|
Main Hollywood Atheist Discussion
Xi V Xa V : I would really like to continue the discussion on the removal of the troper tales page from Hollywood Atheist. A) No one there is actually paying attention to the characteristics laid out on the page, they're just using it as a place to whine about atheists they've met who also happen to be jerks about it. The way I see it, that's not what this page is about, but instead the representation of atheists in media as either having illogical reasons for their disbelief (Bad things have happened to me, therefore God does not exist, and the like) instead of reasoned skepticism, and being depressed or irresponsible (Anyone who claims to know an atheist who "lives solely to belittle religious people" I would accuse of gross exaggeration). B) As a War On Straw page, Hollywood Atheist is about a stereotype, and as such is always going to be Flame Bait. The Fundamentalist had it's Troper Tales page taken down for the same reason.
In subjects like these, I'm usually cautious about adding a Real Life example, but this seems tame. Still, I thought I'd put it here for criticism. Here's my idea for the example. Alternatively, this could be put in the discription (With some alterations).
It's not unusual for religious people to have bad experiences that make them question their faith. This can either be played straight, or subverted if the religious person deconverts because of atheistic arguments. In the latter case, the bad experience is what causes the person to question in the first place, but does not become the sole reason for disbelief.
Alternatively, a note somewhere (In descriptions or examples) as to how there exists arguments that are essentially well thought out versions of the Theme Park Version the Hollywood Atheist represents. These usually question how an omnipotent, loving god would allow evil (Either at all, or in excessive volumes.)
Can we do something about the section that says writers may be basing things on their own experiences, etc? It seems to me that that's just a shade away from writing a vicious anti-Semitic stereotype and justifying it by saying, "But some Jews ARE greedy! I'm just extrapolating from common stereotypes! We've all met or heard of someone like that!"
I say unless someone can come up with a less problematic way of stating it, we strike the whole bit.
The entry on Wolverine from the animated X-men show seems problematic to me. First off, it states that Wolverine thinks that "God has given up on mutants", which seems more like Nay Theist to me. Second, any pretense of neutrality is lost when the writer declares a moment with Wolverine sitting in a church reading a Bible to be a Crowning Moment of Heartwarming. Am I the only one bothered by this?
This page having a troper tales page didnt make sense to begin with but it definately shouldnt have one when its counterpart The Fundamentalist had its troper tales wiped.
I deleted the following line from the Comic book section:
- Which is a surprisingly logical and realistic standpoint for an "atheist" character in comics, since most, like Mr. Terrific, just stick their fingers in their ears and go "LALALA I can't see you, LALALALA!"
Atheists in real life can be a rather diverse group. After all, the only thing confirmed by the label "atheist" is that the person does not believe in any god(s).
Actually, the most accurate definition for atheism would be "not a theist". Just that. Nothing more. An atheist is just somebody whose worldview does not include thinking that there are one or more gods/deities/divine beings/whatever (which is not the same as thinking that there aren't any gods).
This definition, though, is so broad that it would be wrong to call atheists a "group", much like "people who are not soccer hooligans" is not a group either. Hell, one could think that alien wombats from a parallel dimension invade Earth to steal our invisible unicorns and that the government is covering it up and that we can fight them by consuming homeopathic medicine, and he would still be an atheist. "Atheist" does not mean "disbeliever", "skeptic", "pragmatic" or "reasonable". "Atheist", as a label, is beyond utterly useless, because it's so broad it defines nothing at all. Saying that somebody is a "secular
humanist" says something about his philosophy and worldview; same would go for "naturalist" or "empiricist". "Atheist"? Not so much.
Would adding the French theatre play Dom Juan, by Molière by an acceptable example of this trope? (although there are many versions of the story
, it's the one this troper is familiar with). In it, the eponymous protagonist is portrayed as an atheist, whose mission in life is to dare God to strike him down if he exists. He's a Doubter like Thomas of Aquin, hence his libertine ways and his pleasure to break anything sacred out of spite (such as sleeping with nuns, offering indecent money to poors if they will curse God, etc). Except that in the end, God does send somebody to kick his unbelieving ass in the form of an animated statue of a man he previously killed.
This would make the Trope Older Than Radio.
, it's the one this troper is familiar with). In it, the eponymous protagonist is portrayed as an atheist, whose mission in life is to dare God to strike him down if he exists. He's a Doubter like Thomas of Aquin, hence his libertine ways and his pleasure to break anything sacred out of spite (such as sleeping with nuns, offering indecent money to poors if they will curse God, etc). Except that in the end, God does send somebody to kick his unbelieving ass in the form of an animated statue of a man he previously killed.
This would make the Trope Older Than Radio.
It might be time for another cleanup. Is this page about straw atheists, or any portrayal of an atheist that somebody finds unflattering?
Maybe split the trope?
Divide it into Straw Atheist and Asshole Atheist. There is by definition no such thing as a real-life Hollywood Atheist, but we certainly know of atheists who are to say the least unpleasant.
I took out the section reading "Alternatively, the writers who use these tropes may simply be extrapolating (or exaggerating) from common stereotypes about atheists or basing them on experiences with atheists they have known personally."
The first example there is so obvious it needn't be said, the second is just bigoted. If we were talking about a trope that stereotypes and belittles another minority, we wouldn't say that the writers may be basing it on people they know.
Look, the reason why few Abrahamics are transhumanists is because they see it as blasphemy. Defiling the body that God gave you or trying to surpass Him. Descartes was a devout Christian and most of the faith have adopted his belief in the "Ghost in the Machine".
There are quite a few Buddhist transhumanists because they believe that practically anything can have a soul and in reincarnation. So if one were to dice up someone's brain in order to make a virtual copy a Buddhist might believe that the original person had been reincarnated as a computer program. While most Christians would think a virtual copy of someone's brain is, at best, a mere copy, at worst, a dead man denied his rightful place in Heaven.