Anyone Seen The Documentary "The God Who Wasn't There" ?

Started by Warhorse, March 09, 2013, 11:22:31 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Warhorse

For those of you who have not seen The God Who Wasn't There, I highly recommend it. The film focuses on Christianity's early days and how it spread. More importantly, the filmmaker interviews Christians, and we see just how little they actually know about their own religion. They seem blissfully unaware.

My hope is for those who have seen this film to tell me what they thought of it, and for those who have not seen it, to watch it and join the discussion. I promise you won't be disappointed with this film.

Philosophos

It's been a while, but I was highly disappointed by it. It repeated the usual flimsy faux parallels between Jesus and other gods taken from the debunked "Worlds 16 Crucified Saviors" and other really bad sources that just kinda make stuff up and mixed it with generic hero narrative stuff which is so vague you could pretty much shoehorn anything into it.

I'm not a mythicist, but Earl Dougherty, Richard Carrier, and Robert Price make more coherent cases for a mythical Christ without getting their facts just plain wrong.

(and, yes, I'm aware some of those people were in the movie - but their full arguments weren't presented)

Don't get me wrong: the historical argument against Christianity is quite strong. You can look at the history of its development to see clearly that there's no divine inspiration; just a bunch of people riffing off their cultural influences and coming up with theology through political power plays and consensus through debate. You don't need to make up stuff to see that Christianity was highly influenced by Stoicism, Neoplatonism, and Judaism (which was in turn influenced by Persia & Babylonia) and that persecution of opposing sects, co-option of their rituals, and appealing to the poor masses helped it spread. But none of this directly implies no historical Jesus - that requires a separate argument. One that the God Who Wasn't There really didn't deliver on. It instead just repeated some factual errors.
Quote from: \"Smartmarzipan\"I hate people. And so should you. \":D\"

Warhorse

Quote from: "Philosophos"It's been a while, but I was highly disappointed by it. It repeated the usual flimsy faux parallels between Jesus and other gods taken from the debunked "Worlds 16 Crucified Saviors" and other really bad sources that just kinda make stuff up and mixed it with generic hero narrative stuff which is so vague you could pretty much shoehorn anything into it.

I'm not a mythicist, but Earl Dougherty, Richard Carrier, and Robert Price make more coherent cases for a mythical Christ without getting their facts just plain wrong.

(and, yes, I'm aware some of those people were in the movie - but their full arguments weren't presented)

Faux parallels? And what makes you say that? What makes you think it's fake? It's usually the religious folks that make those claims. I'm not used to hearing that from an Atheist. Really bad sources that just kinda make things up? I'm very curious why you would say that? What is your proof that their facts are "just plain wrong?" And which facts were supposedly "plain wrong?" Please tell me. Also, thank you for taking the time to respond to this thread. I really appreciate it.

SGOS

Quote from: "Warhorse"For those of you who have not seen The God Who Wasn't There, I highly recommend it. The film focuses on Christianity's early days and how it spread. More importantly, the filmmaker interviews Christians, and we see just how little they actually know about their own religion. They seem blissfully unaware.

My hope is for those who have seen this film to tell me what they thought of it, and for those who have not seen it, to watch it and join the discussion. I promise you won't be disappointed with this film.
It's been a while since I've seen it too.  I don't remember much about it, but I remember thinking it was pretty much a rehash of what I had already heard.  You can't spend much time around forums like this one without being exposed to standard arguments.  If I haven't mixed up my atheist films, I recall a pretty good interview in that film with Sam Harris, however.  Could be a different film though.

SGOS

One film you might also like is Julia Sweeney's "Letting Go of God."  It's just her doing her one person show live on stage.  She recounts her journey from Catholicism to atheism.  It's very entertaining, even though it's strictly a monologue that lasts a couple of hours.

Warhorse

Quote from: "SGOS"One film you might also like is Julia Sweeney's "Letting Go of God."  It's just her doing her one person show live on stage.  She recounts her journey from Catholicism to atheism.  It's very entertaining, even though it's strictly a monologue that lasts a couple of hours.

I own Letting Go of God, and I love it! I had always thought of Julia Sweeney as strictly a comedic actress. She did very well on Saturday Night Live, so I was pleasantly surprised when I first saw Letting Go of God on HBO a couple years ago. Wasn't long before I owned it. I can watch it over and over again, without getting tired of it.

Have you seen Religulous? Very funny, but also very informative. I love how Bill Maher exposes the ridiculous side of religion and how corrupt it can be. Very entertaining, though!

Warhorse

Quote from: "SGOS"
Quote from: "Warhorse"For those of you who have not seen The God Who Wasn't There, I highly recommend it. The film focuses on Christianity's early days and how it spread. More importantly, the filmmaker interviews Christians, and we see just how little they actually know about their own religion. They seem blissfully unaware.

My hope is for those who have seen this film to tell me what they thought of it, and for those who have not seen it, to watch it and join the discussion. I promise you won't be disappointed with this film.
It's been a while since I've seen it too.  I don't remember much about it, but I remember thinking it was pretty much a rehash of what I had already heard.  You can't spend much time around forums like this one without being exposed to standard arguments.  If I haven't mixed up my atheist films, I recall a pretty good interview in that film with Sam Harris, however.  Could be a different film though.

Yep, Sam Harris is in there. You've got the right film.

SGOS

Quote from: "Warhorse"Have you seen Religulous? Very funny, but also very informative. I love how Bill Maher exposes the ridiculous side of religion and how corrupt it can be. Very entertaining, though!
Yup, I watch all those atheist films, sometimes just as a way of expressing my thanks to the film makers.

leo

Quote from: "Warhorse"
Quote from: "SGOS"
Quote from: "Warhorse"For those of you who have not seen The God Who Wasn't There, I highly recommend it. The film focuses on Christianity's early days and how it spread. More importantly, the filmmaker interviews Christians, and we see just how little they actually know about their own religion. They seem blissfully unaware.

My hope is for those who have seen this film to tell me what they thought of it, and for those who have not seen it, to watch it and join the discussion. I promise you won't be disappointed with this film.
It's been a while since I've seen it too.  I don't remember much about it, but I remember thinking it was pretty much a rehash of what I had already heard.  You can't spend much time around forums like this one without being exposed to standard arguments.  If I haven't mixed up my atheist films, I recall a pretty good interview in that film with Sam Harris, however.  Could be a different film though.

Yep, Sam Harris is in there. You've got the right film.
I must watch this film .
Religion is Bullshit  . The winner of the last person to post wins thread .

Philosophos

Quote from: "Warhorse"Faux parallels? And what makes you say that? What makes you think it's fake? It's usually the religious folks that make those claims. I'm not used to hearing that from an Atheist. Really bad sources that just kinda make things up? I'm very curious why you would say that? What is your proof that their facts are "just plain wrong?" And which facts were supposedly "plain wrong?" Please tell me. Also, thank you for taking the time to respond to this thread. I really appreciate it.
Sorry, but I simply don't care enough about this topic to debate the issue. It's been years since I've seen the movie and years since I cared about whether or not there was a historical Jesus. There's plenty of stuff on the intertubes for you to read if you care about learning more.

Google "The God Who Wasn't There Carrier" and you'll get a blog post from Carrier on his impression of the movie along with a PDF white paper laying out some of his critiques of the film.

In Carrier's blog post you'll see a link to some debunking of Zeitgeist's parallels arguments which come up constantly in the atheist community. The God Who Wasn't There is pretty sloppy, but Zeitgiest is where the arguments start getting really shitty.

Some of the "evidence" for the parallels can be traced back to an old book by Kersey Graves called "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors" - and traced back no further because the guy seems to have just made stuff up. Google around this to learn more from that angle.

Yes, I'm an atheist, and a strong atheist at that. But I'm an atheist because I'm a rationalist. I'm not rational because I'm an atheist. And there are lots of bad arguments and manufactured facts out there for atheism.

If you want decent Jesus myth arguments, Earl Dougherty's The Jesus Puzzle is a decent place to start. I don't find it convincing at the end of the day, but it is pretty rigorous and doesn't make shit up.
Quote from: \"Smartmarzipan\"I hate people. And so should you. \":D\"

GurrenLagann

Quote from: "Philosophos"
Quote from: "Warhorse"Faux parallels? And what makes you say that? What makes you think it's fake? It's usually the religious folks that make those claims. I'm not used to hearing that from an Atheist. Really bad sources that just kinda make things up? I'm very curious why you would say that? What is your proof that their facts are "just plain wrong?" And which facts were supposedly "plain wrong?" Please tell me. Also, thank you for taking the time to respond to this thread. I really appreciate it.
Sorry, but I simply don't care enough about this topic to debate the issue. It's been years since I've seen the movie and years since I cared about whether or not there was a historical Jesus. There's plenty of stuff on the intertubes for you to read if you care about learning more.

Google "The God Who Wasn't There Carrier" and you'll get a blog post from Carrier on his impression of the movie along with a PDF white paper laying out some of his critiques of the film.

In Carrier's blog post you'll see a link to some debunking of Zeitgeist's parallels arguments which come up constantly in the atheist community. The God Who Wasn't There is pretty sloppy, but Zeitgiest is where the arguments start getting really shitty.

Some of the "evidence" for the parallels can be traced back to an old book by Kersey Graves called "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors" - and traced back no further because the guy seems to have just made stuff up. Google around this to learn more from that angle.

Yes, I'm an atheist, and a strong atheist at that. But I'm an atheist because I'm a rationalist. I'm not rational because I'm an atheist. And there are lots of bad arguments and manufactured facts out there for atheism.

If you want decent Jesus myth arguments, Earl Dougherty's The Jesus Puzzle is a decent place to start. I don't find it convincing at the end of the day, but it is pretty rigorous and doesn't make shit up.


Finally, another user here who is aware of the long-since-debunked mythological parallels claiming to disprove Jesus' historicity. :)

Damn Zeitgeist helped propogate these assertions. If you're going to make a case for a non-historical (or at least quasi-historical) Jesus, stick with more clearly apparent things, like definite Scriptural contradictions, and historical silence. They're more respectable, though not necessarily knock-down.
Which means that to me the offer of certainty, the offer of complete security, the offer of an impermeable faith that can\'t give way, is the offer of something not worth having.
[...]
Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty & wisdom, will come to you that way.
-Christopher Hitchens

caseagainstfaith

Quote from: "Philosophos"Google "The God Who Wasn't There Carrier" and you'll get a blog post from Carrier on his impression of the movie along with a PDF white paper laying out some of his critiques of the film.

I generally read Carrier's blog, but had missed that.  Thanks.  His comments, and criticisms in the PDF aren't as terrible as you seem to imply.  He said he overall recommends the movie, but, says that some points are oversimplified.  But he also says its hard not to in a documentary movie format.
Please visit my site at http://www.caseagainstfaith.com  featuring critiques of Lee Strobel and other apologetics.

Aroura33

Quote from: "GurrenLagann"
Quote from: "Philosophos"
Quote from: "Warhorse"Faux parallels? And what makes you say that? What makes you think it's fake? It's usually the religious folks that make those claims. I'm not used to hearing that from an Atheist. Really bad sources that just kinda make things up? I'm very curious why you would say that? What is your proof that their facts are "just plain wrong?" And which facts were supposedly "plain wrong?" Please tell me. Also, thank you for taking the time to respond to this thread. I really appreciate it.
Sorry, but I simply don't care enough about this topic to debate the issue. It's been years since I've seen the movie and years since I cared about whether or not there was a historical Jesus. There's plenty of stuff on the intertubes for you to read if you care about learning more.

Google "The God Who Wasn't There Carrier" and you'll get a blog post from Carrier on his impression of the movie along with a PDF white paper laying out some of his critiques of the film.

In Carrier's blog post you'll see a link to some debunking of Zeitgeist's parallels arguments which come up constantly in the atheist community. The God Who Wasn't There is pretty sloppy, but Zeitgiest is where the arguments start getting really shitty.

Some of the "evidence" for the parallels can be traced back to an old book by Kersey Graves called "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors" - and traced back no further because the guy seems to have just made stuff up. Google around this to learn more from that angle.

Yes, I'm an atheist, and a strong atheist at that. But I'm an atheist because I'm a rationalist. I'm not rational because I'm an atheist. And there are lots of bad arguments and manufactured facts out there for atheism.

If you want decent Jesus myth arguments, Earl Dougherty's The Jesus Puzzle is a decent place to start. I don't find it convincing at the end of the day, but it is pretty rigorous and doesn't make shit up.


Finally, another user here who is aware of the long-since-debunked mythological parallels claiming to disprove Jesus' historicity. :)

Damn Zeitgeist helped propogate these assertions. If you're going to make a case for a non-historical (or at least quasi-historical) Jesus, stick with more clearly apparent things, like definite Scriptural contradictions, and historical silence. They're more respectable, though not necessarily knock-down.
I AM a mythicist (mostly), but even I know that most of the parallels used are made up.  I found this out right after watching this movie, actually, and reading up on it.  Some parallels exist, of course, but this:



Is mostly not true. Even Jesus birthday is not recorded as the 25th of Dec anywhere in the bible, and neither is Mithra's in his ancient documents, nor was he recorded as born of a virgin, same with Horus (who's mother Isis actually had sex with her re-animated husbands corpse with a penis SHE had fashioned for him before giving birth to Horus, so not a virgin, and....ewww).  

Anyway, it's those parallels that Philo is talking about.  Many atheists keep spreading them as facts, but they aren't.  

The rest of the move was good though.  Sometimes misinformation becomes so common, most people don't even know it, and that was the only mistake in this movie.  Also, I LOVE the interview with Sam Harris!
"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory.  LLAP"
Leonard Nimoy

Philosophos

Quote from: "caseagainstfaith"His comments, and criticisms in the PDF aren't as terrible as you seem to imply.  He said he overall recommends the movie, but, says that some points are oversimplified.  But he also says its hard not to in a documentary movie format.
Yeah, maybe I'm just being grumpy. I still don't recommend it, but it certainly wasn't as bad as Zeitgeist.
Quote from: \"Smartmarzipan\"I hate people. And so should you. \":D\"

Davka

Thanks, Aroura and Philosophos, for calling out the bullshit in this film as bullshit. There are plenty of blatantly obvious reasons to discard the claims made in the Bible, without resorting to the sort of false "everybody knows" myths that theists so often resort to.

If we're going to call ourselves skeptics, we should apply that skepticism to everything, not just theistic claims. And that includes placing the claims of atheists under the exact same scrutiny as any other claims we encounter.

If someone says "subatomic particles have been tracked moving faster than light" or "quantum entanglement allows instantaneous communication between stars," we should apply the same skepticism to those claims as we do to claims that the Earth is 6,000 years old, or "god answers prayer." Just because we want to believe something, that doesn't make it true.