Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Has anyone ever heard of "Flat-Earth Atheism?" Flat Earth Atheist - Television Tropes & Idioms
*Potential Spoilers* The following two paragraphs refer to Legion and Avatar respectively. If you haven't seen these movies (and wish to), I don't recommend reading further.
Basically it's the rejection of the obvious. I just watched a recently released movie called Legion starring--among all people--Dennis Quaid. There is at one point early in the movie where Quaid says "Yeah, but I'm an atheist! I don't believe in God!" The movie is about the battle of good and evil (and not too bad I might say), and when Quaid's character says this--it's all too obvious he's wrong.
It bothers me. It was in Avatar as well. The Colonel and Selfridge (The Admin) both reject the quite obvious concept of Eywa (Gaia essentially). Despite the hard-science evidence of a neural network between the planet's life forces and their interconnection--The Colonel and our Admin are totally oblivious.
//SPOILED//
Moving on, Flat Earth Atheism is the rejection of the obvious--specifically the rejection of mythical and supernatural forces despite the obvious evidence for them, or in environments where you live literally in a world controlled by these forces. It would be akin to Neo walking around the Matrix and claiming robots aren't in control.
It feels like a jab. Not that it hurts (and fiction is fiction), but it's a lot like Dante's The Divine Comedy sometimes, where the entire story is just making fun of a certain group.
Here we go again. The theists are making another ridiculous argument. Nobody denies the obvious like the religious. People obviously die and obviously don't come back to tell of their supposed after-life adventures. There has obviously never been any definitive and reproducible proof of any supernatural event and on and on ad nauseum. Blah, blah, blah...
Moving on, Flat Earth Atheism is the rejection of the obvious--specifically the rejection of mythical and supernatural forces despite the obvious evidence for them, or in environments where you live literally in a world controlled by these forces. It would be akin to Neo walking around the Matrix and claiming robots aren't in control.
It feels like a jab. Not that it hurts (and fiction is fiction), but it's a lot like Dante's The Divine Comedy sometimes, where the entire story is just making fun of a certain group.
Has anyone ever heard of "Flat-Earth Atheism?" Flat Earth Atheist - Television Tropes & Idioms
*Potential Spoilers* The following two paragraphs refer to Legion and Avatar respectively. If you haven't seen these movies (and wish to), I don't recommend reading further.
Basically it's the rejection of the obvious. I just watched a recently released movie called Legion starring--among all people--Dennis Quaid. There is at one point early in the movie where Quaid says "Yeah, but I'm an atheist! I don't believe in God!" The movie is about the battle of good and evil (and not too bad I might say), and when Quaid's character says this--it's all too obvious he's wrong.
It bothers me. It was in Avatar as well. The Colonel and Selfridge (The Admin) both reject the quite obvious concept of Eywa (Gaia essentially). Despite the hard-science evidence of a neural network between the planet's life forces and their interconnection--The Colonel and our Admin are totally oblivious.
//SPOILED//
Moving on, Flat Earth Atheism is the rejection of the obvious--specifically the rejection of mythical and supernatural forces despite the obvious evidence for them, or in environments where you live literally in a world controlled by these forces. It would be akin to Neo walking around the Matrix and claiming robots aren't in control.
It feels like a jab. Not that it hurts (and fiction is fiction), but it's a lot like Dante's The Divine Comedy sometimes, where the entire story is just making fun of a certain group.
I am not following here, what obvious evidence? So far there has been none.
Movies make poor evidence; they are for entertainment and always have an agenda.
Avatar especially is heavy on the agenda and light on realism. ( I never saw Legion, but something tells me winged angels with MP5's isn't very realistic either). Given what we know about astrophysics, evolution and science in general, it is fair to say the planet Pandora would be impossible in the real universe. Even the possiblility that the Na'vi aliens could independently evolve to look and act so much like humans on a planet where all the other large animals have 4 eyes, six legs and breathe directly from their chest is impossible. Even humans follow the same general pattern as other vertebrate animals (2 eyes, four arms and/or legs, breathe from the mouths and crap from the other end). That is very simple, basic stuff James Cameron flat out ignored (and yet more proof evolution is a fact BTW).
But if they didn't look human, we wouldn't relate with them and cheer them on as they kill the evil, plundering humans, and therefore support the director's agenda and main reason for making the movie in the first place.
Back in the real world, "supernatural" activity is far from obviously true, but is exactly the opposite. I'm sure some of it has roots in currently unexplained natural phenomenon, but the vast majority is pure BS. Atheists win this round.
Flat Earth Atheism is the rejection of the obvious--specifically the rejection of mythical and supernatural forces despite the obvious evidence for them,
Hummmmmm, and you are claiming that there is obvious proof of supernatural forces??????? Interesting, I have seen nothing of the sort, certainly nothing in the buy-bull has relevance. Would you be so kind as to give me examples?
I was thinking he was referring to its use in literature like that of Pratchett (atheist, well I think so) and Lewis (Christian).
That in a fictional universe where the supernatural is obviously real than atheism would seem to be a form of denial. Although there might be another way to work this in fiction. For example I think I read a High Fantasy story once where some Goddess appeared to a man and the man basically said "I don't have to listen to you, I'm an atheist." So in other words the person exists in a Universe where the Gods are clearly real, but he does not "believe in the Gods." This is going by the meaning of the word "belief" that's more like "a sense of confidence in an institution or person." Like how you believe in your spouse or sister or America or UNICEF or whatever. The individual in said story, if it exists and I'm not mixing stories, however knows the Gods exist but simply has no confidence or interest in what they have to say.
So if you existed in Discworld or some High Fantasy story would you "believe" in God, the Gods, etc or would you decide to place no confidence in them? I think Pratchett has addressed this idea in some of his stories, although I've only read one book by him. The sense I get is he would not necessarily have confidence in a god even if it was clear he was in a Universe with gods, but that he might place confidence in a god that lives up to non-violent basically humanistic ethical standards. Just as he might have confidence in a fictional character in a play if said character was a real person.
Movies make poor evidence; they are for entertainment and always have an agenda.
Avatar especially is heavy on the agenda and light on realism. ( I never saw Legion, but something tells me winged angels with MP5's isn't very realistic either).
The real tragedy is that chromed-MP5k isn't in the movie.
[quote]Given what we know about astrophysics, evolution and science in general, it is fair to say the planet Pandora would be impossible in the real universe. Even the possiblility that the Na'vi aliens could independently evolve to look and act so much like humans on a planet where all the other large animals have 4 eyes, six legs and breathe directly from their chest is impossible. Even humans follow the same general pattern as other vertebrate animals (2 eyes, four arms and/or legs, breathe from the mouths and crap from the other end). That is very simple, basic stuff James Cameron flat out ignored (and yet more proof evolution is a fact BTW).
Aside from "human looking Na'vi," I actually thought the animals were fairly well done evolutionarily. They contained many similar features (much as you point out that nearly all animals on Earth share the same similar features), but I had tremendous issue with other parts of their anatomy--like those ridiculous neural connector things.
But the fungus being a brain thing was clever. The transmission rate between two points would take too damn long to be effective, but on a planet sized scale like that, who knows what time looks like.
Quote:
But if they didn't look human, we wouldn't relate with them and cheer them on as they kill the evil, plundering humans, and therefore support the director's agenda and main reason for making the movie in the first place.
Back in the real world, "supernatural" activity is far from obviously true, but is exactly the opposite. I'm sure some of it has roots in currently unexplained natural phenomenon, but the vast majority is pure BS. Atheists win this round.
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
I was thinking he was referring to its use in literature like that of Pratchett (atheist, well I think so) and Lewis (Christian).
That in a fictional universe where the supernatural is obviously real than atheism would seem to be a form of denial. Although there might be another way to work this in fiction. For example I think I read a High Fantasy story once where some Goddess appeared to a man and the man basically said "I don't have to listen to you, I'm an atheist." So in other words the person exists in a Universe where the Gods are clearly real, but he does not "believe in the Gods." This is going by the meaning of the word "belief" that's more like "a sense of confidence in an institution or person." Like how you believe in your spouse or sister or America or UNICEF or whatever. The individual in said story, if it exists and I'm not mixing stories, however knows the Gods exist but simply has no confidence or interest in what they have to say.
You've got it. I'm taking you read the page? "Flat-Earth Atheism" is the rejection of the obvious, where the mythic is clearly evident. It's a narrative device in fiction, or rather a character flaw in fiction.
Quote:
So if you existed in Discworld or some High Fantasy story would you "believe" in God, the Gods, etc or would you decide to place no confidence in them? I think Pratchett has addressed this idea in some of his stories, although I've only read one book by him. The sense I get is he would not necessarily have confidence in a god even if it was clear he was in a Universe with gods, but that he might place confidence in a god that lives up to non-violent basically humanistic ethical standards. Just as he might have confidence in a fictional character in a play if said character was a real person.
You seem to have been the only one reading!
I'm perturbed by the apparent jab at atheists that Flat-Earth Atheism position makes, especially in a movie like Legion. Or take a film like Constantine, featuring Keanu "Plank of Wood" Reeves, where mythic forces obviously exist, yet someone living in that fiction would claim that they don't.
To the rest of you--no, I'm not making the supernatural claims.
You've got it. I'm taking you read the page? "Flat-Earth Atheism" is the rejection of the obvious, where the mythic is clearly evident. It's a narrative device in fiction, or rather a character flaw in fiction.
Yes I looked at the link. Possibly I just skimmed it, but I was aware of something like the concept as I used to read a great deal of Science Fiction and to a much lesser extent Fantasy. Also I was aware that you were atheist or at least not a theist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
You seem to have been the only one reading!
Perhaps. Your initial post was in some ways unclear, reading the link and remembering you from elsewhere helped me understand what you meant. Also I'm a Christian and we're more interested or knowledgeable about literature than you empirically-focused atheists (Mostly a joke, my favorite author is Asimov who was quite well read in literature, but some atheists here do seem to be surprisingly ignorant of the humanities IMO)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
I'm perturbed by the apparent jab at atheists that Flat-Earth Atheism position makes, especially in a movie like Legion. Or take a film like Constantine, featuring Keanu "Plank of Wood" Reeves, where mythic forces obviously exist, yet someone living in that fiction would claim that they don't.
I think many to most people have a certain solidity and emotional investment in their views. Therefore it might seem sensible to them to assume that an atheist is similarly invested in being an atheist and is not simply an empiricist. Going by that if an atheist was clearly confronted with the existence of God or the Gods or UFOs or what have you they would respond somewhat like anyone else i.e. they would have at least a long period of denial because they are emotionally invested in atheism/naturalism.
Although in many cases it is a way to show atheists as reflexively hostile to the idea of the supernatural or transcendent. The idea that atheists are in some way hard-hearted people unwilling to be moved by actual events or by the opinions of others is fairly common in the culture. Like many stereotypes I think it has some basis in fact, even if it at times it gets rather cloying. (The atheist who has to repent at the end of an episode of a TV show or film being pretty cliche. We're reaching the beginning where a "new cliche" of Christians having to repent and accept atheism at the end of an episode is increasingly possible. Family Guy had an episode like that. A few shows have tried to have the two groups have mutual respect with neither being expected to "repent", but judging by this forum that idea is not particularly crowd-pleasing to anyone)
That said I'm Catholic and I have enjoyed some stories with the theme. I have seen atheist that I feel dismiss theistic arguments with weird non-sequitirs, faulty reasoning, or just simple contrarianism. This is usually with more emotionally immature atheists, of any age, and I'd grant that fact. Still even with me I'd say the stories of "Atheist in a Supernaturally-Defined Universe" or "Flat-Earth Atheist" as you call it generally work best for me if the person isn't merely atheist but something else besides. Cordwainer Smith had a story of a "demon" appearing to Maoists during the Cultural Revolution that I found fairly amusing, if a somewhat minor example of his writings. Maoist atheists I think are, or at least I hope they are, less offensive to insult. (Also there were indications the "demon" might have been an extraterrestrial, but as he could do things Maoist pseudo-science didn't allow the characters probably wouldn't have liked the idea of him as an alien any better)
Last edited by Thomas R.; 05-18-2010 at 02:26 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(Mostly a joke, my favorite author is Asimov who was quite well read in literature, but some atheists here do seem to be surprisingly ignorant of the humanities IMO) 
