So I went to see God's Not Dead...

In case you're wondering, no. The movie didn't convert me. I am still a strong atheist. Sorry to rain on that particular parade. And, incidentally, sending me a text telling me you don't think god is dead is not going to change my mind either. However, this movie hit a lot of points that I would love to discuss with Christians. And a lot of frustrations I have with Christians.

I'm not going to synopsize the movie. If you haven't seen it, either go watch it or read the bevy of plot summaries that are widely available online. I'm going to spend my time addressing the movie itself, it's message, and the frustrations I have with it. Oh, and there's plot spoilers here. Obviously.

1. Atheists are assholes or pathetic loner victims.
This was a major plot point in the movie. Let's examine the atheist characters: You have the aggressive philosophy professor who is as irritating in his "I'm right you're wrong attitude" as Jerry Falwell or Billy Graham. You have the complete asshole businessman who is vicious on an epic scale. And then you have the loner reporter who has a humanist bumper sticker but has no friends or family. There is not one example of a calm, confident, positive atheist in the entire movie. There is not one kind, compassionate atheist in the whole movie. The writers and directors clearly don't understand the humanist movement. Humanism is a movement centered around community, love, and positivity. Someone who is involved enough to have a bumper sticker would have a community of friends. Or know where to find a community of humanists to help support her if, say, she found out she had terminal cancer.

2. If you're a confirmed atheist, you are a rabid atheist because something awful happened to you.
I get this all the time and it is ANNOYING. Christians constantly asking, "What happened to you to cause you to leave the faith? Did something awful happen?" This is offensive. It completely disregards the YEARS of research and massive amounts of thought I put into the conclusion I reached. It would be just as offensive as if I said, "Oh, you're a Christian? You must not be very intellectual." I am an atheist because I read a lot, researched a lot, thought a lot, and arrived at my conclusion. If you are a Christian, I would hope that you have done the same. Sure, there might be some atheists who are atheists because of a terrible life altering event, but there are Christians who are Christians for the same reason. Is that a reason to discount their faith? Why do you discount our doubt if it started from a place of pain? Furthermore, and I CANNOT REITERATE THIS ENOUGH, many atheists are atheists because they went looking for truth and concluded there is not a god. Many former Christians are atheists for this reason. There was no emotional trauma, no loss of life. It was a purely intellectual move. Stop belittling the time and effort we put into winnowing out the truth by assuming we're atheists because of a trauma.

3. The premise of the freshman philosophy class is ridiculous, and a picture of bad teaching.
Philosophy is supposed to teach you how to think. How to use reason and logic. Beginning a class by forcing students to sign a paper saying God is dead is not teaching them how to think and reason for themselves. In a good philosophy class, you'll read philosophy from a bevy of religious and atheistic thinkers, from Greek and Roman to modern day philosophers. What that professor was doing was indoctrination, not teaching. And most atheists would be just as appalled at that teaching method as the most religious of persons. (Unless the indoctrination is of their religion, that is.) Telling someone what to think goes against something most all atheists are for: the concept of free thought and thinking for yourself. Furthermore, forcing students to sign a statement like that would've prompted an outcry years ago. Even if the professor had managed to keep his job, he sure as hell wouldn't be up for consideration for Department Head. And in a class of 80, there would have been more than one Christian freshman protesting signing the statement. Statistically, it is completely improbable that there was only one devout Christian in the class. The professor also grabs the student at one point and roughly spins him around. That was assault. He also dated a student. That's sexual misconduct. I've already addressed my frustration that the professor was such an abhorrent character, but he is a bad teacher. Furthermore, he's a teacher who would not have kept his job at any real academic institution.

4. For a philosophy teacher, the professor is a remarkably terrible debater.
The atheist professor's only go-to argument is quoting Stephen Hawking and then saying that his student isn't as smart as Stephen Hawking so he must be wrong. This is riddled with fallacies. And any professor who was up for a department chair position at a university would be a far better debater than that. He would have been able to pick apart the freshman's arguments much more efficiently and been much more knowledgeable than he was portrayed.

5. The "abusive" relationship between Mina and Professor Radisson wasn't. (Well, it kind of was, but not for the reasons the movie portrayed.)
The first interaction we see between the professor and Mina is a largely positive one. He is loving and she is a strong independent woman. They've agreed not to discuss their differences in religion and lack thereof. But what's frustrating is that Mina refuses to accept this. And they inexplicably have the atheist character jump from, "We're going to agree to disagree," to ranting and raving about her having a mistress in the form of a dead carpenter. Or something. That whole scene was baffling to me. The first part of the scene portrayed a healthy relationship. Then it was like the writers said, "Oh, oops! One of them's an atheist! We can't have them be in a functional relationship with a Christian! The atheist needs to wig out!" So they inserted some random garbled dialogue.

The scene in the living room where Mina is serving hors d'oeuvres was equally bizarre. It's clear that it's a group full of atheists. They begin discussing something philosophical, and Mina jumps in with, "Well I'm a Christian." Keep in mind, the room is full of very learned atheists. They probably could have torn her faith apart in minutes, or asked her a long series of questions that would have left her stuttering for answers. The faces of the other people in the room are supremely uncomfortable. They were having a discussion about their beliefs amongst others who share their beliefs and Mina piped up, uninvited. They all agree that she's in the wrong, but looking at their faces you can tell that none of them want to say anything because they are all painfully aware of the fact that she is horribly outnumbered and outgunned, and it wouldn't be fair. But she has put them in the awkward position of having to curb their tongues at what was supposed to be a gathering discussing their beliefs. It would be as if I showed up to a Sunday school event, and then in the middle of a discussion about Christianity said, "Well, I'm an atheist I believe all this is make-believe," and then looked everyone in the eye, daring them to attack the lone atheist. That would be AWKWARD. It would be unacceptable. But Mina is framed as a victim of the big bad atheists because she committed a social faux pas. She KNEW it was going to be a group of atheists at that dinner. If she was going to be uncomfortable, she should not have attended.

The whole scene with the wine was baffling too. It was like the writers realized that the prior scene to could be viewed as Mina making a dinner party awkward with a social faux pas, so they decided to have her attacked for her wine fiasco to cement her as the victim. And her parting shot of, "Well I guess it's time for the help to depart," was baffling as well. WHAT?! You were hostessing! That's what a hostess does! She serves her guests! It was just absurd and irritating that she would take normal hostess actions and turn them into something equating servitude.

Now, the relationship between Mina and Professor Radisson was inappropriate, but the movie never once touched on the point of a person in a position of authority using that authority to get what they want. Or on the fact that sexual consent cannot be given by someone who is under another's authority. Instead the movie just talked about how Radisson was "verbally abusive." What?! Verbal abuse would be if Radisson took Mina in the kitchen and berated her for 15 minutes for serving wine that had been left in her car. Or if he had waited until everyone left and then spent a long time berating her and tearing her down as a person for the mistakes she made during dinner. Attacked her character, her intellect, her physical appearance. Instead he just made a kind of mean remark. People sometimes say mean things. Especially when they are trying to save face in front of their friends. That doesn't equal verbal abuse. Verbal abuse is more calculated, and far more ugly. In fact, earlier when he and Mina are talking in the kitchen before the party, he gives her words of affirmation, including praising how her intellect was what cinched his attraction to her, and how if she had just been a pretty face, he wouldn't have risked his career to be with her. Still doesn't change the fact that he has behaved inappropriately with a student, but it's sweet, I guess.

6. The Newsboys are awful to the girl with terminal cancer.
I'm going to get some flak for this. And let me say, I loved the Newsboys growing up. But their interaction with the terminal cancer atheist turned my stomach. Someone breaks down in front of you and says, "I have cancer. I'm dying." And the first thing you do is try to convert them?! What the hell is wrong with you? The drummer makes the stunning observation that she must have come to learn about Jesus, and the girl replies with, "How did you know?" Seriously? You just said you had terminal cancer, and you've showed up at a famous Christian band concert. You don't need to have an inside line to Jesus to figure out that it's possible you're wanting to know more about a religion promising everlasting life. But what is so frustrating about the band's interaction with the girl is that their first instinct is to convert her. Not ask her how she's doing or if she has a support group or people she can lean on. Not look at her and say, "Wow, I am so sorry this is happening to you." Not ask if they can give her a hug. No, they just want to make sure she has Jesus. But after they're gone, then what? That girl still has cancer and no support group. So that's awesome.

8. Mina's behavior towards Professor Radisson was just as mean as his behaviour towards her in front of his guests.
Who dumps someone publicly in front of their colleagues? Seriously! Who? Someone who is either very immature or vindictive. Radisson's reaction was comical. And totally unrealistic. Also, Radisson's insistence that Mina call him Professor Radisson on campus is kind of weird and creepy.

7. Professor Radisson's storyline plays out like a Christian revenge fantasy.
The mean terrible atheist professor begins to have a change of heart. He heads to the Christian concert (possibly to reconcile with his Christian girlfriend) and BAM! Gets run over by a car. But don't worry! It's okay because a pastor was there to convert him right before he died a horrifying death suffocating on his own blood. And inside, the Christians are all content and happy listening to Christian music while an awful tragedy occurs outside. Mina gets to deal with finding out that her last words to her lover were harsh words. And considering where he was killed, she'll know he was probably coming to try to see her. I think the writers were trying to be clever with a "twist" ending, but really when you think about it, it's just depressing. Mina is going to be guilt ridden for a long time. And Radisson never got to apologize to her and tell her he loved her. It's sad.

8. The portrayal of Muslims in the movie is downright offensive.
Just like the negative atheist stereotypes shown in the piece of cinematic genius, the picture of other faiths (in this case, Muslim) is equally unflattering. The father loves his daughter but still beats her then throws her out when she confesses she is a Christian. What?! Once again, the writers have taken the most extreme elements of a people group and portrayed them as average. Devout Muslims who watch this film are going to be highly offended by it, and they have a right to be. The portrayal of their faith is horribly skewed. It would be as if a movie portrayed all Christians to be like the ones in Red State. Then we see a tragic scene where both the father and the daughter and crying as though their hearts are broken, because they are. This scene showcases my biggest problem with religion: The wedge it drives between people. Especially amongst the Big Three faiths.

9. The arguments presented in the philosophy class are never seriously challenged.
The freshman does a passing job of defending the idea that it's just as possible to think someone said "Bang" to start the world. And you know what, I can't argue with that. Because science doesn't know how the world started anymore than your pastor does. But at least science is honest about saying, "I don't know for sure, but here are some theories. And we're working on new ones." Furthermore, where is the teacher's rebuttal when the freshman makes the outrageous claim, "The bible was right about how the world began." Why didn't the professor point out the bible has been wrong about a host of other things, and religion has held science back on multiple occasions? How about The earth revolving around the sun? Or the earth being round? Or stem cell research? Those are just three areas where religion has been dead wrong and science, not religion, has moved us forward in our understanding the universe. But the professor doesn't even mention this. In the third lecture, the freshman begins talking about god and the bible and morality. So he's made the jump that if a god exists, it must be the Christian god. And the professor never calls him out on this. He could have used the kid's own quote mining from Darwin about "Nature does not jump" and pointed out that even if a god exists, you still have to prove it's your god. Out of the thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of options, it's your god. And the freshman never produced any evidence showing that. Furthermore, the supposedly committed atheist who would have knowledge of all the holes and contradictions in the bible never calls him out on it. The freshman uses the bible as an authority but never establishes why the bible is worthy of being an authority, a book that makes outrageous claims of large civilization long before anthropology and archeology has proven they existed, and is full of stories completely unsubstantiated by other historical sources of similar periods and science and logic. But the professor never once debates with the student on any of these points. He remains silent on a subject that he would've been knowledgeable about, and a major vulnerability in the freshman's argument. It's absurd and intellectually dishonest.

10. Why I'm offended as an Atheist by the film, and why I'm right to be offended.
This movie is a feel good movie to shore up faith. I get that. But please, PLEASE do not watch it and think that it is anything other than propaganda. It is not an accurate portrayal of atheists. It is not an accurate representation of our arguments or our beliefs or our behavior as human beings. The way we were portrayed in that movie was as offensive and ignorant as if someone had put on blackface and performed a tap routine to portray an African American on screen. If you're a Christian, do some research of your own to find out about Positive Atheism and the thoughts most of us have about life, death, and morality. Read Ingersoll and Dan Barker. Read the Humanist Bible. (Yes! There is one!) I recommend watching Hemant Mehta on YouTube, known widely as The Friendly Atheist. These are more accurate depictions of a modern atheist than the insulting characters that were shown in this popular film.

The film had moments where it was almost good, but those moments were vastly overshadowed by all the disturbing, intellectually dishonest, and at times blatantly offensive content. If Christians would just take time to actually talk to an atheist, they would realize that we're not the evil spectres the movie portrays us to be. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. But please, be respectful.