What is a 'true Christian'?

Thank you very much for reminding me! I had forgotten to add a suggestion.I had wanted to suggest that we try to find positive reviews for this film. I think that it might prove interesting to see where the positive and negative reviews differ (even though that appears obvious) and also where they agree (which may prove surprising. Or just to see what elements of the movie appealed to the positive reviewers, which would reveal much about the reviewer (the same applies to the negative reviewers and what didn't appeal to them).This movie was targeted to a rather specific audience, the fundamentalist/evangelical/etc Christians, along hopefully with anyone on the fence about to fall into that camp. It certainly played to the stereotypes and prejudices that their other literature has been feeding them, so we should expect them to receive the movie well as it reinforced those stereotypes. For that same reason, we should expect non-targeted audiences (eg, "lukewarm" mainstream Christians, non-Christians) to not react positively to those stereotypes and even negatively, particularly if they are members of one of the groups being stereotyped. For the targeted audience, there's also the added element of being able to identify with the protagonist and his struggle to defend his faith; I think that our two reviewers did comment on it, but I very much doubt that they identified at all with him -- I do suspect that Phat did identify with him strongly, since he was obviously very emotionally engaged in the story.This review included very little of the actual dialogue and especially not the arguments presented by the protagonist. From my experience with the fundamentalist literature, all those pamphlets with their scripted "debates", I would predict that those arguments were fairly standard ones, ones that the targeted audience already knew all too well from their own readings and proselytizing training, ones that they found to be very convincing. As I've noted before about creationist claims, they are only convincing if you are already convinced, and rather unconvincing if you are not. Unfortunately, in order to answer that question someone would have to bite the bullet and actually listen to the movie. That would be too much to ask.So then, has anyone found a positive review for "God is NOT Dead"?

I watched the film. I agree with the atheist on this review: My TakeThe Christians in the movie were all portrayed as kind and caring---precisely the way I want to be. I do agree with the atheists in My Take.They were portrayed unfairly.

I don't have a Facebook account, Phat, so I can't see that review. Could you copy and paste a paragraph or two?

I agree with Faith that you should post excerpts from that link, especially the ones that you do agree with and hopefully some of the ones that you don't agree with -- unless you are saying that you agree with everything posted there. Besides, aren't you engaging here in "debating with bare links"? Also, you label that link as "My take", but the link is to something written by a Craig Lloyd. Is that you?If we think about it, "God is NOT Dead" isn't really a movie, but rather a propaganda piece. Like the pre-war German propaganda films depicting Polish atrocities against the indigenous German population. Like the US propaganda films and comic books in their depiction of the Japanese as inhuman monsters. Stir up hatred for "the enemy" both by removing all their humanity and by depicting their evil machinations against our very way of life which heaping helpings of mindlessly savage atrocities, against which our hero sticks to his ideals, our ideals, and defeats evil by fighting the good fight, all while taking you on an emotional roller coaster (quite necessary in order to impair your ability to think rationally while watch it; strong emotion causes the brain's limbic system to go into action while shutting down the neo-cortex, as seen by changes in the amount of blood going to those parts of the brain). Part of training young civilians to kill other people in combat, even in close quarters, is to dehumanize those other people as "the enemy" and repeatedly reminding the recruits of what "the enemy" intends to do to them and to our country.From that link, "Understanding Atheists":

quote:

---

This is what I found, from one such atheist on the web:

​

The Chief Failure of This Film

​

In the end the central injustice of this movie is its failure to fairly represent a class of people whom Christians purport to love. But it’s not loving people well to misrepresent them this badly. This movie caricatures, dehumanizes, and depersonalizes people like me, portraying us in the worst possible light. How could I not find this movie disgustingly offensive? Every single atheist in this film is a spineless, uncaring jerk. This is how you love someone like me? You made atheists the bad guys! And not even complex bad guys. You made us two-dimensional cartoon villains who rub our hands together menacingly, tweaking our pencil-thin moustaches above our sinister grins. Children should be afraid to come near us. Employers should think twice before hiring us. And clearly women should steer clear of dating us because obviously we lack hearts.

​

This is not love. You cannot love people while ignoring everything they tell you about themselves. You are not loving people when you refuse to listen to their stories. You are not loving them well when you decide before hearing them that you already know all that you need to know about them, overruling their own self-descriptions and self-identifications because you are convinced you know better than they do what’s going on inside of them. When you continually speak of people in terms to which they cannot agree, you are not showing them respect or validating them as real people. This movie represents a grievous failure to love people like me. If you watch this and then beg me to go watch it as well, it tells me that in some way you accept its presentation of what I am like even though I’m telling you it’s not accurate. If you say you are to be known by how you love, then this should upset you. The words may be there, but the thing your words promise is not.

​

So if you are a Christian and if you are able to make it through this film without cringing at the stereotypes and misrepresentations it presents, I cannot imagine you will be able to see me for who I really am or relate to me in any way that is based in reality. If you harbor such a grotesquely caricatured straw man picture of what I’m like, then I dare say you won’t be able to hear a word I’m saying. . . . But someone you love may be an atheist, and I’m trying to warn you that as long as this movie doesn't make you nauseous for all its misrepresentations and clichs, you aren't gonna love your loved one well.

---

We have seen the impact of that last line in the gay marriage issue. The opponents have certainly worked to use these same propaganda techniques of dehumanizing gays and of generating fear for the imagined consequences of allowing gay marriage. And yet, we then saw leading Republican politicians who had fought so strongly against gay marriage sudden stopped fighting and even going so far as to endorse gay marriage. What had happened? The worst thing that could happen to a soldier in battle for the first time is to suddenly lose the mental and moral protection of dehumanizing the enemy, to come face to face with "the enemy" and see that he's also a scared kid the same as him. In every case I've seen of an opponent of gay marriage suddenly change their position, they had learned that a close family member is gay. The pro-marriage side's most effective tactic has been to counter their dehumanization by coming out letting everybody know how many of their friends and family members are gay.But we still see atheists being dehumanized and demonized in Christian propaganda. You must have realized that yourself, since the movie had motivated you to choose to discuss it under the banner of "True Christian Soldiers". You keep making sounds about peace, but the imagery you have chosen is still quite war-like and you expressed your favorable reception of a propaganda piece for that "culture war" which you (pl) imagine that you are waging.In US public polls of which religious groups are most and least trusted, the bottom three groups are traditionally (in descending order): Mormons, Muslims, atheists -- one of the effects of 9/11 has been to change that order to Mormons, atheists, and Muslims. And I have repeatedly received emails about my website from Christians that are filled with extreme hatred and accusations of thoughts and deeds that are completely foreign to me and which I have never expressed on my site nor ever would. What I have never been able to understand is: Why? Why are atheists hated so much? We're the good guys! While leading religious groups are fighting to destroy religious liberty, we are the leading supporters and defenders of religious liberty, mainly because we are more aware than everybody else of what losing that liberty would mean. In creation/evolution, we are the ones on the side of truth, truthfulness, and honesty. Unlike the evangelizers, we have no agenda to convert others. We are the good guys!And yet the hatred for us is there and continues to be expressed. As in that quote above, no amount of explanation can get through to these people. They have this atheist-hating script running inside their heads and they cannot hear anything else.Why hate atheists so much?

Maybe my memory isn't perfect but I seem to recall Christians psychoanalyzing people's reasons for disbelief - such as because they don't want to take responsibility for their actions. I don't find it annoying, just funny.

Sure, Faith. I have watched the movie twice...its is an inspiring movie for me personally---yet after reading the atheist response I began to see it from their perspective. Once you watch the movie, you can also draw your own conclusions---Here is the atheist response from one particular atheist:

quote:

---

The Chief Failure of This Film

​

In the end the central injustice of this movie is its failure to fairly represent a class of people whom Christians purport to love. But it’s not loving people well to misrepresent them this badly. This movie caricatures, dehumanizes, and depersonalizes people like me, portraying us in the worst possible light. How could I not find this movie disgustingly offensive? Every single atheist in this film is a spineless, uncaring jerk. This is how you love someone like me? You made atheists the bad guys! And not even complex bad guys. You made us two-dimensional cartoon villains who rub our hands together menacingly, tweaking our pencil-thin moustaches above our sinister grins. Children should be afraid to come near us. Employers should think twice before hiring us. And clearly women should steer clear of dating us because obviously we lack hearts.
This is not love. You cannot love people while ignoring everything they tell you about themselves. You are not loving people when you refuse to listen to their stories. You are not loving them well when you decide before hearing them that you already know all that you need to know about them, overruling their own self-descriptions and self-identifications because you are convinced you know better than they do what’s going on inside of them. When you continually speak of people in terms to which they cannot agree, you are not showing them respect or validating them as real people. This movie represents a grievous failure to love people like me. If you watch this and then beg me to go watch it as well, it tells me that in some way you accept its presentation of what I am like even though I’m telling you it’s not accurate. If you say you are to be known by how you love, then this should upset you. The words may be there, but the thing your words promise is not.

​

So if you are a Christian and if you are able to make it through this film without cringing at the stereotypes and misrepresentations it presents, I cannot imagine you will be able to see me for who I really am or relate to me in any way that is based in reality. If you harbor such a grotesquely caricatured straw man picture of what I’m like, then I dare say you won’t be able to hear a word I’m saying. If this movie doesn't irritate you the way I know it would have irritated me when I was a Christian, you need to spend some time getting to know real flesh-and-blood non-believers. I’ll wager you wouldn't ordinarily have much motivation to do that (except in order to engage us in debate). But someone you love may be an atheist, and I’m trying to warn you that as long as this movie doesn't make you nauseous for all its misrepresentations and clichs, you aren't gonna love your loved one well. You’re going to need some real conversations in which you ask some sincere questions and let your loved one tell you about themselves and their own thought processes without trying to cram what they say into a preconceived doctrinal grid. Is loving them worth that to you? Are you secure enough in your faith to even have such a conversation with someone like me?

---

Granted the movie stereotypes atheists. It also stereotypes Christians in that only one brand of Christian belief is represented.I believe that we can know God.Other chapters of Club Christian(jars pet phrase) would say that GOD is unknowable, Jesus gave us an example of how to live as a human, and the Holy Spirit is a bit of supernatural woo dreamt up by redactors. Edited by Phat, : added stereotypes

Allow me to be quite blunt. You are correct. Some of us do believe that there is a spiritual "war" of sorts being fought within our culture. History will determine whether we were anywhere close to being right about this belief. Psychology tells us that humans tend to dehumanize those cultures and beliefs which threaten their worldview. The very idea of Islamic people waging jihad against the christian culture horrifies many---yet the culture which these Biblical Christians want to support worships the US Flag and the dollar bill more than it worships Jesus Christ. God works in mysterious ways. jar might be right. There may be far more atheists in Heaven than Biblical Christians---once the smoke clears and all of reality tallied up. You may well be the good guys, D. I can't argue that I am right and you wrong. I simply do not know. Why hate anyone? WWJD?

Jesus would throw a moneychanger at them.

WWJreallyD? Well, for starters:

1. Wither the sucker for no reason. (eg, the fig tree that wasn't in season)
   ​
2. Revile the gentiles. ("dogs" 'e called us!)
   ​
3. Hate hypocrites. (eg, the majority of "true Christians"; see below for yet another example)
   ​
4. Throw almost everybody into a Lake of Fire. (are you really sure that you're saved?)

But Phat just simply tap-danced his way out of answering that question. "True Christians'" hatred for atheists very clearly exists and is being actively fueled by such blatant propaganda as "God is NOT Dead". Instead of addressing that clear and blatant hatred, he offers a weak disavowal of hatred and throws in a cute Xtian mind-bite. I'm surprised he didn't follow that up with a row of smilies and graphic of a cute kitty.But in dodging the question, he also exposes yet another instance of "true Christian" hypocrisy. "True Christians" clearly hate atheists (and also most, if not all, other non-"true Christians") enough to declare war on us (a war that Phat is chomping at the bit to join into), yet Phat is trying to say that Jesus is against such hatred. Therefore, from what Phat is saying, those "true Christians" are hypocrites. And what did Jesus think of hypocrites? And they really believe that they're saved?The question still stands: Why hate atheists so much?Edited by dwise1, : italicized "really"

If you are really that determined to create a war, then you will succeed and you will indeed have your war. Even though it may take two to tango, in a divorce all you need is for one party to want it, particularly in a divorce-on-demand state, and there is absolutely nothing the other party can do or say to keep that divorce from happening. So if one party (yours) really wants to start a war, then they will have their war regardless of what anybody else has to say (eg, mid-20th century Germany v. Belgium/Netherlands/Poland/Denmark/Norway/France).What history will determine will be whether there was any actual justification for that Christian-created war. Which will be largely moot considering the horrific casualties that those "true Christians" will create on their march for world domination.I'll be back later for the rest of my reply. It's time for Rueda de Casino class.

No, it does not. Rather, psychology tells us about how we react to things and ideas that we perceive to be threatening, even if they in fact pose no actual threat.The reaction that you are describing is xenophobia, fear of the foreign, of anything that is not characteristic of your own tribe. "True Christians" do display signs of suffering strongly from xenophobia. They are frightened, even terrified, of other ideas, other beliefs, other ways of viewing the world, and they feel very threatened. Not that any of those other ideas, beliefs, or perspectives do pose any kind of actual threat, but they feel threatened so they want to fight back, war against them, vanguish them, eradicate them. Because anything that is not within their narrow limited perspective frightens them.Yes, dehumanizing your enemy once you have identified him is the common practice. In the 1980's, PBS aired a short British series narrated by a British military expert who documented part of the training of USMC recruits going through basic training at Parris Island. He pointed out how the DIs would repeatedly tell the recruits about "the enemy" and what "the enemy" wants to do to them and how their training will keep that from happening. How this dehumanization of their opponents was needed to training civilians to kill other humans in combat. He recounted the experience of a young soldier in Nam being in combat for the first time where he suddenly came face-to-face with a VC, another young scared kid like himself. They both just stood there staring at each other, both snapping out of the same dehumanization training at the same time. The soldier recovered from it first and killed the VC; otherwise he wouldn't have been able to tell the story.We also see the same dehumanizing techniques in propaganda produced for the civilian population. The Red Scare, the Hun, rat-faced Japs, etc. Classic were the Nazi films comparing Jews to vermin, cutting between swarms of rats and European Jews with exaggerated Semitic features. Playing on the stereotypic features that the audience finds to be the most foreign to them."True Christians" don't need to actively dehumanize non-"true Christians" (remember, to "true Christians" the majority of Christians are considered to be among the "others"), but rather that happens automatically because of their xenophobia.Funny how "true Christians" don't realize how the others view them. Assuming that you are a typical American and only speak one language, how do you feel when another language is being spoken in your presence? I've heard monoglots express the xenophobic fear that they are the subject of that conversation, "They're talking about me!" Relax! They couldn't care less about you! Unless they are indeed talking about you, because your presence as a strange foreigner is triggering a xenophobic response in them, scaring them and making them feel threatened. As well it should. No less horrifying is the very idea of fundamentalist Christians waging their own holy war against the rest of society. And just as we are horrified by the thought of Sharia Law being imposed, we are also horrified by the thought of the implementation of the Christian threat to impose Old Testament law. I am not making that up! That was very much a part of the Christian Reconstructionist agenda of eliminating the US Constitution and replacing it with an Old Testament theocracy. And even though that movement seems to have died out (more a case of it having dropped out of sight), we still see that idea popping up again and again with people expressing the desire to see us living under "God's Law".What's the difference between an Islamic fundamentalist and a Christian fundamentalist? I cannot see any. {eyes roll and head shakes}Are you familiar with Dan Barker of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, "America's Leading Atheist"? He grew up a fundamentalist Christian and was called personally by God to the ministry, where he served for more than a decade until he started to think and to read and to question. He tells his story in the beginning chapters of his book, godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists. I heard a presentation he gave a couple years after the completion of his deconversion. His entire family was so into fundamentalism that his mother would sing in tongues all day while doing the housework. He lived the first 30 years of his life that way before he started the three-year process of deconverting. He did a lot of thinking and self-evaluation during that process. I would think that if anybody would be qualified to speak about how a fundamentalist thinks, it would be him.In that 1985 presentation, he described the way that the fundamentalist mind works as being "then your theology becomes your psychology." His point to that atheist audience was that fundamentalist Christians think differently than normal people do with everything being motivated, interpreted, and filtered, frequently very heavily, through their theology. I have seen Barker's observation confirmed many times. Eg, with my friend from church, Gary, a former fundamentalist now a self-described "complete atheist and thorough humanist" who now feels far happier and more spiritually fulfilled than when he was a fundamentalist, who told me of how deeply in denial he had been as a fundamentalist such that he constantly blinded himself to the myriad everyday things that contradicted his beliefs. Eg, the fact that fundamentalist/evangelist/conservative Christians have to have special counselors trained as "Christian counselors" to deal with their theology-based psychology -- normal counselors would not be able to treat them adequately, nor would a Christian counselor be able to adequately treat a normal (which includes non-fundamentalist/etc Christians). Eg, that DivorceCare program that was designed for use by Christians but which proves worse than useless for non-Christians. Also, the friend who had roped me into DivorceCare also pressured me to attend a weekly presentation on relationships for singles (this was through the two churches' singles ministries) at the other local Baptist mega-church given by two Christian counselors. As with DivorceCare, a lot of what they presented used the same ideas as normal counselors would (eg, setting boundaries, choosing your friends wisely), but then they would invariably twist it to fit their theology and turn it into something meaningless ... for a normal, that is. Like, choosing the right kinds of friends (good) which is defined by them leading you to God (wrong! Thanks, guys, you've screwed up another one). And you need to be take care of yourself (good) because that's what Jesus wants for you (What kind of reason is that? You can't give one good reason for me to take care of myself? Well, that was meaningless!). And of course there have been the countless attempts at dialogue on-line and in emails. When I would try to get a creationist to learn something about evolution so that he could at least come up with some kind of proper argument against it, many refused because "that would require me to believe in evolution", meaning that his Christian understanding of education was the same as indoctrination, which is what Christian education is. And the far too many hate emails I've received from "true Christians" flaming me viciously for things in my website that aren't even there; as described in the review by that atheist that you reposted, their Christian mind told them what I had to have written instead of what I had actually written.The reason for laying this background information is because you just did the same thing. "... worships the US Flag and the dollar bill ..."? Worship? Like you worship the Christ? You think that we kneel down before the flag and paper money, pray to them, and sing hymns to them? Yes, of course, that would be ridiculous and I hope that you can see that for yourself. But when you place whatever we may feel and think about such things above what you feel and think when worshipping the Christ, then your Christian mind is blinding you to reality, just as Dan Barker described. In your mind, worship is a very important activity and attitude, so you project it to normals as well. I have seen others make this same mistake many times. You think that everybody must worship something, so, since they no longer worship God then they must now worship something else, like Flag or money or science or Darwin. Wrong! Yes, I know that that is what your Christian propaganda keeps telling you, but it's still wrong. Perhaps a better word to describe what we feel for those things would be that we "value" them. But would that word be acceptable for how you feel about the Christ? Saying that you "value Christ" is much weaker and far less descriptive than saying that you "worship Christ".Do you understand my point? Worshipping is something that you do, but not that we do. It's kind of like what Gary said about giving thanks to God: as a fundamentalist he was always thanking God for everything, but of course now as an atheist he no longer does that nor feel a need to -- though he did say that that is the one thing that he misses from that time, that constant attitude of gratitude. And for further example, I cannot say that I value the US Flag that much, but rather I show it my respect, not because it's the Flag, but for what it represents. In my 35-year military career, never once did I ever swear an oath to protect or defend the Flag, but at least seven times I did swear an oath, the Oath of Enlistment, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic. I took that oath very seriously and, even though I'm now retired, I still take it very seriously. Not because of the actual document, but rather for it's being the basis of our government and of all laws in this country, as well as for the liberties, rights, and responsibilities that we derive from it. That is not worship of the document, but rather respect and concern because our way of living depends on that document remaining in effect. A Christian once asked me what I value. I gave it serious thought and what I came up with may sound corny: Truth, justice, and the American way.You need to keep in mind that we do not think in the same manner as you do. Forgetting that can cause a lot of lost communication and worse. You should have already read my Message 114reply to Ringo's Message 113 about this.It looks like you tried to just avoid that question. Are you suggesting that Jesus would not hate atheists? In that case, since "true Christians" very clearly do hate atheists then they are not following Jesus. Or are you suggesting that Jesus would also hate atheists? In that case, then your "Why hate anyone?" becomes very ambiguous and obfuscative.I do very much want the answer to that question. Is the hatred because of something in the Bible? Is it just because of blind bigotry? Is it solely whipped up by your propaganda? Is it because you need to use us as scapegoats for your religion's problems? Or that you need to use us as bogeymen to scare your congregations with (refer to the classic Outer Limits episode, The Architects of Fear, also Watchmen whose ending was based on The Architects of Fear)?Please answer the question.

I think this link shows what True Christians(tm) think about atheists.

Hi Larni ... I followed your rabbit trail and saw another link that seemed to have a wee bit of science on it...that Nigerian thing is what happens when fundamentalists..either Christian or Muslim...are in power.One reason I like EvC is be cause we have a diverse forum. jar represents the extreme logical side of Christianity. His methodology of using Logic, Reason, and Reality is in contrast to the Biblical Christian positions.Ringo claims to be an atheist, but is witty and great for always forcing me to see the other side of any argument I have.Tangle is clearly atheist and logical. He states absence of evidence as necessary proof of evidence of absence of God, and yet is never cruel nor demeaning to me in any way.Theodoric is my thorn in the flesh. He has little respect for me and considers it sheer and utter hubris for me to participate in a forum wherein I lack integrity. I don't like him very much! Finally...Larni...there is you...my friend with psychoanalytic experience. I have a question for you. If my brain pattern changes slowly from addiction to recovery (they estimate 6 months before it even starts to reset and change) could some of my beliefs be the result of an unhealthy addictive pattern in my brain? (BTW that Landover Baptist website has some weird humor on it! weird humorEdited by Phat, : No reason given.

Well, I don't know much abut psychoanalysis (apart from the fact it's bollocks) because I do CBT but I don't think one can draw the kinds of causal links you are suggesting.Basically people do things for the results they give. So ask yourself what results come from the things that you do and you should start to see why you do the things that you do.Sorry for the politician's answer, hope you had a good xmas.

Landover Baptist Church is a fictional on-line satire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landover_Baptist_Church:

quote:

---

The Landover Baptist Church is a fictional Baptist church based in the fictional town of Freehold, Iowa. The Landover Baptist web site and its associated Landoverbaptist.net Forum are a satire of fundamentalist Christianity and the Religious Right in the United States.

​

Origin
The site was created by Chris Harper, who obtained his Master's Degree in English Literature from George Mason University in 1993 after being expelled from Liberty University (founded by Jerry Falwell) in 1989 for producing a satirical radio show which Liberty's administration found offensive.

​

Description
The fictional Landover Baptist Church is a parody of fundamentalist, Independent Baptist churches and Biblical literalism.

​

The church is described as operating under a dictatorial structure whereby its "Pastor" holds all authority over the church, its members, and its extensive holdings. The church supposedly uses an elaborate fine system to maintain its authority over its members, parodying Jerry Falwell's system at Liberty University, and in addition can force its members to comply with any and all of its wishes (a common phrase on the website used in such cases is that the member "mandatorily volunteered" to comply). In cases of expulsion the member is also removed from the church property. The website describes Landover as having a "permanent injunction" against all "unsaved" persons, prohibiting them from being within ten miles of the Landover property as well as forbidding them to enter Landover's website.

​

. . .

​

The Landover site also features material from Betty Bowers, a fictional central character on the satirical website BettyBowers.com. Bowers is portrayed by voice actor and comedienne Deven Green, appearing both in photographs and numerous satirical videos. According to Bradley's fictional satirical biography of Mrs. Betty Bowers, she proclaims herself "America's Best Christian". Bowers operates several Christian ministries with names like "Bringing Integrity To Christian Homemakers" (B.I.T.C.H.) and "Baptists Are Saving Homosexuals" (B.A.S.H.). She is listed as a member of the Landover Baptist Church.

---

Betty Bowers videos show up fairly regularly on FaceBook.You're not the first one to mistake Landover as being the real thing. As we have learned all to well in this forum, a parody of fundamentalism or severe right-wing politics is virtually impossible to distinguish from the real thing. While this can make it difficult for the satirist to write something more outlandish than the real thing, it also makes his work easier since the fundamentalists and right-wingers end up doing most of his writing for him, plus they are the never-ending source of
ideas for him. While sites like the ONION are obvious spoofs, Landover remains uncomfortably close to its source material. Did you check out some of those links? Unless Landover spoofed the BBC site, that story of the Nigerian being institutionalized for being an atheist was real. Phat pointed out a link to Conservapedia, which is real. Landover doesn't need to make up any of this nonsense, because the target of its satire is a cornucopia that keeps pouring out more and more nonsense that is more and more outrageous. Landover doesn't have to make any of it up; they just play the part of someone who actually believes that nonsense.That said, what they present about atheists can be used to ascertain how fundamentalists do view atheists, since their presentation is based on those actual views and on what fundamentalists actually teach about atheists. And since that appears to be based on a boiled-down, concentrated form of what Christians of all denominations have been teaching about atheists for centuries, then it may well be instructive of the reasons for the wide-spread prejudice against atheists. Once we can examine those teachings, we can see which teachings make valid points and which are pure bollocks * or even out-right lies. These could be either direct teachings about atheists or conclusions drawn from other teachings, such as that morality can only come from God and that without God there is no reason for being moral.That one about morality can explain the wide-spread prejudice that atheists are immoral and untrustworthy, when, compared to Christians (and especially to "true Christians"), the opposite is true. But Christians have not thought that teaching through, though their children have. Those kids are taught from the beginning that believing in God means you have to be good, whereas if you don't believe in God then you have nobody to answer to and can do whatever you want. Then as their adolescent hormones start to bubble, they draw on what they have been taught and decide to "become an atheist" so that they can sin without guilt. That is precisely the story that a local creationist activist tells of how he had "become an atheist" (though he inadvertently admitted to me that he had never actually become an atheist, but rather had just fooled himself into thinking that he had). And even now after he had converted back, he still believes that it was having been taught evolution that had turned him into an atheist, even though his real stated reason was to satisfy his adolescent urges and evolution was just a flimsy excuse. What was really at fault was his religious education and the gaping legalistic loophole that it had created for him and for too many others fooled by their religion. And he believes that the "real reason" for becoming an atheist is to escape responsibility, when in reality atheists are fully aware of their moral responsibilities and try to fulfill them, while "true Christians" do whatever they want to just so long as they can justify it as serving Jesus, thus escaping personal responsibility for their actions by transferring that responsibility to Jesus and to God, like in the infamous Nrnberg Defense ("I was only following orders.").But while I have been asking that question out of a genuine inability to see any rational reason for such hatred, I am also asking Phat to answer that question, because he needs to understand why he believes what he believes. I'm seeing a lot of self-contradiction in Phat. He absolutely loves that movie and is inspired by it and feels motivated to enter into Holy War against atheists, but at the same time he claims to be embarrassed by the movie's stereotyped misportrayal of atheists and other Others. It would be like a fanatical Nazi feeling highly motivated to implement the Final Solution, while at the same time trying to look he thinks that Jews are being unfairly treated and depicted. Something very seriously does not make any sense there.

---

{ * FOOTNOTE:
First, if I misused that Britishism, I apologize and hope I did not cause any offense.
Second, in college (c.1971) we had a friend from Yugoslavia from whom I learned three things about being multilingual:

1. Regardless of how well we know a foreign language and even when we are living it full-time, we still do our mental arithmetic in our native language.
2. When she was learning English, at the end of one hour of English class her mouth would hurt from trying to make all our weird sounds. This prepared me for Robin Williams' joke in Moscow on the Hudson where he asked another immigrant worker, "At the end of the day, does your mouth hurt too?"
3. Only the profanity of your native language has any emotional impact on you.

She would swear in English quite readily and casually, but, she explained to us, if she were to try to say the same thing in Serbo-Croat (which itself is now a dirty word in the Balkans) then she could not because she'd be too embarrassed to.So when a Yank picks up a Britishism and starts using it, it's without knowledge of the emotional impact of that term. Which could unintentionally lead to causing offense. Like if someone relied on British TV for how to sound like an American (eg, in an Inspector Morse a woman was supposed to be American, so to establish her character as such every third sentence she spoke contained some form of the word, "fuck").
}