I’ve been curious about “The Ledge” for awhile now, mostly based on it’s killer premise: A Christian Fundamentalist traps an avowed Atheist in a Jigsaw-esque mindgame – if the Atheist doesn’t jump to his death from a skyscraper ledge within a certain amount of time, the Fundamentalist will kill someone else in his place; his idea being to “prove” the moral-inferiority of Atheism by showing that said Atheist will be less willing to lay down his life without the promise of an afterlife to reassure him.
Unfortunately, the trailer seems to display a dissapointing though unsurprising dodge on the “bite” of the premise…
So… apparently, what’s “really” bugging the bad guy is that the Atheist in question had an affair with his wife.
Sigh. This will live or die by the acting, either way, but it’s endlessly frustrating (and I’m NOT an Atheist) that movies about Religion-as-pathology always need to add “something else” to be the “real” reason for the psychosis. How much darker/scarier/edgier a premise would it be to just SAY what a lot of people already know – that “harmless” sincere-to-the-point-of-creepy spiritual faith is NOT all that far removed, psychologically, from a full-on dangerous break with reality and sometimes people’s switches just “flip?” The notion that Ned Flanders is one misfired-synapse away from Norman Bates is creepier, to me, than “don’t sleep with a crazy guy’s wife.”
Incidentally, looking at the reaction this around the web, this trailer ALSO provides a handy way to test the “worth-my-time-ness” of your aquaintances: If you show this to someone and their first reaction is along the lines of “Ugh! Always picking on the Christians! Why couldn’t it have been a MUSLIM, everyone knows they do more of this stuff!”, that person is probably not worth taking very seriously.
MOVIEBOB CENTRAL 
@ Narf
Uh, you are claiming bob is bigoted against christians…and your evidence is that you claim he is bigoted againts christians? Do you not see how this doens't quite add up? If you are going to make that claium, be prepared with evidence. The only other time I can think of bob talking about christianity is that Soul Surfer trailer….where he chews the ad company out for not showing the bible. That seems to completely contradict what you are saying.
“That's a pretty silly concept on it's face. If there were someone who personally researched every fact they believed and never took anyone else's word for it, I would think that would be the person more likely to go crazy.”
False dichotomy. True we can't research EVERYTHING. But we have other options. We have trust, we have inductive reasoning. Where we can't always personally verify something, we can trust those who have verified it.
More specifically I trust the scientific method, which works on the principle of TRYING to find out when it is wrong.
I don't know exactly how nuclear fission works. But i know there are people who do, so I can trust the until I am given evidence to the contrary.
Faith does not require any of this. Faith boils down to “Believe in this because I said so. Never ask for proof. EVER.”
The second you have an actual logical reason to believe something, it stops being faith. Faith by its very nature is irrational. And it is not a stretch to imagine that if rational people can on occasion do irrational things, irrational people could do irrational things even easier.
I'm not even sure it is possible to be bigoted towards faith. Can one be bigoted against superstition? The miserly? And even if it were, if you are going to call bob a bigot, you DAMN well better be able to back that shit up.
LikeLike
When did Seth MacFarlane and Christopher Hitchens start writing movie scripts?
LikeLike
On your last point Bob, can you think of another group that gets as negative a portrayal as Christians do in movies?
I understand why. Christians are the safe group to go after, which I think is actually a point in their favor.
I am a little surprised. You have this obvious straw-man portrayal and yet you work to defend it as if it were the 'gospel' truth. If you replaced fundamentalist Christian with a Hardcore Gamer would you still feel the movie was making valid points? Gamers and Chrsitians are portrayed very similarly in media.
I guess since it's not your group you don't care.
LikeLike
@ Chris
The victim schtick would be a bit more believable if you guys weren't the most populous religion on the planet, and ridiculously, disproportionaltely powerful in global politics.
FFS the catholic church has been coveriing up mass child rape for how many decades, and the current pope was instrumental in said coverup. You think he'll ever stand trial?
I'll see your 'having character of the most popular religion in history occasionally pop up as villains in a tv show or movie'
and raise you a “being threatened with physical violence and or death for having the gall to not want your civil rights infringed on.” Nearly every main character in modern fiction is christian by default, and is assumed to be that way unless proven otherwise. Stop crying because on very rare occasions someone runs out of acceptable minority targets and needs a christian villain.
In fact, outside of star trek, I challenge you to find a positive, non stereotypical portrayal of an atheist as a main character in any movie or tv show.
LikeLike
First off, I'm not particularly religious my self. I'm more of an interested observer. I use to be an atheist, right up until I heard some prominent Atheist say something along the lines of: “We should no longer tolerate religious tolerance.”
Way to stay classy and jump to child molestation. Funny, I didn't think the movie was about that, but ok I'll bite. If you look at the statistics, there's no higher percentage of child abusers in the Priest hood than in any other profession. Granted they didn't deal with it very well, but if you want to bring the Pope up on charges then you should also be calling for the heads of Teachers Unions to be charged since they do exactly the same thing. Just try to fire a teacher, even one suspected of child abuse.
LikeLike
Hold on, you can't just make a vague claim like that against Christians, what civil rights are being infringed on and what church is threatening “physical violence and or death” over it? Any church doing so would have massive legal issues to deal with. You can't over state an argument like that and expect to gain points over it.
I can't help that you project Christianity onto every main character. 90% of the time they never touch on the main characters religion, just leaving it open. Usually your only hint to a characters religion is the holidays they celebrate. Even then it’s usually Christmas and it’s usually the secular Santa and Christmas Tree version and not the Manger and Church Service version. They don't leave that kind of subtlety when it comes to a Christian villain, no, they'll be the one wearing the giant cross or even wearing a priests uniform.
LikeLike
The title of Bob's article says it all really “Pulled Punch?” As if Christianity deserved the punch and it's some how wrong not to hit them. If Christianity were how Bob puts it ((How much darker/scarier/edgier a premise would it be to just SAY what a lot of people already know – that “harmless” sincere-to-the-point-of-creepy spiritual faith is NOT all that far removed, psychologically, from a full-on dangerous break with reality and sometimes people's switches just “flip?”)) and it is as you say the ((most populous religion on the planet, and ridiculously, disproportionaltely powerful in global politics.)) Then how is the world not one giant ball of chaos? There should be hundreds of people killing in the name of Jesus every day. Yet, when the killing in the name of religion happens, he's not the religious figure that tends to pop up.
LikeLike
You want Atheists in popular tv and movies? How about Gregory House, Bones Brennan, Dexter Morgan, Malcolm Reynolds. Then there's pretty much everything Seth MacFarlen creates which is both pro Atheist and anti-christian.
Why don't you try this simple exercise. Look up the number of murders caused by Christianity, then look up the number of deaths caused by alcohol. Or even the number of people killed because their Christian compared to Christians killing in the name of it.
LikeLike
“The title of Bob's article says it all really “Pulled Punch?” As if Christianity deserved the punch and it's some how wrong not to hit them.”
Now who is reading into things? The phrase pulled punch refers to someone going easier on someone intentionally. There was no implication regarding what should actually happen.
“Then how is the world not one giant ball of chaos? There should be hundreds of people killing in the name of Jesus every day. Yet, when the killing in the name of religion happens, he's not the religious figure that tends to pop up.”
I’m sorry, are you under the impression this isn’t the case? Shall we go over the last hundred years of atrocities commited by Christians in Europe alone? Hell, in Africa today Christians are killing children on suspicion of being witches. When you take away the secularizing influence of modern society, your average Christina is just as backwards and savage as any muslim extremist you’d care to see plastered across fox news.
“You want Atheists in popular tv and movies? How about Gregory House, Bones Brennan, Dexter Morgan, Malcolm Reynolds.”
So a sociopathic drug addicted misanthrope who hates his father and can’t cope in normal society, a socially awkward doctor with social ineptness that borders on aspergers, a SERIAL KILLER, and a criminal whose creator explicitly says still believes in God but is just mad at him.
Yeah that’s a really nice collection of stereotypes there. Of the 4 characters you mentioned, you have 3 who are actually atheists and not a single one with decent social skills, and two which are openly criminal and lack basic moral reasoning. Thank you for making my point for me. The number of well adjusted atheist characters in media is borderline nonexistent. And when the media does go and have a truly villainous atheist character, they never bother justifying it. Hell, Mr Rictus in wanted is evil BECAUSE he’s an atheist.
You bring up Seth Macfarlane but in all honesty he has 1 atheist character across 3 programs.
“Why don't you try this simple exercise. Look up the number of murders caused by Christianity, then look up the number of deaths caused by alcohol. Or even the number of people killed because their Christian compared to Christians killing in the name of it”
Lost count after the holocaust. Now you try a simple exercise. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVbLbweVWN8
Watch that vide and tell me what other religious or minority group could you have replaced the word atheist with that wouldn’t result in everyone there being fired.
LikeLike
@ Dave from canada
Alright, how 'bout his comments here:
“…you don't need to be a partisan to see what a cancer the “Religious Right” and “Social Conservatives” are on this country…”
“The only substantial difference between the nutters HERE and the nutters in the desert is the size of the body-count.”
(http://moviebob.blogspot.com/2010/09/rare-specimen-of-democrat-politician.html)
I think you and I have very different understandings of what faith is. I really don't see that “trust” and “faith” are different things (and dictionary.com would agree with me). And I certainly don't think people should never question their faith… I recall the Bible saying that you should test God. I don't recall the exact verse, though. I'll try to find it.
LikeLike
@ Narf
Disliking a political party and believing them to be detrimental to the health of their nation is not bigotry.
Especially considering that that post also tacitly skewered the other party at the same time.
And again, he's not attacking all christians, or even christians specifically. He's going after a particularly fanatical religious political movement…one that most fo teh christians I know continually reassure me aren't 'real christians'.
Regardless of the individual specific definition of trust, the one I was using (believing in something due to evidence or precedent without necessarily having proof.) still stands. We are not trapped between absolute faith without evidence and absolute kwoledge. It is possible to trust things with limited evidence based on inductive reasoning.
My sister says she'll pick me up at the subway station. i have no proof of this, but she's done so in the past and I have no reason to think this will be any different.
LikeLike
@ Dave from canada
Perhaps I'm reading too much into a few off comments of Bob's. But, it's still an impression I've pretty much consistently gotten from him, and he really hasn't done any to change it.
“My sister says she'll pick me up at the subway station. i have no proof of this, but she's done so in the past and I have no reason to think this will be any different.”
I would suggest that most Christians have similar relationships with God.
LikeLike
@ Narf
So you are willing to call a guy a bigot over a FEELING?
“I would suggest that most Christians have similar relationships with God.”
Except I can prove my sister picked me up. I can prove she exists, I can prove she can drive, and that cars exist.
Noone can prove god exists. Or that if one did it could talk to people. Or even perceive them. Or that if it could, it would want to. Or if it had before, it would again.
LikeLike
@ Dave from canada
“So you are willing to call a guy a bigot over a FEELING?”
I conceded that I was probably reading too much into it. Was that not enough for you?
At the very least Bob has made comments insensitive to how Christians might interpret them… obviously. I'm not going to apologize for calling that out.
I agree with your point a few posts back that there's a wide spectrum between blind faith and absolute knowledge. The catch is that what someone can take on faith and what they requires more evidence to believe is entirely subjective to the person based on their life experiencing. People believe in the existence of God or whatever, not in the face of a complete lack of evidence, but because they've found enough evidence to convince them personally. That's not a detachment from reality… it's how reality has been playing out for them so far.
LikeLike
@ Narf
“I conceded that I was probably reading too much into it. Was that not enough for you?”
Not when you say things like ‘probably’. You either believe a thing or you don’t. If you do, then show the evidence if not…
“At the very least Bob has made comments insensitive to how Christians might interpret them… obviously. I'm not going to apologize for calling that out.”
He made comments critical of a specific subset of christianity that a great deal of Christians refuse to acknowledge and you called him a bigot. If that isn’t a perfect example of exactly how easy it is to offend Christians then I don’t know what is.
Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from criticism of same. You are free to believe anything you want, and everyone else is free to disagree. You’d think that for a group that is perpetually claiming to be under vicious media attack, the lot of you would have developed a thicker skin by now.
“People believe in the existence of God or whatever, not in the face of a complete lack of evidence, but because they've found enough evidence to convince them personally.”
Yeah I don’t buy any of that. I’ve never met a religious person who actively looked around and had good evidence for their beliefs. The best explanation I’ve ever heard was someone who readily admitted its irrational, but said that was the point. There’s little can really pick apart there. But evidence? What evidence?
“ That's not a detachment from reality… it's how reality has been playing out for them so far.”
Reality is not subjective. A thing exists or it does not. There is no ‘it is true for me”. Everything we know about how the universe works suggests time and time again a hugely complicated but static set of rules regarding existence. Those don’t change just because people want them to.
LikeLike
@Dave from canada
“I’ve never met a religious person who actively looked around and had good evidence for their beliefs.”
I'm not suggesting there's necessarily any scientific evidence, just evidence enough to convince them. Frankly, most people do not apply the scientific method to their every day lives. I can't say whether or not people should, just that not doing so doesn't necessarily make them crazy.
“Reality is not subjective.”
But, perception of reality is. For instance, if you show 2 scientists the same set of facts, they absolutely can make 2 completely different and possibly even contradictory conclusions from them.
LikeLike
@Narf
“just evidence enough to convince them”
which is entirely subjective and usually no more than 'my parents told me so' or 'i saw something i couldn't be bothered to get explained'
“. For instance, if you show 2 scientists the same set of facts, they absolutely can make 2 completely different and possibly even contradictory conclusions from them. “
You have a grossly warped view of how science works. Yes they can have contradictory conclusions, but they usually don't. because science requires investigation. New (valid) conclusions are usually the result new evidence.
Looking at a frozen waterfall and saying GODDIDIT!! is not as valid as say, understanding what happens to water when it drops below zero celsius.
LikeLike
@ Dave from canada
“which is entirely subjective”
That's the point I was getting at.
“You have a grossly warped view of how science works.”
That was just an example. The point isn't what “science” does, it's what people do. People can draw different conclusions from the same evidence.
To paraphrase these 2 points:
A) People have different ideas of what constitutes evidence. And most people don't really care if the evidence is scientific or not.
B) People can and often do interpret even the same evidence differently.
So, bringing this all the way back…
“…the nonviolent people of faith still possess a mindset of believing things without proof (and in some cases, in the face of proof to the contrary) that is far more similar to the minds of religious fanatics than anyone would like to believe. Once you start believing in things without evidence, it becomes much easier to engage in irrational, violent behaviour.”
… is completely fucking absurd. People have different ideas of what constitutes “proof” than you do. People interpret the evidence differently than you do. It doesn't make them potentially crazy… it just means they see things differently than you.
LikeLike
@ Narf
“That's the point I was getting at.”
I don’t think you get it. Subjective evidence is useless. Evidence only has value if there is some kind of standard, otherwise it is just someone arbitrarily deciding what is sufficient for belief…and it conveniently allows people to ignore evidence that doens’t agrere with their preconceptions. No system on earth works like that.
“That was just an example. The point isn't what “science” does, it's what people do. People can draw different conclusions from the same evidence.”
Yes they can, but you are implying that one conclusion has equal validity with another just because people can disagree. As it stands, science is the only reliable tool for understanding the universe. Differences may exist in interpretations of data, but there are rules to govern how these are resolved. Rules specifically designed to come to the right answer. And none would ever accept a person’s arbitrary opinion as evidence.
“A) People have different ideas of what constitutes evidence. And most people don't really care if the evidence is scientific or not.”
Yes, and they are WRONG. Evidence is not whatever you want it to be. You don’t get to just decide that something is evidence because it is convenient. Some people may not care for how the justice system works, but that doesn’t change whether it works or not.You don’t get to throw out the single best analytical toolin human history because it doesn’t tell you what you want. In fact, said tool only works because part of it is designed around FINDING the outcomes you don’t want.
“… is completely fucking absurd. People have different ideas of what constitutes “proof” than you do. People interpret the evidence differently than you do. It doesn't make them potentially crazy… it just means they see things differently than you. “here is a difference between having a different opinion, and being willing to divorce yourself from reality. I can agree to disagree with someone over whether Seinfeld was ever funny. But I can’t with someone who thinks the world is 6000 years old and a book with numerous blatant contradictions is perfect and unerring. That’s just wrong. Now I know you are prepping to say that not everyone belives that, but that is the point. By your logic their demonstrably wrong beliefs are exactly as valid as any other. Because while the bible saying so might not be enough for anyone with a decent education, its enough for them. And if all religions are equally valid despite nearly all of them claiming to be the only true one, then NONE of them are. There HAS to be some kind of reasonably objective standard for judging what is real and what isn’t or nothing makes any logical sense.
Bringing it back to the beginning: someone willing to make a leap where real evidence doesn’t mean anything and the only real model for what is or is not true is what they WANT to be, then that person has essentially, conscious of it or not, granted themselves a lisence to do whatever the hell they want.
LikeLike