CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Helllins It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.

Catherina If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

Jenni Devyn Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

xenia Part one of Jonathan Miller's documentary, A Rough History of Disbelief, aims to expose atheism's past and explore the reasoning behind it with help from Greek philosophers such as Epicurus to Sigmund Freud. Even though Miller's voice is droning at times, I still managed to remain focused because of the interesting content and although the subject matter could potentially be quite controversial, Miller narrates the documentary without putting any religion on the spot. Theism, anti-theism, and atheism are all discussed and are used as stepping- stones to guide the audience through how atheism first came about as a tool used by those in positions of power to what it is today. I liked that although this documentary discusses religion along side atheism, it does not go out and attempt to change peoples' beliefs. Instead, it's obvious that Miller's goal was to introduce a fresh new way of looking at atheism by walking the audience through his own beliefs while interweaving it with concepts thought of by past and current philosophers along with concepts taught by the five major religions. Ultimately, I thought that Jonathan Miller successfully presents a rational and respectful story of what atheism is and I learned a lot about how it came about and how it has changed over time.

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.

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.

obscuranta This was well-done, and very well-put overall. I felt the last episode did a disservice to the Russian Revolution and Soviet Union by conflating communism with the horrors of Stalinism (there is so much more to the history than Stalin), though I certainly agree that under Stalin, too many people died. However, the atheism of the Soviet Union had nothing to do with it- consider that under Stalin a lot of the Churches were re-built, for instance.In any event, the use of quotes from the Greek Philosophers all the way through and beyond Thomas Paine and Freud were masterfully done by the actor voicing them. I think that this is a valuable, though not perfect, series on the subject. It is not recriminatory, it is informative, and it is both personal and universal in its scope. Jonathan Miller interweaves his own atheism and the history thereof into the history of the world's very well, indeed.This is a calmly presented and very interesting document. It also will expand your reading list quite a bit.