Advocatus Atheist Film Recommendations and Book Update

I haven't had much time to write this week, so I offer some random updates instead. The book is coming along well. I am finishing up the initial editing, tweaking things, and putting on the final touches. Soon I'll be drafting some proposals and try and get a publishing deal. Stay tuned for that.



Now here are some film recommendations about religion or which have a religious theme. I recently watched Agora just for the historical value. It's basically Christians go wild and kill everyone. Virgin Territory is a delight if you're comfortable with brazen nudity. It's a light breezy, sexy, kinky film about star crossed lovers, randy nuns, and it has sword play... lots of sword play (I think there's a pun in there somewhere). 

Of course, I've enjoy the Prophecy trilogy and Constantine for their dark fantasy. I think films based on the mythos of a spiritual war between Heaven and Hell with Earth caught in-between can be deeply engaging. Although I find films like Stigmata and The Devil's Advocate a little unsettling. Speaking of Keanu Reeves, The Matrix trilogy is another great set of films that are saturated with religious undertones. 

The Name of the Rose is truly an excellent film--a genuine classic. Watch it if you get a chance. Of course Dogma and The Life of Brian speak for themselves. Both brilliant. Both hilarious.

Finally, you'll probably wondering why I put a hard edged sci-fi thriller called Sunshine into the mix. I personally find it the best example of what happens when religion goes awry--but I don't want to give away any spoilers. Just know that it sort of crops up on you unexpectedly. But the real reason I love Sunshine is because science and rationality win out in the end--and save the day (literally)!








Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discussing the Historicity of Jesus with a Christian Agnostic

Image
Steven Jake, the author of the up and coming blog  TheChristian Agnostic , [1]  wrote a rather thorough response to my lengthy comment asking him about the state of the evidence regarding the historical Jesus. I am pleased he took the time to write a thorough response. I only feel that such a thorough response deserves my own more detailed response as my initial comment was merely that—a comment. So without further ado I will address some of Steven Jake’s comments and concerns. Initially Steven Jake (henceforth SJ) posted a quote from New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman claiming that there is an abundance of evidence for a historical Jesus. I merely contested this claim asking for what evidence we have that would be considered historically reliable. As I see it there is none. That doesn’t mean, however, I don’t think there  wasn’t  a historical Jesus, just that we cannot prove if there was or wasn’t and so I remain agnostic as to the historicity of Je...
Read more

Conflating Atheism and Agnosticism is a Mistake

Image
In a discussion over at Bud's blog Dead Logic , a reader asked a question I have been hearing more and more recently. It's a good question, so I thought I would do my part to try and answer it. Doesn't admitting to being an agnostic instead of an atheist FEEL like you're being wishy-washy, or not fully committing to your "belief"? ... I understand that it's only honest to say that we CAN'T be sure, but I sure do hate to show weakness (real or perceived) in an argument. Not at all.  Agnosticism deals with knowledge.  Atheism deals with belief.  The Agnostic position cannot assume whether a thing like a God could exist or not given the lack of sheer evidence for such a things existence. Therefore knowing with any given certainty just isn't possible. The agnostic then makes the claim that a definitive answer with regard to "knowing" of God's existence cannot be given either way. Atheism, however, can state with assurance t...
Read more