SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

GrimPrecise I'll tell you why so serious

BallWubba Wow! What a bizarre film! Unfortunately the few funny moments there were were quite overshadowed by it's completely weird and random vibe throughout.

Justina The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Paul I've watched this documentary several times over the past few years, which is a testament to it's quality. Miller's respect for both the subject and the intelligence of his audience creates a refreshing documentary. A rough history of disbelief does not use visual gimmickry to keep your attention, instead the series tells the story of the history of atheism from the time of the Greeks to the present today and explains concepts of theism (belief in a god/s), atheism and anti-theism (objection to theism) in a thorough way through the writings of historical figures and the evolution of ideas.Whether you are a theist, atheist or apatheist, I strongly recommend this documentary as a way of accurately understanding what atheism is, what has caused it, attitudes towards it and how it has manifested over time.

ghnoland Absolute Truth? What a proclamation! – to suggest that you or anybody is in possession of all possible knowledge or absolute truth.Even if you could approach that possibly, it implies a finite cosmos – and where the infinite is extremely difficult to comprehend, a finite universe is impossible to conceive.At best religion is simply a way to create a finite understandable existence – a way to use our common conscience experience to illustrate the thing.I don't find any logic in the necessity of a 'creator' just because we perceive our material existence – in fact that again implies the finite 'who created the creator' – or if you describe God as the infinite, then I don't understand how or why the infinite has any interest in our corporal affairs – what monumental conceit!Most commonly, religion is used to acquire and maintain power and authority to force social order through the threat of supernatural retribution.Most often this social order has been for the good, but often it has been politically motivated, extreme, socially repressive, and sometimes down right evil – just look around today.

howToDie One of the questions arising after watching 'Brief History of Disbelief' is the choice of its title. It is deeply ironic in the sense that the movie is neither 'brief' nor even historical. Instead the documentary is a long 3 hour opinionated ramble with no historical time-line and little educational value.The movie starts with an attempt to show that theistic beliefs are inferior to other forms of beliefs including what the narrator insists on calling 'knowledge'. The presentation fails on both counts of clarity and accuracy. It is not clear since it uses jargon borrowed from Philosophy of Mind which can be both misleading and incomprehensible for the general audience. It lacks accuracy, since the narrator displays blatant ignorance of the subject and contradicts general consensus achieved in Epistemology, i.e. that it is almost impossible to demarcate between rational and irrational not only in our daily lives and folk beliefs, but even when it comes to scientific methods. For anyone interested in the subject, an introductory course in Philosophy (specifically in Metaphysics, Epistemology, or Philosophy of Science) can present a coherent contemporary view on the topic.The rest of the movie marks some change from dogmatic philosophizing in its first hour. However, it is equally disappointing and it fails to deliver on the promised "history of disbelief" as it neither provides a satisfactory theory about the origins of atheism nor does it give a coherent hypothesis of why it became so dominant. Instead, the narrator picks up a famous historical figure, examines origins of her personal anti-Christian convictions, and then moves on to another random famous person. As a result it is not surprising there is hardly any structure to this presentation.Perhaps the most entertaining aspect of the movie is continuous interjection by the second narrator with an anti-religious witty joke or poignant remark made by some historical figure. Clearly these jokes are not picked up for their intellectual qualities, but rather for their emotive appeal. They are as vaguely offensive to theists suggesting their weak-mindness as they are vaguely self-congratulatory to atheists on the similar ground. However, since theism (a belief that there is god) and atheism (a belief that there is no god) are both mere beliefs, there is really no rational basis for these self-righteous overtones. Once this is sorted a funny analogy appears. It's an analogy between the ATHEISTIC rant of the narrator in "Brief History of Disbelief" and the THEISTIC rant of, say, Pat Patterson on Christian Broadcasting Network. Both are religious crusades which are offensive to the other camp and congratulatory to yourself.Finally, it must be mentioned that the lack of any cinematic account on the history and nature of non-theism (and specifically atheism) makes the failure of this documentary particularly disappointing. It could have been the first attempt to explore this philosophically, historically, and sociologically fascinating subject. Unfortunately, it is not. It is just a misdirected effort by a layman director with little education on the subject and strong anti-Christian convictions.2/10 for a couple of interesting references, otherwise 1/10.

siderite This is a documentary about a very interesting subject, but, in my opinion, badly made. It's not that it's a bad documentary, because it delivers what it says it does: it's a brief history of disbelief; but Johnatan Miller is the complete wrong person to narrate it.Imagine a Jewish man in his sixties, with a perfect British accent, a pompous intellectual attitude and now living in the US. He is explaining why God doesn't exist, religion is stupid and so on and so on. It's not that he is not right, it's the way he talks! He gets together with his other pompous atheist friends and asks them about their opinion, which is obvious, considering they are his friends. This guy has a weird way of talking and when he needs to give simple examples, he uses references from college education.In other words, a college educated atheist (who is the probable average watcher of such a program) gets information that is interesting, but doesn't really bring anything new. A religious redneck with 5 children running around him shouting will not get the references, will get offended by the narrator's way of speaking and generally will gain nothing, since he already knew pompous intellectuals were full of it. (no offense intended towards religious people, I just gave an example)Therefore, I submit this is a failed science program. It doesn't really have a point. The information as well leaves to be desired, but it's a short mini and there is a lot to say about the subject.Conclusion: it is worth watching (For example, I learned about Epicurus and Democritus from this show and I intend to dig into it.) but don't expect believers to change views because of it.