Movies saying that Atheism is true.

[Carboncrown]

the hitch hiker's guide. well the books anyway, the movie was a bit iffy.

Really? Including that part mentioning the minor Deities from the Halls of Asgard in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe? And the second coming of the Great Prophet Zarquon?

They're not really a universal God (I think he states in the 3rd or 4th that "the gods were actually created a few seconds after the universe began, rather than as they claim, the previous week") so it's more of a powerful deity than a creator.

Also,

Spoiler: made me lol

Hello, sorry I'm late. Now how are we for time? *universe ends*

...wasn't one of the books somewhat centered around Gods message to his creation?

 

[kutuup]

I can name a few.

Martyrs: Heavily implied there was no afterlife, never explicitly stated it though.

The Da Vinci Code: Stated that Jesus was a normal man with no special powers.

(Arguably) The Life of Brian: Appears to imply that Jesus was a man named Brian who was a normal man with nothing special about him. In reality the joke wasn't that Jesus was a simpleton named Brian, the joke is that Brian is mistaken for the real Jesus, who may or may not exist.

Those are the ones that spring to mind.

 

[BlackWidower]

Any movie that doesn't mention god or gods is an atheist movie. Because of a few reasons, you can't prove a negative, and there is no mythology regarding atheism. I have no idea how someone would make a movie declaring atheism as true.

 

[Washini]

I think this is really more of a philosophical question.

If using any reference to god(s), is considered religious, any movie not referencing to god(s) should be considered atheist per se.

If a movie centered around the bottom line "there is no god(s)", it would be trying to actively disprove the statement "there is god(s)" more so than merely ignoring the aspect of religious intervention as a whole.

TL;DR A movie interfering with the aspect of religion in order to support atheism is anti-religious, not atheist per se.

 

[Ava Elzbieta]

And how would that film turn out?


"There is no god."

"Well shit."

Roll credits.

Oscar material right there.

Literally laughed out loud. Thank you, good sir, for making my day.


To respond to the original post, an upcoming Sundance movie called "The Ledge" is being touted as an atheist movie (by an atheist director, involving atheists, etc.). Hell, there's even an Atheist Film Guide that includes "Contact" (you've got a point there, Jim) and Chocolat (where the eff did you get what you're smoking, the fifth moon of Jupiter).

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

well, it could be something like eh. Maybe there were gods but they were killed by chuck norris and so now the atheists are right? that could surely make an oscar?

But if Chuck Norris would be able to defeat the gods, what would that make Chuck Norris?

Chuck Norris is like a ring; he has no beginning and no end.

OT: I don't really think it works like that. Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist, where as religions have plenty of lore and possible protagonists/ antagonists to use in a film. Atheists believe in a lack of higher/ supernatural powers, which isn't really a great asset for fiction.

 

[Oroboros]

I would second the seventh seal. It is a very good movie as well as a good movie for atheists. Aside from that, there are the numerous documentaries.

 

[Valdus]

Well the problem is that it's easy to portray god as being real in a movie (simply by showing angels, devils or divine power etc) but it's harder to show the lack of god's exsistance in a movie.

It's not like some all-knowing voice can tell the character (since what would the voice be if considered all knowing?) or the character can discover something that "disproves" the existance.

 

[Squilookle]

have there been any movies saying that atheism is right? That there are no gods or anything supernatural?

I don't know if it's been mentioned already, but Mission to Mars was the first film I saw that made me consciously notice it was tearing down religous standpoints- whether intentionally or not. In a nutshell it ends up showing that the creation of life on Earth was far different to that described by any religion.

 

[peruvianskys]

You could probably argue that a lot of ultra-nihilistic films like Gummo or Martyrs or Salo implicitly comment on God's non-existence by highlighting how terribly shitty and pointless the world is. I think a lot of films out there have a clear atheistic viewpoint, it's just a lot harder to notice because it's a negative statement (there isn't a God) and not a positive one (there is a God).

The Invention of Lying is a pretty anti-religious movie.

 

[The Funslinger]

Oh and as Nulmas stated, Paul is kind of atheistic, though generally it's more "Pro-Evolution/Anti-Creationism" than explicitly about an atheistic world view.

This. And as a rule of thumb, you could probably classify any film that comes from a purely scientific or sci fi standpoint with no reference to religion beyond "this character is this religion" as an atheist film in that it follows the realistic standpoint of "there's not really any proof of it, but it still has its worshippers". However, in these cases, any religious or atheistic ideology isn't important to the film.

 

[SilentCom]

And how would that film turn out?


"There is no god."

"Well shit."

Roll credits.

Oscar material right there.

You made me chuckle =D

OT: It would be hard to make a premise for a movie if there is nothing... The reason why religion works and not just Christianity, is because they are essentially stories.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

Paul also has an atheist point of view.

Paul comes to mind, though less of an straight ahead atheist view, and more of a pro evolution view.

It's pretty much straight up atheist, dude. Case in point:

Spoiler

Paul comes out of the bathroom and responds to Kristen Wiig's character spouting "created in God's image" stuff with, and I quote "how do you explain me?"

I really enjoyed the movie overall, mostly because I'm one of those people who can't get enough of any of the following people: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Seth Rogen, Bill Hader and Joe Lo Truglio. However, I found the whole atheist bent to be ham-fisted and out of place, and added nothing to the movie.

The thing that got to me was, here is this movie character railing against a fictional creationist strawman, and yet the character himself is a fictional CG alien who uses his own fictional existence within the narrative of the movie as one of his main arguments against the existence of God. Please note that I have been 100%, past-the-point-of-no-return atheist for at least the past decade, and will not suffer any creationist spouting garbage like irreducible complexity, the blind watchmaker, the shape of a banana or any other baseless, anecdotal horseshit arguments they can come up with. This also means that I hold any atheist arguments to the same standard, regardless of whether it's real life or fiction.

In short: I like you Simon Pegg and am a fellow atheist, but keep your brow-beating about atheism out of my good-time sci-fi/buddy/stoner/action/road movie, especially if you're not going to add anything meaningful to the conversation.

Technically the existence of any alien life form with intelligence would disprove it so showing a fictional character's POV isn't remiss. Especially since, as an atheist, you find God to be a fictional character, yes?

Soooo, a fictional character having it out with another fictional character and you have a problem with it? Does not compute as that is the basis of pretty much any work of fiction, especially fictional parody.

I get your arguments but it just seems like a laughable one overall.

 

[xiac79]

With respect to Paul, there is an inherent irony in a movie about space aliens trying to bash creationism. That aside the subjuct is moot. Anyone trying to find acedemic education or spiritual strength from a Hollywood movie shoulsd kill themselves as a favor to future generations

 

[NoDamnNames]

Jurassic Park???
Creationists deny that dinosaurs existed (i think, correct me if im wrong) so saying that they did exist is somewhat atheist.

You would be surprised to hear how many Christians believe Dinosaurs made their way onto Noah's ark.

...Yeah

I was surprised.

 

[Dott]

Why can't we just conclude that "Hey, where we came from doesn't matter squat shit, because no matter, we're here now." and make films that have no relation to religion whatsoever?
We have enough now. Final Fantasy is already ignoring the existence of the word "enough", and I personally wouldn't want the film industry to follow down that dark alley.

 

[CentralScrtnzr]

King Lear, at least, is a play without deities of any sort, in which men, without any help, wreak their own destruction. You will find that there is much in literature which suggests a materialistic universe; films, by contrast, tend to play to the mob. There are few enough atheists in any culture; they are difficult to market to.

 

[NerdElf]

The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy did that, didn't it? It just stated that there was no God in a humorous way then went on with the story.

 

[sergnb]

There are plenty of movies with a subtle, or not so subtle, religious message behind them.

My favourite one has to be The Truman Show. Right now you are thinking "what? The Truman Show says nothing about religion!".

Well, it does, just not directly. Think about it. It's about a man raised in a religious environment that becomes an atheist. Simple as that.

He is happy and ignorant. He then finds weird stuff that doesn't make sense. He begins to wonder, asks questions and tries to find a meaning for his life. And in the end, he ends up literally exiting the world he was living in.

And if the message wasn't blatant enough, THERE'S A MAN THAT CONTROLS EVERYTHING LIVING IN THE GODDAMN SUN.

Go watch that movie again, it's awesome.

 

[Redryhno]

Jurassic Park???
Creationists deny that dinosaurs existed (i think, correct me if im wrong) so saying that they did exist is somewhat atheist.

Well, you're partly true, but I think it's more along the lines of "they existed, they just didn't exist as long ago as the evil scientists say", I'm exaggerating it a bit I think but I think that's their basic argument. They prefer to think that the world didn't start until about 10,000 years ago or sometime around there. I think...