Though I didn’t notice, my wife felt that about half of the theater got very quite at this point when the movie rammed home its secular point with fairly blunt satire. There is no doubt that Mr. Gervais (an avowed atheist) new exactly what he was doing with this movie. It is squarely directed at religion and religious view, most specificaly Christianity.

IanW covered the first comments you condemned quite well. tonyc responded to the substance of your first comment with an historical observation that has quite a bit of merit, given the periodic waves of revivalism that have swept the country, and you decided he was being dismissive. You ignored my request for more information on what you found offensive in the comments. Greg pointed out that some people are impossible to reach, and you dismissed his entire blog as unscientific masturbation. What you had to say about your fiances opinions and tastes is probably something best discussed between the two of you.

Frankly, the only appropriate response to your first two comments is, “Where is your blog in which you bring harmony and understanding to fruit between those of all religions, Mr. Know It All?” You’ll note (or at least, everyone else will, so you probably should) that no one responded that way. The smug, self-congratulatory atheists who so offend you by their existence went out of their way to engage with the substance of your comments and ignore the fact that you sound like a retired school teacher with a perfectly manicured lawn and your belt pulled up just under your chin.

I don’t know what’s got you so cheesed off, but it’s quite clear to everyone reading that the problem is something you arrived with. Unless you’ve got something to say that’s relevant to anything that’s actually happened in this thread, perhaps you should take your issues and go somewhere where people can help you with them.

But there is also room for other kinds of dialog.

Including, I suppose, you telling me what I should blog/not blog and how/now how I should do it! (But it is terribly annoying to most of my readers. They’ll probably rip you a new one on that account).

You wrote this in comment #5. The previous four comments had essentially said this:
“I’m not allowed to go to movies”
“Sounds about right to me”
“I must see it”
“Sounds like religion”

And this is caged animal-like ferocity? The only “ferocity” here is your unsupported claim.

“Is the appropriate response to someone demonizing your views to simply demonize theirs in return?”

Another florid claim. It’s just a movie. Nothing is being demonized from what I see, yet once again your language takes flight from nothing. If believers feel demonized from something as tepid as this, then they’re seriously insecure, which speaks volumes about their faith.

“The only reason that the religiously zealous write this sort of thing is because they feel threatened–threatened by the secularization of our youth, who will inherit their formerly devout society.”

You speak for billions? I didn’t realize you were so powerful. But let’s pretend you’re right for a minute. These billions feel threatened by even a whisper that there is no god or that their faith is baseless, yet somehow, this omnipotent god of theirs offers them no support, no protection, no solace, so once again, the believers are forced into doing their god’s work for him? And what kind of god is this again?

“Threatened, essentially, by what SHOULD come to pass: the subsiding of witch hunts in favor of careful reason. That said, when you pile on the attacks, it’s only going to make that caged animal all the angrier. Just my $.02.”

I don’t see a lot of careful reason in your comment. I see a flare-up based on four previous comments which didn’t do anything you claim they did.

Matthew’s last comment is definitely one of the more entertaining responses I’ve seen.

Preaching to the choir is mental masturbation, whether it’s being done by rabid, self-congratulatory zealots or rabid, self-congratulatory skeptics. I don’t see it as an academic pursuit to tell someone to fuck off based on their firmly entrenched beliefs, and–correct me if I’m wrong–I thought this was supposedly an exploratory blog about science and culture, not a Perez Hilton forum. Mentioning “science and culture” in your header would seem to imply that you have something to say about either one rather than milking cronies for their applause.

But as long as you feel comfortable in your diary-writing, circle-jerking pulpit, hiding behind the word “science” as if it somehow makes you any better than the “irredeemable fools” you decry, well then I’m sure it’s all worth it to add absolutely nothing to the conversation, reducing everything to a matter of “They’re beyond help, and I’m beyond reproach.” I just wouldn’t invoke science or academia while doing so. But that’s just me.

The funniest thing, perhaps, is that you excerpt The Catholic Spirit’s reprint as if to show how ridiculous it is to see malevolence in the idea of telling the truth… when in fact you yourself are far more concerned with fueling malevolence than you are making pertinent, truthful observations.

Or at least, that’s what this comment thread looks like to me.

http://www.flickfilosopher.com/blog/2009/10/100209the_invention_of_lying_review.html

Enjoy!

Almost, the same way a blog posting is almost like a peer-reviewed journal paper.

But of course it’s not at all that accusing online atheists of demonizing everyone who differs even slightly from their “dogma” is almost like demonizing aforesaid atheists, is it?

NB: the local strident atheists regularly call for evidence &/or new rationales (aka “original thinking”) from believers. The problem seems less one of demand and more, well, supply-side.