stories are just stupid, as they have ridiculous bases, and generally negative messages (if they have any messages at all).

    The Bible is overwhelmingly boring and poorly written. Only a fraction of it has any literary merit at all.

  • Malcolm McLean

    I presume you can’t read Hebrew. But here’s CS Lewis’s challenge. Take two or three verses of the Psalms, any two of three you choose, in any translation you choose, and take two or three verses of your favourite poet, any two two or three you choose.
    Now undertake to read them every night, and see which one you tire of first.

  • allein

    Which would prove what, exactly?

  • Malcolm McLean

    You’d have to do the experiment. It sheds light on the claim that the Bible is “overwhelmingly boring and poorly written”.

  • allein

    I fail to see how finding two or three psalms that you can stand (or even like) to read every night negates that.

  • Conuly

    Okay, fine. The Book of Psalms is fairly interesting, what with people bashing in baby heads and whatnot. Most of the rest of the Bible is boring and poorly written.

  • MerchantMariner

    It would prove that reading two or three verses of the Psalms every night would send you either to sleep very quickly – or insane.

    Either way, reading that dreary blather every night would definitely give you some bad dreams.

  • Bob Jase

    Such great literature that only three lines a night are tolerable reading.
    How ’bout all those great lists of ‘begats’ – talk about pulse-pounding excitment!

  • Malcolm McLean

    You don’t read Hebrew, so the genealogy from Adam to Noah is to you just a list of meaningless names.

  • allein

    A list of names is more interesting in Hebrew?

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    No, it’s not. It’s really, really not. It’s all So-and-so ben Such-and-such, ben That-guy, ben That-other-guy, ben Some-important-dude. Except sometimes there’s a lot more steps.

    Hebrew or English, it’s all just a list of meaningless names.

  • Conuly

    Well, lots of them have meanings in Hebrew, but that doesn’t make it any more interesting.

  • Malcolm McLean

    You’re only qualified to make that comment if you know the Hebrew meanings of the names.

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    There’s a magical thing called the Internet, and on that thing…

  • Malcolm McLean

    So let’s start by looking up “Noah”. What does that word mean?

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    Why would we start there?

  • Malcolm McLean

    That’s the title of the movie.

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    But that’s not what we were talking about. So why would we start there?

  • Ash Wonderdog

    Learn Aramaic and its 100s of unique dialects Jesus at that in that period would have spoken as a lord(direct line, heir to King David) We could have loadz of fun debating scriptural semantics?

  • Conuly

    And since I generally *do*, due to an obsession with name meanings during childhood, I guess you have nothing left to say!

    A list is a list is a list. It’s just not going to be terribly interesting, no matter what the contents.

  • Bob Jase

    So what is it to you as it is literally a list of names?

  • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ WMDKitty — Survivor

    It’s in dire need of editing and revising, sure, but a good portion of the basic ideas and plot elements can be salvaged.

  • https://plus.google.com/u/0/+PhillyStudmuffin/posts/p/pub PhillyStudMuffin

    I find it kind of ironic that the great flood, a plagiarized, fictitious story that shows the full wrath of an all-loving God is regarded by billions as historic fact while true, scientific evidence supporting climate change (leading to increased ocean water) is regarded by many of the same people as fake. The great flood is coming and their imaginary God can and will, of course, do nothing to stop it!

  • http://www.paulcaggegi.com Paul Caggegi

    Some Jehovah’s Witnesses came to the door recently and asked me if I thought global warming was (they sniggered) caused by us, or more likely to be a sign of Jesus coming back, as according to this one out-of-context passage. I shrugged and told him to google it.

  • https://plus.google.com/u/0/+PhillyStudmuffin/posts/p/pub PhillyStudMuffin

    My brother use to be a JW. I feel sorry for the children born into that faith because they are denied proper social skills. The adults choose to only affiliate with other JWs and the kids are forced to go along with their family’s limited social interaction, among other more harmful medical restrictions. Religion poisons everything.

  • http://www.paulcaggegi.com Paul Caggegi

    Ah man. Feel for your brother. Hope he’s ok.

  • Malcolm McLean

    Cannibalisation is extremely dangerous. The taboo on it is so strong that many people will rather die than perform it,

  • Kevin R. Cross

    Yes. The number of diseases that can be passed on by such practices are staggering.

  • Blacksheep

    Plagiarism of an ancient story could be the origin of the account of Noah’s flood in Genesis, however the number of flood stories out there can also point to a common shared experience or historical memory of a true event on earth. Even the earliest written deluge story is from thousands of years after the supposed date of Noah’s flood.

  • Bob Jase

    Yes, floods are such rare events – especially for people living near water.

  • Jeff See

    It’s thought that the loss of sea wall along the Caspian Sea, (which some think created, or at least enlarged the Black Sea), could be a primary source event for such a myth as big as the flood mythology shared by ancient peoples. The only issue is reconciling the time frame for that geographical event, compared to when ‘modern’ man was first thought to have come into being, and developed language.

  • Choose_Freewill

    Or more likely since most of those stories come from the same tiny region of the planet (without access to information from the rest of the world) a devastating flood or tsunami may seem global to that particular society…

  • Blacksheep

    Yes, I suppose it could.

  • Jeff

    Like Carlin said, they can believe that the universe was created in 7 days, but put up a sign that says Wet Paint and we have to touch it.

  • viaten

    When the “Candid Camera” show put up a sign saying “Dry Paint” some people still had to touch it.

  • Choose_Freewill

    It’s like I always say – if I tried to sell you my 10 year-old car for $30,000 because it can part a river, thereby defeating bridge tolls, you would either walk away or demand that I prove it. But when it comes to biblical stories no proof is needed. It’s in the Bible it must be true.

    That would be like me, instead of showing you this miraculous feature of my awesome car, producing a manual showing you that it can be done and saying, “Trust me”.
    Anybody want a 2003 Buick?

  • LesterBallard

    I’ve seen The Passion of the Jew, I mean Christ. Murder/torture porn at its finest.

  • mywall

    I thought the opposite. Passion is the only torture porn I’ve fallen asleep to.

  • LesterBallard

    I want Biblical movies showing all the Genocide and absurdities. All the irrationality and slaughter. And all the sex.

  • Guest

    So you want them to be like movies about the history of State Atheism?

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/chidy/ chicago dyke

    state atheism rarely included mandatory incest and hareems of wives and concubines and destruction of the global ecosystem. but nice strawman.

  • Guest

    But the genocide and persecution of religious people is okay, right?

  • Kevin R. Cross

    By “state Atheists” you really mean “by Communists.” A reasonable argument can be made that the extreme left communists substituted communism for religion – their atheism was a side effect (and a mis-reading of Marx, actually), not the primary motivator.

  • http://www.origin-of-religion.com Ben Andrews

    You don’t know what you are talking about. Making up nonsense arguments only shows that you are blind to any reason. Stupid arguments do NOT mean that you are stupid but it means that you are believing so much in your understanding of the world that you are twisting logic to “prove” your point

  • Kevin R. Cross

    Really? Because putting your trust in the writings of others and a “historical dialectic” rather then your own common sense and experience doesn’t strike you as faith-based thinking? The absolute veneration of living people in what are, quite properly, called cults of personality, such as the ones theat grew up around Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Il-Sung, are not cult-like behaviours? The total dedication to something “greater then the individual” (the state) does not, then, parallel such similar behaviours among believers since time immemorial?
    Do not arrogate to yourself some power to announce your superior knowledge from the mountaintop, Mr. Andrews. State your argument plain and clear, and it had best be a good one, because I HAVE, unlike , clearly, yourself, studied this subject, know what I am talking about, and am prepared and determined to defend my statements. Or be silent and let us all know your ignorance.

  • Aerial View

    To be clear, you are speaking of the christians’ persecution of religious people, right?

  • http://www.origin-of-religion.com Ben Andrews

    What I object to is that you, unless I misunderstand, equate atheism with “cults of personality” just because you reasoning is that since these cults did not believe in God they were atheists, and thus atheists are communists. Stalin Mao etc. were “gods” to their followers so that qualifies them as “religions”. That has nothing to do with non-believers such as atheists who simply do not believe in the supernatural (see my comments on that elsewhere in this discussion). Atheism has nothing to do with communism.
    If you come to the conclusion that communism created atheism you cannot turn that around and say that atheism created communism. I know many people who do not believe in god, or anything supernatural (atheists, non-faith based thinking) who are capitalists, libertarians , socialists etc. so stop making that connection.

  • Conuly

    If we say yes, will you go away?

  • Conuly

    Apparently so. Guys upthread, just sign off on the genocide idea. It’s sure to die in committee anyway.

  • Guest

    Just because I choose to ignore someone beneath me does not mean you automatically win lol

  • Conuly

    It does if you don’t reply to the one person who thought you had a good point with the persecution idea.

  • duke_of_omnium

    Depends. If they’re the sort of airheads who leave inane comments on blogs, then their destruction is no great loss (but don’t shoot them in their heads – you won’t hit a vital organ)

  • Guest

    Sometimes it makes me happy to know atheists are lose so many child custody cases

  • Sideshow_Billybob

    How very Christian of you.

  • Guest

    duke_of_omnium

    Guest

    in 2 hours

    “Depends. If they’re the sort of
    airheads who leave inane comments on blogs, then their destruction is no
    great loss (but don’t shoot them in their heads – you won’t hit a vital
    organ)”
    How Humanist of him.

  • Castilliano

    Not all atheists are humanists. They’re separate, though atheism does step aside for humanism, unlike theism which asks many inhumane things of its followers.
    But separate enough that many theists are humanists, despite their theism. Of course, there’s a good chance you see them as heretics.

  • duke_of_omnium

    No, no, stupid, I never said I was a humanist. Like I said, there’s no vital organ in your head. Try again, stupid. Try harder.

  • LesterBallard

    Very Christian of them.

  • http://www.origin-of-religion.com Ben Andrews

    Living in your dream world are you? Have you any credible statistics to back you up? Post them here please, otherwise keep your speculations to yourself. In other words, put up or shut up

  • Guest
  • http://www.origin-of-religion.com Ben Andrews

    Very good, but anecdotal stories don’t proof a point. How do the numbers of lost child custody cases compare with the general population? You’re not happy about those are you? But I apologize for thinking you live in a dream world. I jumped to the wrong conclusion obviously. You just hate atheists without knowing who and what they are (ignorance or deliberate?). They are common people just like your fellow Americans. They are capitalists, socialists, libertarians, humanists etc. etc. just like everyone else. The only difference is that they don’t believe in the supernatural, ghosts, alien UFOs, a creator, astrology, faith healing, telekinesis, telepathy etc. Since there are many non-believers (I like to use that term instead since “atheist” is mostly misunderstood and vilified by believers)
    who stay in the closet, just like gay people used to do for obvious reasons, you “hate” many of your country men for the wrong reason.

  • MerchantMariner

    Atheists losing custody of their kids makes you happy? Lester was almost right. Based on that comment, you’re a not so much a selfish fuck, more an utter miserable arsehole. I’d call you a dropkick, but then I’d have to explain the meaning. You’re not worth the effort.

  • Choose_Freewill

    Oh, c’mon, now I need to know what a dropkick is – I guess I’ll just Google it… oh wait, I’ll just pray for the answer… didn’t work – be right back…

  • MerchantMariner

    It’s rhyming slang – “dropkick and punt”.

    I probably shouldn’t use Australian vernacular on an American blog – sorry! :)

  • Choose_Freewill

    Hahahaha – LOVE it – I will be using that from now on… might use “punt” though – I am from the US after all…

  • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ WMDKitty — Survivor

    Oh, clever, that. Really. Calling him a bit of sexist slang…

    Dropkick -> punt -> c*nt

  • MerchantMariner

    No, not clever at all. I apologise for writing that. I should know better. The anger I felt when I read that comment clouded my judgement, and I responded in manner that’s no better than the person I was responding to. Again, my apologies.

  • TheG

    Persecution of religious people BY religious people.

  • Guest

    Persecution of religious people by atheists, actually. There is a reason why atheists are not in power and a good reason too.

  • http://youtu.be/fCNvZqpa-7Q Kevin_of_Bangor

    ……

  • Guest

    Ouch. Not very humanist of you to post someone else’s child online as an insult. Typical atheist without morals though.

  • http://youtu.be/fCNvZqpa-7Q Kevin_of_Bangor

    Don’t worry, we roasted the kid later and ate it.

  • Guest

    Like I said, I’m glad atheists lose child custody cases. They are probably the reason behind the custody cases in the first cases with their immorality.

  • http://youtu.be/fCNvZqpa-7Q Kevin_of_Bangor

    …..

  • duke_of_omnium

    Awww, what’s the matter? Does your ex refuse to let you see your little bastard? Did you ever think that it might be YOUR fault?

  • http://www.origin-of-religion.com Ben Andrews

    another person who doesn’t,or isn’t willing, to know what atheist means. Since the word”Atheist ” conjures up so many misunderstandings and misconceptions. Let us change it to “non-believer” Simply meaning that the person does not believe in the supernatural, e.i. Gosts, Alien UFOs, astrology, a creator, faith healing, telepathy, etc. etc.
    an non-believer can be a capitalist, a socialist, a libertarian or anything else! Understand? Many politicians of ALL stripes are non-believers, but stay in the closet for the same reasons that in the past gay politicians did.

  • Malcolm McLean

    That’s a skeptic. Whilst some skeptics lump in all religious claims with astrology and crystal healing, others see a distinction. The skeptic James Randi was asked why he didn’t go after mainstream Christianity with the same vigour and replied that he needed to narrow his expertise.

    Plenty of people who don’t believe in God nevertheless do something a bit New Agey. They might mediate, or eat a macrobiotic diet, or consult horoscopes. Sometimes it hard to draw the line, e.g. “organic” vegetables. Is that magical thinking or is it just bad science?

  • http://www.origin-of-religion.com Ben Andrews

    That;s why I prefer the term Non-believer or Un-believer, as I outlined above. By the way “organic” vegetables is ” Justbad science ” In my opinion. But you are right if you define “atheist” narrowly as “not believing in a god” but that does not make them “communists ” as stated by some of the other commentators. That is just jumping to the wrong conclusion and shows intolerance. (ignorance?)

  • FrankHotdog

    I love how you forget about the dark ages, when religion had complete control of politics, money and the sword. A fine job that Jesus the all-powerful did then, slaying non-christians by the thousands in an attempt to ‘spread the gospel’.
    You defend a church that has systematically harbored pedophiles and sexual deviants for years, spiriting those convicted away to other parishes, while demonizing the victims of their perverted crimes.
    Your faith is based on demographics entirely. Your faith is weak, convenient and watered down compared to the faith of your REAL religious enemies: those of other faiths.
    If you witnessed what I have witnessed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and seen the motivation that religion gives people to load up a bus full of explosives and detonate it in a marketplace, you would see that your faith is shallow and safe. You would not kill for your religion. You would not face death for your holy land. Your god (conveniently for you and the other cowards in your faith) would not take up arms to defend your god. You are a bunch of loud mouths and big talkers, but your faith is not strong enough to pick up a rifle and fight for.

  • LesterBallard

    No, it isn’t, asshole. But let’s wait for you to condemn the god ordered genocide in the Bible.

  • Guest

    Most of the genocides were directed at heathen, godless savages, and non-believers, so no, I give Him props, actually.

    When atheists can handle a government without destroying millions of people in the name of communism/atheism, you can talk. For now, I thank the Christian nations that have put a stop to atheist regimes.

  • LesterBallard

    Fuck you.

  • Guest

    Yeah, that’s what I thought. How ‘Humanist’ you are.

  • LesterBallard

    Go somewhere else and like your own comments.

  • Guest

    Go run for President… oh, wait… no point in trying

  • LesterBallard

    Go give your mother her back rub before you go to bed in her basement; she’ll come down and tuck you in.

  • Guest

    Ah, yes, typical atheist retort. Resorting to childish insults when you have nothing left to put up. I see I’ve bested you, goodnight sir.

  • http://youtu.be/fCNvZqpa-7Q Kevin_of_Bangor

    That was Lester being nice.

  • LesterBallard

    Still liking your own comments.

  • Guest

    Still not a hated minority like you with a false superiority/victimization complex that can’t run a country without killing millions of Russians and Chinese

  • http://youtu.be/fCNvZqpa-7Q Kevin_of_Bangor

    Here is something humanist for you. Kiss ever single one of my smiles and yes, that is my ass.

  • Guest

    That’s exactly the response I’d expect from someone with a weird mix of superiority/victimization complex. But I’m a Christian so I’ll pray for you, friend.

  • http://youtu.be/fCNvZqpa-7Q Kevin_of_Bangor

    I’m not your friend, Guy!

  • Guest

    I’ll say a prayer anyway because that’s what good people do to those less fortunate

  • http://youtu.be/fCNvZqpa-7Q Kevin_of_Bangor

    Yes, praying has been proven to work so fucking well that not a single child went to bed hungry tonight.

    Enjoy talking to yourself.

  • Guest

    Go feed them and stop complaining then! The Church feeds millions. When atheists have a reputable charitable organization like the Church, you can talk. God, it annoys me to know end that atheists only do “charity” to make themselves appear charitable and “good” when we all know it is for show..

    Let us not forget millions of children starved in atheist states. Thanks asshole.

  • http://youtu.be/fCNvZqpa-7Q Kevin_of_Bangor

    Holy Jesus on a cracker did that fucking go right over the top of your head.

  • RowanVT

    Does the church feed millions? Can you provide proof? And can you provide proof that no christians do “charity” for show?

    I regularly fed the homeless population around my last job. At least once a pay period I’d get a bunch of loaves of fresh bread, and a bunch of cans of soup and hand them out. They all knew me. Not a single one knew I was an atheist.

    I directly helped *people*. How many folks have you fed?

  • MerchantMariner

    “Does the church feed millions?”

    Yeah, they feed them bullshit.

  • Dale Snyder

    More than $60 billion in the Warren Buffet – Bill Gates fund and every cent to charity when they die – atheists both. The only number that compares to that in organized religion is that of the payoffs in lawsuits of religious adults fucking little children.

  • Ash Wonderdog

    Both have stated nonreligous affiliations, they lean a bit agnostic

  • MerchantMariner

    According to your religion, you won’t be rewarded with eternal life by “doing charity”or being “good” – belief in your god is the only way to earn it. So I’d say it’s christians who do “charity” for show.

    For a mad god-botherer you don’t seem too clued-up on the basics of your beliefs.

  • Matt Ranson

    I thought your omnipotent god could take care of providing enough food. Does he really need prayer before he will do it? Can’t he see the starving Africans who are also running low on water, and North Koreans and drop some fish and bread out of the sky like he did with Jesus? I think the likely reason god doesn’t do a damn thing is because he just doesn’t fucking exist.

  • Patrik Åstrand

    Doctors without Borders, Red Cross/Red Crescent although not atheistic are both secular organizations with no ties to religion. I could probably list another 20 secular orgs that help people in need or fight for the environment like Greenpeace that has no religious doctrines. In fact the opposite is truth. Atheist helps because we care, christian helps because they wanna go to heaven or avoid hell. we don’t need any carrots or threat of punishment to help we do it out of the goodness of our evolved hearts.

  • Dale Snyder

    Then I assume you’ll be sending those useless wishes to the innocent gay folks in Uganda who are now under threat of execution by the good “christian” governments passage of that good “christian” “kill the gays” law?

  • http://127.0.0.1 3lemenope

    Good people do nothing but mumble to themselves for the less fortunate?

    Me, I find it more effective to do things.

  • https://antiavidanime.wordpress.com/ The Other Weirdo

    Good people actually help those less fortunate. They don’t just parrot useless stuff they’ve heard somewhere.

  • CelticWhisper

    I’m not your guy, pal.

  • Cake

    My Meme, you’re using it wrong.

  • WallofSleep

    “That’s exactly the response I’d expect from someone with a weird mix of superiority/victimization complex. But I’m a Christian….”

    Bwahahahaha!

  • White Power Bottom

    You pray for me, and I’ll think for you.

  • Drew M.
  • LesterBallard

    That wasn’t a great movie, but it wasn’t all bad either.

  • Darrell Ross

    I think it is a little late but can we stop feeding the troll?
    http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/5-effective-ways-deal-arrogant-internet-trolls/

  • God’s Starship

    Don’t want an atheist government. Just a secular one. It’s not the same thing. It’s cute that you can parrot the old “State Atheism” talking point, but you really need to know the difference here. Congratulations on a successful threadjacking.

  • Guest

    I was specifically talking about state atheism and its epic fails though.. not secular ones

  • God’s Starship

    Yes. State atheism doesn’t work. No shit, Captain Obvious. Nobody here is advocating for it because we all know it can be no more successful than a theocracy. Surprise! Everybody here agrees with that! This is a Secularist’s blog! So why the fuck are we having this inane conversation instead of discussing Russel Crowe’s shitty new movie?

  • Guest

    How do you know it’s shitty? Don’t assume stuff based on a trailer. It has many Academy Award winning actors and the director is fantastic. Oh, wait, it’s shitty because it’s about God and the Bible… but if it was a movie about nothing coming from nothing and creating dinosaurs then it would be amazing. Har, har.

  • God’s Starship

    Because the profanity is what makes it funny! Geez, do I have to explain everything??????

  • Timothy R Alexander

    Academy award winning actors do not mean an automaticlly successful movie. There has to be good writing, and I dont mean the fact that the story is from the bible, I mean the script still has to sound like real dialog, the interactions between the characters have seem like this is what people would say in this situation, ect. And I dont care how many awards he’s won, Russel Crowe sucks. (my opinion)

  • MerchantMariner

    Rusty has only ever been in two good movies – “Romper Stomper” and “Proof”. Both Australian, neither of them won him an Academy Award – not that they’re any indication of quality.

  • Blacksheep

    This is absolutely an atheist”s blog, not a secular one. Secularists don’t hate Christianity, but many atheists seem to.

  • God’s Starship

    It’s a secular atheist’s blog. Try to keep up. And stop whining.

  • Blacksheep

    Not too hard to keep up – I actually laughed out loud at your “whining” comment based on the content of many of your posts! Generally If it’s not whining it’s self-righteous anger at the impunity of anyone who might have a differing point of view from yours.
    (How does calling it a “secular atheist’s blog” have anything to do with my point that there is hatred of Christianity expressed here?)

  • MerchantMariner

    So? Hatred of non-believers/atheists is also expressed here? Why is the one unacceptable and not the other?

  • Blacksheep

    To me it’s not acceptable, but that wasn’t the original point.

    I was disagreeing with GS that this is a “secular” blog, since secularists (from my experience) aren’t “anti religion” in the same way that atheists sometimes are – and on FA there is hatred for religion and Christianity. (Also the hatred is often expressed by some regulars, which is different than extreme talk by the occasional guest).

  • MerchantMariner

    I think you want to split semantic hairs on this one. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a secular blog as it’s obviously not a religious one. It’s not exclusively an atheist’s blog – it’s not just atheists here post here, is it? And I suspect you meant “impudence” rather than “impunity”.

    But I agree, there is some hatred for religion and Christianity expressed here. Have you ever stopped to consider why that is?

  • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ WMDKitty — Survivor

    Nah, he’s been whinging about it for ages.

  • purr
  • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ WMDKitty — Survivor

    The look on that cat’s face is totally “Whoa”.

    Adorbs!

  • God’s Starship

    Dude.
    Stop. Clogging. Up. My. Disqus.

  • http://www.origin-of-religion.com Ben Andrews

    see my previous post on atheists. You don’t understand much do you, get educated please

  • Kevin R. Cross

    Unlike yourself?

  • Kevin R. Cross

    You have already abrogated your chance to refer to yourself as a civlized human being, by your barbaric support for mass murder.

    Oh, and the communist regimes you so revile? They were not stopped by any Christian nations, but by themselves, in most, or in the case of Cambodia, by other communists.

  • islandbrewer

    They were not stopped by any Christian nations, but by themselves, in most, or in the case of Cambodia, by other communists.

    God obviously favors the People’s Republic of China. They win in population! Take that quiver full movement!

  • RowanVT

    So it’s okay for God to kill a bunch of people, but not for people to kill people. What a glorious double standard you have.

  • LesterBallard

    No, it’s okay for those who believe in god to kill people, because they say god wants it done.

  • Choose_Freewill

    Remember, though, god called for the PEOPLE to carry out the genocide – so, technically, it WAS people killing people… I guess He didn’t have the stomach for it?

  • Guest

    most think God image as human. All religious faith I study even polytheistic faiths see God as everything, save a few; Islamic crazy like Jesus crazy

  • Psycho Gecko

    Well, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson did a fine job of it, to name a couple of people who did.

  • Nox

    So what you’re saying is that you don’t have any principled objection to genocide. You just thought it was a convenient thing to accuse atheists of.

  • Bender

    Most of the genocides were directed at heathen, godless savages, and non-believers, so no, I give Him props, actually.

    So genocide is ok as long as you choose who to kill. Exactly the kind of barbaric stupidty we denounce.

    For now, I thank the Christian nations that have put a stop to atheist regimes.

    Actually, it was secularism that put a stop to religious regimes. For centuries morons like you ruled Europe persecuting and torturing anybody suspicious of not worshipping correctly.

  • Ash Wonderdog

    are you frightened by ancient witchcraft.
    The law of three protection.
    Thrice around circle bound,
    evil evil evil back to the ground.

  • Ash Wonderdog

    sorry

  • MerchantMariner

    According to your beliefs, religious people go to heaven and enjoy eternal life when they die, while all those “heathen, godless savages, and non-believers” are punished by god – so what’s the problem? They just got there a bit quicker than they expected.

    Funny how people who have convinced themselves they’re going to spend eternity with their god when they cark it are strangely reluctant to put it to the test.

  • Bender

    But the genocide and persecution of religious people is okay, right?

    It must be: god commands it all the time in the Old Testament.

  • Without Malice

    The persecution and genocide of religious people has overwhelmingly been perpetrated by those of a different religious belief, not by atheist.

  • WallofSleep

    I doubt anyone would pay top dollar to see a thirty second film.

  • Drew M.

    Isn’t Caligula a close match, then?

  • LesterBallard

    I apologize profusely for engaging this person. Sometimes I can only take so much religious bullshit.

  • WallofSleep

    There was a time when Hollywood turned to filming judeo-christian fables (aka “bible stories”) because that was the only way they could get any kind of sex or violence past the censors.

  • http://www.paulcaggegi.com Paul Caggegi

    Passion of the christ ended too early. Seeing Jesus get up, naked, Terminator style, I really thought he was gonna start kicking some Roman butt. Even the music sounded like the Terminator theme. When it cut to black, I must have been the only one in theatre who yelled “aw what?! That blows!” Cos many an old lady clutched her rosary I can tell you.

  • God’s Starship

    If they’re fun escapist entertainment, so be it. If they work in some relevant social commentary, that’s good too. If it’s just pandering to the Chic Fil A/Duck crowd, count me out. The annoying thing about Passion of Christ was that people basically told me I was duty bound as a Catholic to see this film that looked terribly dull and pretentious. And without the story of the rest of Christ’s life to give it the crucifixion context, it’s just a snuff film and there’s no reason to care. Give me a story.

  • islandbrewer

    Ah, so you must be one of those “anti-Christian” forces that Mel was so paranoid about!

  • Blacksheep

    Whining again GS?

  • God’s Starship

    Um… no I’m not, actually. Why are you obsessing over me? Did I have sex with your mom or something?

    In all seriousness, if your next response to me isn’t germane to the topic, you’re getting flagged for harassment. You don’t get to waste my time.

  • ChristianGuest

    Since this is technically another book-to-film adaption, I’m sure there will be people claiming “This sucks! It isn’t like the book at all!”

    Actually, I think I read somewhere that this Noah film is based on a graphic novel… no one has mentioned the six-armed angels in this film that help Noah build the Ark

  • https://plus.google.com/u/0/+PhillyStudmuffin/posts/p/pub PhillyStudMuffin

    I also doubt that the great flood Hercules cast down on the entire world will not be mentioned, since this story was told way before the bible was even a thought in man’s primitive head.

  • ChristianGuest

    I’m a big fan of Hercules and never heard of that story. Any links I’d love to read them.

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/chidy/ chicago dyke

    the Flood story dates way, way back. to pre-monotheistic religions of the ancient eastern part of the Middle East. Sumerians, Akkadians… several other cultures had it, and the story had different gods, different endings, depending on the version you are reading. the “hercules” part is an ancient greek adaptation of the story of Sumerian gilgamesh; they are often conflated as “really strong heroes on a quest” type figures. in several of them, the gods flood the world because people are… really annoying.

    some suggest that the factual basis for the flood story has to do with when there was a drastically fast expansion of an ancient lake, due to barriers between it and the ocean breaking.

  • ChristianGuest

    Yes I know about those Flood stories and Gilgamesh. Every culture on earth seems to have some version of the Flood. I had just never heard of the Hercules flood story because I guess it is not up there with the 12 labors. Why or how does he cause the world to be flooded?

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/chidy/ chicago dyke

    afaik the only flooding Heracles was responsible for was in the Augean Stables, but that isn’t my area of expertise so i’ll let greek scholars weigh in.

  • ChristianGuest

    Yes that’s the one I was thinking of

  • Kevin R. Cross

    There is a Greek “great flood” story, but I’d never heard it associated with Hercules. The one I know has the survivors making it to the tops of hills and mountains and waiting it out.
    There was a massive flooding event in the eastern Mediterranean Basin in prehistory – that’s probably where all these stories originate.

  • randomfactor

    A friend of mine (Jewish) saw part of “Passion of the Christ.” She mostly lost interest when she realized the Aramaic was cribbed mainly from the Haggadah, out of context. Kind of like making a foreign film in which the “English-speaking” character, in answer to a question about his age, answers “Four score and seven years.”

    Me, I never saw it. Not into snuff porn…probably will avoid the Noah movie for the same reason.

  • mywall

    “rescue mankind from the Great Flood”
    Isn’t this the maximum amount that you can miss the point by? Been I while since I tried to read this tripe but I thought the flood was meant to genocide most of humanity.

  • JethroElfman

    I want some Noah posters with evil-god one liners.
    “The God of Love has had enough”
    “No more Mr. Nice God”
    “Death to all who won’t worship the almighty God”
    “God loses it”

  • Aerial View

    You must throw in Jesus’ “I’ll be back!”

  • Matt

    Kinda what I was thinking when watching the trailer. So a group of roughly thousands of people come to try to get on Noah’s Ark so they don’t die horribly and are cast down by god’s super Earth/Water jets? How very christian of him. Die you evil people who want only to live your lives, I disagree with the way you live!

  • newavocation

    When does the Adam and Eve movie come out? Could be a block buster too. Nasty snake, pissed off god and blue lagoon type sex scenes.

  • Raising_Rlyeh

    “he’s the prophet the Jews deserve, but not the one that they need”

    Damn it, you owe me a new keyboard.

  • # zbowman

    I don’t know if anyone else has read the second Science Of Discworld book, so I don’t know if this’ll resonate with anyone else, but there’s a marvellous section in there about how portraying things in theatrical productions, or movies, or whatever can seriously dent the way people believe in them anyway. It’s like how some writers (of books or radio productions) refuse TV adaptations – they don’t want actors, with all their human foibles and fallibilities, so inexorably tied to their creations because in a way it’ll stop being the character and start being the actor.

    If (for some reason) I ended up seeing this Noah thing, other than to laugh at the memory of how Hurricane Sandy *sank its ark prop*, then I won’t be thinking of Noah. I’ll be thinking of Maximus Decimus Meridius: father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife, who will have his vengeance in this life or the next.

  • viaten

    I’m not holding out much hope they will include God saying “I regret my creation.”, Noah getting drunk and naked, cursing his grandson because Noah’s son, Ham, sees him naked, etc.

  • SirReal

    As long as Crowe doesn’t sing, it can’t be all bad.

  • Christopher Griswold

    Crowe was surprisingly good with his singing in Les Miserables. Hugh Jackman, on the other hand, was surprisingly bad.

  • Grotoff

    This confuses me. You are presumably deaf. Or prefer to grade a curve more severe than the Code of Hammurabi.

  • SirReal

    Jackman was EXCELLENT with his singing in Les Miserables because he is a singer and dancer from way back. Crowe, on the other hand, couldn’t carry a tune in a covered bucket. It was a shameful delivery of every note he sang and pulled me out of the story every time he opened his mouth.

  • Christopher Griswold

    Jackman was terrible where I expected him to be great and Crowe was passable where I expected him to be unbearable. Colm Wilkinson’s appearance as the Bishop only made Jackman’s performance more painful. Wilkinson has been the quintessential Valjean for a long time.

  • MerchantMariner

    Listen to anything by 30 Odd Foot of Grunts, then tell me Rusty can sing.

  • Aerial View

    The bulk of believers lack the intellectual curiosity to distinguish fact from fiction. If they think the book is accurate history, they’ll tout the movies as documentaries. The only good part will be when rival factions start in on what the real TRUTH is. At least it will give them an excuse to attend an “R” rated film. Of course, if they adhere to tradition they’ll believe in the films without actually ever seeing them.

  • EdmondWherever

    As long as they get the same treatment examining their plot holes as Prometheus did…

  • duke_of_omnium

    I’m waiting for Jephtha’s Daughter, with Kevin Costner as Jephtha, and Lindsay Lohan as the daughter (but is she a good enough actress to say “bewail my virginity” with a straight face?)

  • Camorris

    The final scene of this trailer shows the arc being enveloped forcefully on both port and starboard sides by huge waves. This would certainly be devastating to a ship made out of wood.
    But this got me to wondering – how could a ship like this could have been constructed during the late stone age / early bronze age?

  • Kengi

    Ships using all wood construction were, indeed, limited in size based upon the maximum strength of the best woods available. That’s why there wasn’t a huge increase in ship size until iron and steel were used.

    The maximum length for an all wooden hull was generally considered to be 250 feet without using iron reinforcing of some kind. (From “Marine Engineering/Log,” 1916). That was considered a “best practices” maximum, and was exceeded using modern construction techniques in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s.

    The largest all wooden ship without using iron to reinforce the hull was probably the Wyoming with a 350′ x 50′ hull, and an overall length of 450′.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_(schooner)

    Of course the Wyoming could have been built larger if only they had used a structural integrity field like the starship Enterprise, or magic tree fairy reinforcing bolts like Noah must have had access to.

  • midnight rambler

    Plus, modern shipbuilders don’t have access to gopherwood like Noah did. I mean, who knows what that was like? Probably stronger than iron!

  • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ WMDKitty — Survivor

    What the ever-loving fuck is “gopherwood”?

  • midnight rambler

    It’s what God tells Noah to make the Ark out of, in Gen 6:14:

    Make yourself an ark of gopher wood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and out with pitch.

    Actually, looking at the dictionary-annotated version, it seems to be a direct transliteration of the Hebrew because no one knows what it really means, rather than any kind of reference to some kind of large rodent; it says “gôpher From an unused root, probably meaning to house in; a kind of tree or wood (as used for building), apparently the cypress: – gopher.”

    ETA: I see the ISV translates it as “cedar” and the LITV (supposedly literal) and Modern KJV as “cyprus” (not cypress, kind of odd), but all others I have still say “gopher wood”.

  • MerchantMariner

    Cedar would make sense, at least for planking the hull. The cypress I’m familar with is red cypress, which soaks very readily.

  • MerchantMariner

    Sorry, I was a bit slow to realise you were being facetious. I was going to respond by writing; “As strong and durable as some timbers are, none are stronger than iron.”

    And no matter what it was built with, there’s no way I’d put to sea in anything that remotely resembled the monstrosity portrayed in this movie.

  • MerchantMariner

    I can just imagine how prone to hogging the Wyoming would have been. Presumably the pumps were constantly in use. Which makes me wonder who manned the pumps on Noah’s putative ark? :)

  • Lando

    Why do you think god made elephants? Grass powered bilge pumps.

  • MerchantMariner

    Haha! Never thought of that. :)

    And to think of all the time I’ve wasted faffing around with cranky Weir pumps when all I needed was Jumbo!

  • http://www.theaunicornist.com Mike D

    Just FYI… the director’s cut of Kingdom of Heaven is considered by many to be among Scott’s best movies. The theatrical version is completely bastardized.

  • Lagerbaer

    Why is there no David vs Goliath blockbuster yet, given that it’s such a widely used trope?

  • purr

    Yeah, I am atheist to the bone but I enjoy blockbuster religious movies. They are fun. Crazy stories etc.

  • XJ5

    The’re trying very hard to fan the flames of some sort of Religious-Revival in the 21st Century,before the flames of religion eventually burns out.

  • NG

    I don’t think I could watch any of these movies without a Rifftrax. Even with would be difficult.

  • Miss_Beara

    Noah looks awful and it has nothing to do with the bible.

  • ChristianGuest

    What makes it look awful? The Academy Award winning actors who will know doubt give wonderful performances?

  • Conuly

    The buttonholes on the clothing. Buttonholes weren’t invented until relatively recently.

  • David Evans

    Nonsense. The knowledge of buttonholes, along with much else, was lost in the Tower of Babel episode.

  • Miss_Beara

    Because it is a cgi fest with my least favorite actor Russell Crowe? And because all of the other films Aronofsky directed were great and modestly budgeted and this looks like he didn’t know when to quit?

    See, I can respond in questions too.

  • Timothy R Alexander

    Sorry but first you mean “no doubt”. Second, Russel Crowe is involved so I do doubt.

  • guest

    Bunch of white dudes pretending to be jews. Although I guess, technically, jews hadn’t been invented yet, but if Noah and his family are the ancestors of everyone, they should really have darker skin, because otherwise they wouldn’t have the genes necessary for the variation we see today.

    I think I prefer the Fantasia 2000 version.

    I’m kind of depressed by this trend. I just don’t understand why anyone would want to see a film about Noah, when we all know how it goes. I feel the same about most other bible stories; they’ve kind of been in the background of my culture all the time I was growing up and I’m bored of them now.

  • ChristianGuest

    What’s wrong with whites playing Jews? It’s acting.

  • RowanVT

    Because maybe it would be nice to see some of the other colors of humanity once in a while, rather than a giant sea of pale, especially when the people being portrayed aren’t a shade of pasty?

  • Aspieguy

    I saw part of the Passion, and I have no wish to see it again. It was a horrible, bloody, and violent film with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

  • Richard Thomas

    I know it’s been awhile, but somebody should call up Mike, Tom, and Crow.

  • Timothy R Alexander

    “It means that the religious right will be able to point to these big
    movies and say, see, the American public is hungry for God and Jesus.” To late, I heard them saying that on “Fox News” “The Five” yesterday while I was working.

  • https://www.youtube.com/user/damekellen/ Dame Kellen

    I like the idea of these movies really putting into context the SHEER INSANITY that is the Christian holy book. Somebody who’s never quite thought about why they believe what they do getting a little bitty seed of doubt planted in them, either at the movie itself or when faced with a critique of it pointing out that so much of it makes no sense.

  • Keyra

    I’m no literalist when it comes to the first half of Genesis, but using the word “fantasy” over and over again, doesn’t make it untrue

  • Guest

    Everyone’s mad because there’s no good atheist movies

  • RowanVT

    Someone hasn’t seen The Hobbit, I guess.

  • midnight rambler

    They’re not really in The Hobbit, but the Ainur of Tolkien’s world are basically gods, and the Maiar demigods/angels/demons.

  • islandbrewer

    Don’t forget that Gandalf and Sauron (the “Necromancer”) are Maiar, too.

  • midnight rambler

    IIRC, the Balrog is as well.

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    There’s a lot of good secular movies, though, where the existence or lack thereof of a deity is completely irrelevant to the plot of the movie.

  • allein

    I prefer the term “mythology.”

  • Ian Reide

    I am inclined to say, not too much influence. Bib movies will be fighting for screen space with Marvel and Thor. It will also provide an opportunity for these beliefs to be questioned in public.

  • Pofarmer

    I’m a little taken aback by the really hateful theist rhetoric permiating quite a few different blogs.

  • IDP

    I guess the script was first published as a French-language comic book called Noé: Pour la cruauté des hommes, and what I’ve seen of it way so has more of a sci-fi/fantasy feel than a sword-and-sandal feel. Which might alienate audiences looking for a Bible docu-drama, but might make it far more entertaining AS a sci-fi/fantasy film. Or they may just edit the crap out of what may be a good comic book (I’m not fluent enough to read it) so they can have it both ways.

  • rich_bown

    Just having a movie about Noah means that the story is there for discussion. And there is no win for it. Either they say “its totally accurate according to the bible” in which case no way not possible, or its “based on the bible story” because, you know, no way that’s even possible. Just more ammo for the discussion of how the bible is not an account of history.

  • Ash Wonderdog

    Before I understood allegory, I use to questioned how Noah, got the lions,tigers,and bears from eating all the other animals? Incuding Noah and family!

  • rich_bown

    Allegory is one thing but there are those who still teach that the story is historically true! This gives such people more fuel.

  • Ash Wonderdog

    This is going to help

  • rich_bown

    Hope so,

  • Psycho Gecko

    Russel Crowe as an enlightened father figure privy to knowledge that the world is about to end and who takes steps to ensure the survival of his family and, as a result, his species in a story that involves an unrealistic craft carrying the survivor to safety that eventually sets up a story of a godlike supernatural being that is considered at least partially human and who makes his powers known to the world at age 33.

    What, they’re already remaking Man of Steel?

  • Dale Snyder

    Oh come on! No True Christian will attend any of these shows, as Hollywood is all about teh GAYZ!

  • Ash Wonderdog

    Trying to make it work?

  • Randy Meyer

    I always say to people… the Bible is full of great stories. But then again, so are DC and Marvel comics, Grimm’s Fairy Tales, the Harry Potter books and many other works of fiction that have provided lots of entertaining movies.

  • Ash Wonderdog

    I need you to swear to that on a stack of Harry Potter books!
    Or I’ll bust out my voodoo doll!

  • Randy Meyer

    I prefer Superman comics to be my bible. He has been resurrected more often than Jesus.

  • https://docs.google.com/document/d/1al-RuUEVxHk3ldQQC8o0U5ES3T7MfnmxdaKjVAl0Zzc/pub Angra Mainyu

    I wouldn’t mind it (in fact, I would really like the idea) if they actually respected the biblical description.

    So, for example, Moses would gather a mob, and then he and his mob would stone a man to death for working on a Sabbath, after receiving a direct command from Yahweh to do so; it would be interesting to see Christian Bale’s take on the character, as he’s throwing the stones at the man who worked on the Sabbath.

    Additionally, Moses would relay Yahweh’s laws, including for example the command to stone a woman to death if she happens not to have the “tokens of her virginity” in her wedding night…which is the night after she’s handed over to the man his father chose to give her to (regardless of whether she wants to marry him or not), or the command that if a woman does not cry hard enough when raped (maybe she was too scared), and she had been “pledged” to a man (not necessarily by her choice), then she’s to be stoned to death…and things like that.

    I would like that because characters like Moses would be clearly recognized as villains by the vast majority of viewers. Overlooking their immoral behavior described in the Bible is easier when it’s just written in passages most people don’t pay attention to; it’s much more difficult when you see that in a movie.

    Unfortunately, I have no hope of that happening. That’s why I do not like these movies. It’s because they make the villains look like good guys, by means of ignoring all of the events in which they show they’re monsters (obviously, the writers of the Bible did not realize that, but most of today’s audiences probably would, at least in many countries, including the US).

    If the stories actually matched the biblical description, they would be movies of villains vs. villains, torturing and/or murdering their victims, and then also fighting each other. Sounds like fun, and more importantly, it would actually get many people to know much of what the Bible actually says, but which is not often highlighted.

    But given the way I expect the movies to be done, they might end up promoting these characters as some ancient heroes (even if there is no claim that they were real), rather than showing that the Bible describes villains, even if the writers were confused and believed to be describing heroes.

  • Guest

    Trust me, Everyone will be diserviced by thinking Their knowledge of this millenias worth of the telephone game. Dumbed down bibles and not to mention the erased history catholics stole from the world. To make Their word Gods and water down after just crazyness. It is no wonder the bible sounds like a bunch of drunks wrote it!

  • Mike De Fleuriot

    If torrent freak does not say a movie is popular then I will take it as read that it is not popular.
    http://torrentfreak.com/top-10-most-pirated-movies-of-the-week-131223/

  • Without Malice

    Noah had an adopted daughter? There’s nothing in the bible about that. But, what the hell, it’s all fiction anyway and I’m sure the original copyright has expired by now so the film-maker can change it in any way he wants. Maybe in this version Noah will save a bunch of innocent children too, instead of just the animals. That would be an improvement.

  • bananafaced

    I’m ok with it as long as it’s labeled ‘fantasy’!

  • johzek

    How many people were alive at the time this mythical flood occurred? Was it hundreds of thousands or millions or tens of millions, whatever the total, as long as the gruesome deaths of these people is shown in sufficient detail, at least some good can be said to have come from the production of the movie. But I think this aspect of the story will be downplayed.

  • ginalex

    Are any of these movies going to attempt to tell the truth? Of course they can’t because no one really knows what the truth is, but are any of them going to be realistic? Yeah, I know, not likely. I wonder if Noah will tell the story about how his son saw him sleeping naked after getting drunk and then demanded that his son’s son be a servant for the rest of his life. That was a hoot of a story.

  • B.

    I don’t give a damn if these turn out to be “epic” films. I think it’s still garbage and I won’t be seeing any of them. The bible is not a good story. Putting these myths on the big screen is just reinforcement in the minds of others that these events might just have taken place in actual history. Is there any effort to make it clear that it’s “just movie”? Even if the film doesn’t appear to have any proselytizing agenda, the fact that it was made at all tells me that there are still plenty of gullible saps who either believe this bullshit or would pay to watch it at the movies.

    In addition to being bullshit, i find the bible to be incredibly boring and archaically barbaric. Is Hollywood really this devoid of any actual talent? Can no one come up with an original idea anymore? Studios don’t want to take the risk anymore making unconventional new forms of cinema… instead they are just falling back on exploiting their demographic just to make a buck. In this case, christians.

  • Thatonegirl

    Will Smith and Cain and Abel? No thanks. None of these look very promising. I think that Hollywood is overplaying the whole thing and trying to extend its hands to a certain audience that would get defensive over anything so they end up just playing it safe. I’m Christian and I have almost no interest in seeing Passion either. Christian movies are just ugh I don’t know, but I have a hard time sitting through them with a straight face.

  • lulu

    Movie looks lame as fuck. Greek mythology makes for better movies. And I guess they show the animals all happy next to each other as if being under gods spell. If he’s so powerful why not just have them appear inside the ship? lol Anyways I won’t be torrenting this one.

  • Bernadette

    The first time I read the bible I thought – wow that was the most violent book I ever read, it would make great movie, if Hollywood actually showed what the bible really says. I wish they would make a movie from the book an Job and the book of Judges those are great stories. Full of violence, god making a bet with the devil and killing all of Jobs family just to prove a point. Great stuff just waiting for Hollywood.

  • Tyler Beal

    Moses again? with Christian Bale? Brad Pitt as Pilate? Ughh. The resurrection and the Exodus has been done to death.

    Let’s be original. How about a movie that follows most of the book of Joshua as the Israelites destroy and anihilate Philistines across… (gulp) Palestine?

    You could have lots of shields and costumes and big sweeping epic shots of a Joshua marching his huge army across the Jordan… with a score by Hans Zimmer that would bring you to tears.

    You could even take a few creative liberties and make it an allegory for the modern Apartheid Israel..

  • Ryan Hite

    They look absolutely epic! Got to love fantasy special effects.

  • unbound55

    The first time I saw the Noah trailer, I thought (initially) that this was the next Percy Jackson movie. Keep getting my mythologies mixed up…

  • Elizabeth

    I don’t remember the bible passage talking about Noah adopting anybody…

  • AlanMorlock

    That Noah movie will almost certainly piss off religious folk. Word on the street is that it is actually set in the far future. Plus there are giant six armed wingless angels and battle scenes.