Movie starring Richard Dawkins bombs at box office

_{Salvador Cordova

February 26, 2014

Atheism, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

This was such a non-news item at the time because the movie bombed so badly most didn’t even realize there was a movie. It hit theaters November 29, 2013.

‘The Unbelievers,’ With Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss on a triple-continent series of public engagements, Gus Holwerda’s unforgivably superficial documentary is too busy drooling over its subjects to flesh out their body of work.
…
Too slight to persuade, “The Unbelievers” is also too poorly made to entertain. The rational roots of atheism deserve a much better movie than this.

Total Worldwide Gross = $14,000 😯

HT Mike Gene

Comments

LarTanner writes,
Dawkins gets serious death threats and the most vile hate mail regularly — mostly, it seems, from the good Christian people of the world. To walk around without 24-hr protection should meet anyone’s definition of courageous.
Hyperbole much?
I have to ask, since it comes up so often: Why do you like to say that atheism is a religion? Is it so that you can say “See, we all belong to some religion”?
I don't think it is a religion. It's a philosophical worldview that posits the absence of god(s). The American Heritage College Dictionary describes it as "the doctrine that there is no God or gods."Barb_{February 27, 2014
February
02
Feb
27
27
2014
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

Dionisio, no need for any of that...all you need is faith and a whole load of imagination :)humbled_{February 27, 2014
February
02
Feb
27
27
2014
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

Please, don't show me more fossil bones. Show me the beef! I want to see logical description explaining where the whole specified/functional/prescriptive bio information processing systems came from? How did it happen?Dionisio_{February 27, 2014
February
02
Feb
27
27
2014
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT}

Give me a break! I've heard we humans use only 10% of our brain capacity? Looking at what is said and written out there I get the feeling we use less than 1% :( Now seriously, where is the detailed (valid, reasonable) description of how this whole systems biology thing came up to be? How the elaborate mind-boggling choreographies observed in systems biology came to be? Can we get serious and stick to the issues? This seems like a great time to be interested in science, because the amount of data coming out of research labs is delightful (assuming it is not fraud, as it sometimes appear to be). But I get the impression that many times the new information provided by the ongoing research answers some questions, but then it raises new ones. It's simply fascinating. Kind of like a never-ending story? :)Dionisio_{February 27, 2014
February
02
Feb
27
27
2014
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT}

why is this debate still going? Don’t people see the overwhelming amount of literature describing, at the most accurate level, all the details of how we got from the primordial soup to the myriad of mechanisms for epigenetics regulatory networks, multiple ‘omics pathways, signaling pathways, cell fate determination/differentiation mapping at any stage (from gametogenesis, through embryonic development, all the way to adulthood and the end of life), and the whole nine yards with their cousins? Just go and look around, to see all the detailed step-by-step description of how things happened. Then most probably all will agree that the discussion is over and the whole issue has been settled. Right?
...forgot genotype-to-phenotype association/mapping, protein 3D folding mechanisms, DNA repair mechanisms, etc. Plenty of literature. All abundantly described to the minimal detail, showing the nitty-gritty of every mechanism and its origin. Did I leave anything out? All has been beautifully documented, so now we know exactly how it all came to be. It's just that simple. Hence, the debate is over, isn't it?Dionisio_{February 27, 2014
February
02
Feb
27
27
2014
02:25 AM
2
02
25
AM
PDT}

why is this debate still going? Don't people see the overwhelming amount of literature describing, at the most accurate level, all the details of how we got from the primordial soup to the myriad of mechanisms for epigenetics regulatory networks, multiple 'omics pathways, signaling pathways, cell fate determination/differentiation mapping at any stage (from gametogenesis, through embryonic development, all the way to adulthood and the end of life), and the whole nine yards with their cousins? Just go and look around, to see all the detailed step-by-step description of how things happened. Then most probably all will agree that the discussion is over and the whole issue has been settled. Right?Dionisio_{February 27, 2014
February
02
Feb
27
27
2014
02:14 AM
2
02
14
AM
PDT}

Dawkins and Kruass bomb in 2013, but Hollywood Declares 2014 year of the Bible
Russell Crowe is Noah. Christian Bale is Moses. Brad Pitt is Pontius Pilate. With pages of action and a faithful fanbase, Hollywood is mining the good book for blockbuster stories. Pop quiz: How many of the top 15 highest-U.S.-grossing movies of all time—adjusted for inflation—star comic-book characters? Answer: Zero. And how many are based on the Bible? Answer: Two. In the late 1950s, The Ten Commandments and Ben-Hur teamed up for $1.795 billion in adjusted domestic ticket sales. That's more than Avatar, The Dark Knight, and Transformers combined. Which may explain, at least in part, why the movie industry seems—unofficially, of course—to have declared 2014 The Year of the Bible. Over the next 11 months, Hollywood is planning to release more big Biblical movies than it put out during the previous 11 years combined, and the trend shows no sign of slowing down in 2015 (or beyond). For an industry that spent much of the 2000s shying away from explicitly religious fare—the controversy over the alleged anti-Semitism of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ effectively wiped out the genre, despite the film's huge box office receipts—it's a remarkable about-face that's as surprising as it is sudden. Consider the 2014 release schedule. On Feb. 28, Twentieth Century Fox is first out of the gate with Son of God, a Jesus biopic culled from the History Channel's hit 2013 miniseries The Bible. (A Bible sequel titled A.D. is set to air next year on NBC.) Paramount is up next in March with Noah, director Darren Aronofsky's epic re-imagining of the life of the Old Testament's most famous ark-builder (played by Russell Crowe). Debuting in April is Heaven is for Real, starring Greg Kinnear as the father of a boy who claims to have passed through the pearly gates during a near-death experience, and both the Mother of God drama Mary (Ben Kingsley, Julia Ormond) and Ridley Scott's Exodus (Christian Bale, Aaron Paul) follow in December, right in time for awards season.
Does this mean I think the USA or world is becoming more religious. What I see is polarization with the middle slowly disappearing. So there will be a large market for Bible dramas.scordova_{February 26, 2014
February
02
Feb
26
26
2014
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

I started a thread on the Noah movie. The 2nd trailer looks promising. https://uncommondescent.com/creationism/amended-trailer-for-creationist-movie-starring-russel-crowe-in-theaters-march-28-2014/scordova_{February 26, 2014
February
02
Feb
26
26
2014
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

A new movie is due out in theaters March 21, 2014 on the existence of God. Looks quite good. God’s Not Dead Let’s see how it compares to Dick and Larry’s movie.
And the creationist movie Noah starring Russel Crowe on March 28, 2014. They say the movie will have some battle scenes and they wanted a little Gladiator in the movie. The original novel from which it was based had six-winged cherubs or seraphs plus Nehphilim. We'll see what this movie has in store. Contrary to some initial claims, it seems some are saying the movie will be generally faithful to the biblical account. One thing that seems wrong however is Noah have a battle with someone name Methuselah. :shock:scordova_{February 26, 2014
February
02
Feb
26
26
2014
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

A new movie is due out in theaters March 21, 2014 on the existence of God. Looks quite good. God's Not Dead Let's see how it compares to Dick and Larry's movie.RexTugwell_{February 26, 2014
February
02
Feb
26
26
2014
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

Dawkins gets serious death threats and the most vile hate mail regularly — mostly, it seems, from the good Christian people of the world. To walk around without 24-hr protection should meet anyone’s definition of courageous.
What's the evidence Dawkins gets death threats and 'the most vile hate mail' regularly? It had best not be testimony, since that happens to be a form of evidence Gnu atheists repeatedly regard as invalid.
And, off-topic but interesting: what do y’all make of the organization American Atheists getting “Expelled” from CPAC? I assume you oppose this strongly.
CPAC - the Conservative Political Action Conference. Will you be arguing, Larry, that American Atheists is a conservative organization that was there because AA's views sincerely align with conservatives'?nullasalus_{February 26, 2014
February
02
Feb
26
26
2014
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

LarTanner, Personally, I like the Dawk. Can't say I have the same regard for Larry Moran. Salscordova_{February 26, 2014
February
02
Feb
26
26
2014
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

Dawkins gets serious death threats and the most vile hate mail regularly -- mostly, it seems, from the good Christian people of the world. To walk around without 24-hr protection should meet anyone's definition of courageous. I have to ask, since it comes up so often: Why do you like to say that atheism is a religion? Is it so that you can say "See, we all belong to some religion"? And, off-topic but interesting: what do y'all make of the organization American Atheists getting "Expelled" from CPAC? I assume you oppose this strongly.LarTanner_{February 26, 2014
February
02
Feb
26
26
2014
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

The other strong undercurrent of Dawkins and company is that they love to proclaim how courageous they are to be out and about battling religion. The word "courage" came up, as it so often does with these guys, in the trailer. As though the materialistic worldview isn't the overtly dominant view in academia, science journals, professional organizations. As if. It takes a whole lot more courage to be a Sternberg or an Axe or a Gonzalez than it does to be a Dawkins, with the latter pandering to the materialistic establishment, making a wildly-prosperous living peddling the atheistic worldview. Look, I understand the draw of atheism, the draw of answering to no-one, the temptation of thinking you are on the side of objective "science". But let's not pretend it is a demonstration of great "courage" to be out there making a ton of $ and getting regular accolades from everyone from the atheist societies to the scientific institutions to NPR and other media, being nearly worshiped as a modern atheistic prophet. It is not courage.Eric Anderson_{February 26, 2014
February
02
Feb
26
26
2014
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

He says it gives him permission to question everything. Great. When he gets around to questioning evolution his life will be changed forever.TimT_{February 26, 2014
February
02
Feb
26
26
2014
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

""The ‘rational roots of atheism’ deserve a much better movie than this."" The problem with this statement is that there is no rationalism in atheism lolwallstreeter43_{February 26, 2014
February
02
Feb
26
26
2014
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

footnotes:
Why No One (Can) Believe Atheism/Naturalism to be True - video Excerpt: "Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life." Richard Dawkins - quoted from "The God Delusion" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4QFsKevTXs Not the God of the Gaps, But the Whole Show Excerpt: Krauss does not seem to realize that his concept of God is one that no intelligent monotheist would accept. His "God" is the soft-target "God of the gaps" of the "I can't understand it, therefore God did it" variety. As a result, Krauss, like Dawkins and Hawking, regards God as an explanation in competition with scientific explanation. That is as wrong-headed as thinking that an explanation of a Ford car in terms of Henry Ford as inventor and designer competes with an explanation in terms of mechanism and law. God is not a "God of the gaps", he is God of the whole show. http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-god-particle-not-the-god-of-the-gaps-but-the-whole-show-80307/
Verse and Music:
John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. Alison Krauss - There Is A Reason http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWXNm9b6pKs
bornagain77_{February 26, 2014
February
02
Feb
26
26
2014
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT}

Then how does the scientific atheist pretend to have a 'rational basis' in which to practice science? Well, by importing faulty Theological presuppositions into their 'rational basis' of science
Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil by Cornelius G. Hunter - book Excerpt: Joining the ranks of Philip Johnson and Michael Behe, Cornelius G. Hunter,,, shows how Darwin's theological concerns-particularly his inability to reconcile a loving, all-powerful God with the cruelty, waste, and quandaries of nature-led him to develop the theory of evolution.,,, http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-God-Evolution-Problem-Evil/dp/1587430118 The Descent of Darwin – Pastor Joe Boot – (The Theodicy of Darwinism) – article http://www.ezrainstitute.ca/ezrainstitute_ca/bank/pageimages/jubilee_2010_spring.pdf Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning - Paul A. Nelson - Biology and Philosophy, 1996, Volume 11, Number 4, Pages 493-517 Excerpt: Evolutionists have long contended that the organic world falls short of what one might expect from an omnipotent and benevolent creator. Yet many of the same scientists who argue theologically for evolution are committed to the philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism, which maintains that theology has no place in science. Furthermore, the arguments themselves are problematical, employing concepts that cannot perform the work required of them, or resting on unsupported conjectures about suboptimality. Evolutionary theorists should reconsider both the arguments and the influence of Darwinian theological metaphysics on their understanding of evolution. http://www.springerlink.com/content/n3n5415037038134/?MUD=MP Dr. Seuss Biology | Origins with Dr. Paul A. Nelson - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVx42Izp1ek
i.e. 'Rational Atheism', since it has no rigid empirical/mathematical basis in which to truly be 'rational/scientific' in the first place, erects a 'Strawman' version of God, pronouncing on how God should and should not act in the world, and then atheists knock down that strawman version so as to make it falsely appear that atheism has a 'rational basis'. The 'rational basis' of Atheism is all illusion based on the hubris of man thinking he knows better than God how to run the universe! The trouble with all this is, of course, the evidence from mathematics, reality, and biology itself, keeps testifying against the atheist's worldview:
Mathematics and Physics – A Happy Coincidence? – William Lane Craig – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/9826382 1. If God did not exist the applicability of mathematics would be a happy coincidence. 2. The applicability of mathematics is not a happy coincidence. 3. Therefore, God exists. Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism - By Bruce L Gordon: Excerpt: Because quantum theory is thought to provide the bedrock for our scientific understanding of physical reality, it is to this theory that the materialist inevitably appeals in support of his worldview. But having fled to science in search of a safe haven for his doctrines, the materialist instead finds that quantum theory in fact dissolves and defeats his materialist understanding of the world. http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbscience.aspx?pageid=8589952939 To Model the Simplest Microbe in the World, You Need 128 Computers - July 2012 Excerpt: Mycoplasma genitalium has one of the smallest genomes of any free-living organism in the world, clocking in at a mere 525 genes. That's a fraction of the size of even another bacterium like E. coli, which has 4,288 genes.,,, ,,the depth and breadth of cellular complexity has turned out to be nearly unbelievable, and difficult to manage, even given Moore's Law. The M. genitalium model required 28 subsystems to be individually modeled and integrated, and many critics of the work have been complaining on Twitter that's only a fraction of what will eventually be required to consider the simulation realistic.,,, http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/to-model-the-simplest-microbe-in-the-world-you-need-128-computers/260198/
Thus I agree whole-heartedly "The rational roots of atheism deserve a much better movie than this."bornagain77_{February 26, 2014
February
02
Feb
26
26
2014
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT}

I'm sure they can scrounge up enough money to get Lawrence a nice red foam clown nose to match his red sneakers. Atheist total fail!Phil2232_{February 26, 2014
February
02
Feb
26
26
2014
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT}

The 'rational roots of atheism' deserve a much better movie than this.
Amen! Since neo-Darwinism has no 'rational basis' in mathematics and empirical evidence so as to differentiate itself from a pseudo-science,,,
Darwinian Evolution is a Pseudo-Science - Part II https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/edit Is evolution pseudoscience? Excerpt:,,, Thus, of the ten characteristics of pseudoscience listed in the Skeptic’s Dictionary, evolution meets nine. Few other pseudosciences - astrology, astral projection, alien abduction, crystal power, or whatever — would meet so many. http://creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience
And since science itself cannot even have a 'rational basis' without Theistic metaphysics,,,
"Refuting Naturalism by Citing our own Consciousness" Dr. Alvin Plantinga - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r34AIo-xBh8 "Modern science was conceived, and born, and flourished in the matrix of Christian theism. Only liberal doses of self-deception and double-think, I believe, will permit it to flourish in the context of Darwinian naturalism." ~ Alvin Plantinga Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer - video – (Notes in description) http://vimeo.com/32145998 Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable? - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS_CQnmoLQ The Great Debate: Does God Exist? - Justin Holcomb - (Presuppositional apologetics) audio of the 1985 Greg Bahnsen debate available at the bottom of the site Excerpt: The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist worldview cannot account for our debate tonight.,,, http://justinholcomb.com/2012/01/17/the-great-debate-does-god-exist/ “If you do not assume the law of non-contradiction, you have nothing to argue about. If you do not assume the principles of sound reason, you have nothing to argue with. If you do not assume libertarian free will, you have no one to argue against. If you do not assume morality to be an objective commodity, you have no reason to argue in the first place.” - William J Murray
bornagain77_{February 26, 2014
February
02
Feb
26
26
2014
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT}

"That's what I get from these guys, the permission to question everything"...haha yeah sure. As long as we don't question their materialistic worldview you mean. Dawkins is a cult leader with a small but vocal following, nothing more.humbled_{February 26, 2014
February
02
Feb
26
26
2014
02:41 AM
2
02
41
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply