Author Topic: religulous  (Read 17914 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: religulous
« Reply #15 on: February 25, 2009, 09:26:36 PM »

Offline cornbreadsmart

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1706
  • Tommy Points: 106
i think maher's attitude has to do with his disgust for religions place in  politics which ofcourse HAS no place. well.. SHOULD not anyways. it's clearly something he is passionate about. but we have to remember too that he IS a comedian. 

Re: religulous
« Reply #16 on: February 25, 2009, 09:35:31 PM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30859
  • Tommy Points: 1327
i think maher's attitude has to do with his disgust for religions place in  politics which ofcourse HAS no place. well.. SHOULD not anyways. it's clearly something he is passionate about. but we have to remember too that he IS a comedian. 
His disgust clearly extends to more than just religious influencing politics. I don't mind Maher too much on the whole, I much prefer him as a comedian than when he's ranting about politics.

The movie was a giant straw man argument. The Washington Generals put up a better fight.

Re: religulous
« Reply #17 on: February 25, 2009, 09:37:15 PM »

Offline EJPLAYA

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3816
  • Tommy Points: 127
i think maher's attitude has to do with his disgust for religions place in  politics which ofcourse HAS no place. well.. SHOULD not anyways. it's clearly something he is passionate about. but we have to remember too that he IS a comedian. 

Agreed. He is definitely not a newsperson, etc.

I do think it is a little hard to argue that our politics have no place for religion when our entire country, Constitution, Bill of Rights, and all our founding documents were based on these things.  The separation of church and state is one of the most misquoted/misused bits in our countries history. That wasn't even a phrase until 1947 when Justice Hugo Black used it in a school busing decision. The Constitution speaks to the government not being allowed to establish a "national religion" like was the case in England, but does not require a separation. Hence the "In God we Trust" on all our currency.

Anyway, no one should be forced to believe or not believe, and no one should be offended by another based on their side of this. We should be able to ALL agree on that...

Re: religulous
« Reply #18 on: February 25, 2009, 09:37:42 PM »

Offline Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30893
  • Tommy Points: 3765
  • Yup
I watched it the other night.  I think the biggest problem with the film was that he felt the need for it to be entertaining.  His main points were wrapped around religions not having any proof of their origins and the word of their scriptures.  That's a legit question that even the most devoutly religious must have pondered over at some point. What makes it tough to take seriously is the use of the interviewees as punchlines.  Was it funny - yes sometimes...but it took away from the points he was trying to allay.

I liked the movie, but I think it's unrealistic solution to ask the world to wake up and smell the coffee about god before we destroy the planet.  It's not a black and white issue, and it's not like all of the religions in the world are suddenly going to say, "Oh yeh, you know what you're right, let's stop all this religious stuff now."
Yup

Re: religulous
« Reply #19 on: February 25, 2009, 09:43:52 PM »

Offline kenmaine

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 753
  • Tommy Points: 25
  • Boston 104, New York 59
right. that's what i do. i try not to discuss it. however, some people that DO believe like to profess their faith or just chit chat about god or for example say a non believer is having a tough time in school and is stressing about it. a relative may try and help and say " hey ,what i always do is say a prayer," or suggest praying bout it. in a situation like this  i would LIKE to let that person know politely, that i don't believe in a god who cares or is involved in any way. i try not to do this with anyone i care about that i think can't take it. i do this because people do get offended. i'm not saying they're bad for being offended though. in my opinion these people are praying to nothing and there is no heaven.many would disagree. but many people (and i'm not saying there is a shred of malice behind it) just don't look at you the same when they learn you don't believe in any of that stuff.some actually think YOU'RE THE ONE who's nuts.i am very guilty ofmengaging in religious discussion if provoked though. ha. i really do find it fascinating.
  i think bill maher can be rude sometimes like anyone, but i disagree with what ya said. i actually think he's a pretty smart guy. i really don't think he's trying to hurt anyone,tear into  people. i think he's trying to get people to wake up and look at how some thing don't add up. sure we(non believers) could use a better spokes person but i did appreciate this movie. people ARE wary of letting people know this because at the very least you are gonna get people trying to change your mind instead of just accepting it. i'm not whining, i have a thick enough skin but when ya think about it, it is a little bit insulting for someone to try and tell you your LACK of belief is wrong.i'm hoping other people continue what maher was getting at(i'm not calling him a pioneer or anything).
  maher does'nt appear full of hatred or spite to me. he seems pretty happy but who knows.  

Great insight, however playing devils advocate, or Maher's advocate if you prefer  ;D, why is it less insulting to tell someone that their BELIEF is wrong?! I would never have that type of conversation with someone who wasn't a close friend that didn't know my comments for them came from true concern vs. just wanting to argue.

I have no problem with someone believing or not believing, but when you have someone that goes out of his way to ridicule groups of people like he does he is doing it for one of two reasons. Either he truly has a deep rooted hatred for religious people and is trying to tear them down, or he is just acting like he does for a buck. Either reason isn't a good one and as you pointed out earlier doesn't help society. I think it is kind of hard to like anything that the guy has to say without feeling deep down as he does. Why can't we get back to the point where we mind our own business, and are courteous to people that think differently?! It shouldn't be offensive though to have someone want to share something they believe with you though, as long as they are doing it for the right reasons.


EJ, I'm with you on the tolerance and civility thing.
However, religion doesn't have a particularly good record there, to say the least. See the Inquisition, witch trials, the insane furor over some Danish cartoons, etc, etc.
Personally, I would never bring up religion in a conversation, but if it does come up, I just say I'm agnostic. Ashes to ashes and that's it- no one really knows the answers.
And as for the movie, I won't see it unless it shows up on IFC, but I have no problem with a movie that makes fun of religion. The Life of Brian, for instance, was brilliant.
 The problem is that some people who claim to be religious can't tolerate any criticism of their beliefs, which is fine as long as they don't actually kill someone for it.
And I agree that most of these so-called pundits, talk show hosts, experts, etc., are egotistical, mean-spirited jerks, especially right-wingers ;)
Anyway, wouldn't it be great if all we needed was the golden rule.




Re: religulous
« Reply #20 on: February 25, 2009, 09:52:58 PM »

Offline EJPLAYA

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3816
  • Tommy Points: 127
right. that's what i do. i try not to discuss it. however, some people that DO believe like to profess their faith or just chit chat about god or for example say a non believer is having a tough time in school and is stressing about it. a relative may try and help and say " hey ,what i always do is say a prayer," or suggest praying bout it. in a situation like this  i would LIKE to let that person know politely, that i don't believe in a god who cares or is involved in any way. i try not to do this with anyone i care about that i think can't take it. i do this because people do get offended. i'm not saying they're bad for being offended though. in my opinion these people are praying to nothing and there is no heaven.many would disagree. but many people (and i'm not saying there is a shred of malice behind it) just don't look at you the same when they learn you don't believe in any of that stuff.some actually think YOU'RE THE ONE who's nuts.i am very guilty ofmengaging in religious discussion if provoked though. ha. i really do find it fascinating.
  i think bill maher can be rude sometimes like anyone, but i disagree with what ya said. i actually think he's a pretty smart guy. i really don't think he's trying to hurt anyone,tear into  people. i think he's trying to get people to wake up and look at how some thing don't add up. sure we(non believers) could use a better spokes person but i did appreciate this movie. people ARE wary of letting people know this because at the very least you are gonna get people trying to change your mind instead of just accepting it. i'm not whining, i have a thick enough skin but when ya think about it, it is a little bit insulting for someone to try and tell you your LACK of belief is wrong.i'm hoping other people continue what maher was getting at(i'm not calling him a pioneer or anything).
  maher does'nt appear full of hatred or spite to me. he seems pretty happy but who knows.  

Great insight, however playing devils advocate, or Maher's advocate if you prefer  ;D, why is it less insulting to tell someone that their BELIEF is wrong?! I would never have that type of conversation with someone who wasn't a close friend that didn't know my comments for them came from true concern vs. just wanting to argue.

I have no problem with someone believing or not believing, but when you have someone that goes out of his way to ridicule groups of people like he does he is doing it for one of two reasons. Either he truly has a deep rooted hatred for religious people and is trying to tear them down, or he is just acting like he does for a buck. Either reason isn't a good one and as you pointed out earlier doesn't help society. I think it is kind of hard to like anything that the guy has to say without feeling deep down as he does. Why can't we get back to the point where we mind our own business, and are courteous to people that think differently?! It shouldn't be offensive though to have someone want to share something they believe with you though, as long as they are doing it for the right reasons.


EJ, I'm with you on the tolerance and civility thing.
However, religion doesn't have a particularly good record there, to say the least. See the Inquisition, witch trials, the insane furor over some Danish cartoons, etc, etc.
Personally, I would never bring up religion in a conversation, but if it does come up, I just say I'm agnostic. Ashes to ashes and that's it- no one really knows the answers.
And as for the movie, I won't see it unless it shows up on IFC, but I have no problem with a movie that makes fun of religion. The Life of Brian, for instance, was brilliant.
 The problem is that some people who claim to be religious can't tolerate any criticism of their beliefs, which is fine as long as they don't actually kill someone for it.
And I agree that most of these so-called pundits, talk show hosts, experts, etc., are egotistical, mean-spirited jerks, especially right-wingers ;)
Anyway, wouldn't it be great if all we needed was the golden rule.





Agreed! TP for your comments. I would argue though that anyone out there that is killing in the name of religion doesn't quite get the idea behind their religion. No where in Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, etc does it allow for these things that went on. These things were done by bad people using religion as a front. Defense of oneself, family, and country is the only realistic justification for war. None of those good examples you gave were based on that.

Re: religulous
« Reply #21 on: February 25, 2009, 10:06:54 PM »

Offline kenmaine

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 753
  • Tommy Points: 25
  • Boston 104, New York 59
right. that's what i do. i try not to discuss it. however, some people that DO believe like to profess their faith or just chit chat about god or for example say a non believer is having a tough time in school and is stressing about it. a relative may try and help and say " hey ,what i always do is say a prayer," or suggest praying bout it. in a situation like this  i would LIKE to let that person know politely, that i don't believe in a god who cares or is involved in any way. i try not to do this with anyone i care about that i think can't take it. i do this because people do get offended. i'm not saying they're bad for being offended though. in my opinion these people are praying to nothing and there is no heaven.many would disagree. but many people (and i'm not saying there is a shred of malice behind it) just don't look at you the same when they learn you don't believe in any of that stuff.some actually think YOU'RE THE ONE who's nuts.i am very guilty ofmengaging in religious discussion if provoked though. ha. i really do find it fascinating.
  i think bill maher can be rude sometimes like anyone, but i disagree with what ya said. i actually think he's a pretty smart guy. i really don't think he's trying to hurt anyone,tear into  people. i think he's trying to get people to wake up and look at how some thing don't add up. sure we(non believers) could use a better spokes person but i did appreciate this movie. people ARE wary of letting people know this because at the very least you are gonna get people trying to change your mind instead of just accepting it. i'm not whining, i have a thick enough skin but when ya think about it, it is a little bit insulting for someone to try and tell you your LACK of belief is wrong.i'm hoping other people continue what maher was getting at(i'm not calling him a pioneer or anything).
  maher does'nt appear full of hatred or spite to me. he seems pretty happy but who knows.  

Great insight, however playing devils advocate, or Maher's advocate if you prefer  ;D, why is it less insulting to tell someone that their BELIEF is wrong?! I would never have that type of conversation with someone who wasn't a close friend that didn't know my comments for them came from true concern vs. just wanting to argue.

I have no problem with someone believing or not believing, but when you have someone that goes out of his way to ridicule groups of people like he does he is doing it for one of two reasons. Either he truly has a deep rooted hatred for religious people and is trying to tear them down, or he is just acting like he does for a buck. Either reason isn't a good one and as you pointed out earlier doesn't help society. I think it is kind of hard to like anything that the guy has to say without feeling deep down as he does. Why can't we get back to the point where we mind our own business, and are courteous to people that think differently?! It shouldn't be offensive though to have someone want to share something they believe with you though, as long as they are doing it for the right reasons.


EJ, I'm with you on the tolerance and civility thing.
However, religion doesn't have a particularly good record there, to say the least. See the Inquisition, witch trials, the insane furor over some Danish cartoons, etc, etc.
Personally, I would never bring up religion in a conversation, but if it does come up, I just say I'm agnostic. Ashes to ashes and that's it- no one really knows the answers.
And as for the movie, I won't see it unless it shows up on IFC, but I have no problem with a movie that makes fun of religion. The Life of Brian, for instance, was brilliant.
 The problem is that some people who claim to be religious can't tolerate any criticism of their beliefs, which is fine as long as they don't actually kill someone for it.
And I agree that most of these so-called pundits, talk show hosts, experts, etc., are egotistical, mean-spirited jerks, especially right-wingers ;)
Anyway, wouldn't it be great if all we needed was the golden rule.





Agreed! TP for your comments. I would argue though that anyone out there that is killing in the name of religion doesn't quite get the idea behind their religion. No where in Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, etc does it allow for these things that went on. These things were done by bad people using religion as a front. Defense of oneself, family, and country is the only realistic justification for war. None of those good examples you gave were based on that.

TP back at you. And the ones killing in the name of religion would be killing in the name of something else anyway.

Re: religulous
« Reply #22 on: February 25, 2009, 11:18:51 PM »

Offline guava_wrench

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9931
  • Tommy Points: 777
Sad to see the ignorance of the Bible.

The Old Testament clearly advocates genocide. Anyone who says otherwise has not read it. Read when the Israelites were entered Canaan. They were told to kill everyone, even the children. Read the first 5 books of the Bible. The god in that book is extremely violent and commands his nation to also be so.

It is tiresome listening to unread apologists claim that that violence is foreign to religions when it is actually part of the roots of many religions. It is not helpful to make uninformed claims.

Fortunately, there are also more liberal re-interpretations of religious texts applying modern values.

To clarify, it is our modern ethics that tells us the violence is wrong, NOT the religious traditions. Fortunately, people have updated the traditions to make them more humane.

Re: religulous
« Reply #23 on: February 26, 2009, 12:24:51 AM »

Offline pumpfake

  • Payton Pritchard
  • Posts: 115
  • Tommy Points: 14
I have never been a maher fan, but i applaud his motives. he doesn't hate religion, he is obviously fascinated by it as am i and many other non-believers.

i too do not like to proclaim my agnostic stance when discussing with loved ones or even with people i don't know. for different reasons.

with love ones, i don't want to take away their faith. they feel they may go to heaven when they die and i wouldn't want them to fear a death that includes no continued existence.

with people i don't know, this same result can come.  but in addition, since it's very easy to question religion there being very little evidence to support it... from a polemics stand point a non-believer has a huge advantage... logic, where as the believer must resort to faith. this creates a disconnect in the believer's argument, compound this with the fear of no afterlife that the believer may harbor, and i've found these discussions will often lead to negativity.   the religious person will often show little tolerance for my point of view which leads to a poor opinion of me in general, and i've grown weary of having these conversations due to these consequences.

i saw the film some months ago however, and it inspired me to stop cowering. I've since proclaimed my lack of belief several times in public settings, non-confrontationally and will continue to do so despite mixed responses.

many of us non believers tolerate religion because we believe it is responsible for more good than harm. this is because it helps to keep large quantities of people in line as they may fear god's wrath and so forth. the film declares that religion does more harm than good due largely to wars that have been and are being fought strongly due to religious belief. it is difficult to make an actual conclusion as to which is correct.

also, if religion does cause more harm than good, it's not the fault of religion, but the fault of those who find themselves in positions of religious power to influence the minds of many.

sadly i can't give any references, but i've read articles which postulate our belief in religion as an evolutionary advantage... something that's built into our genes. it makes sense as we are the only animals aware of our existence and subsequent lack of existence. we require justification for our inevitable cessation. otherwise we may lose our drive to survive and reproduce, which is all we're really here to do.

so unfortunately, as simple as bill maher makes it sound, a minority of non-believers preaching reason is not going to do away with religion and is not going to solve our world's religious based hatred and violence.

another solution that hasn't worked is our country's interference through out the world. we have a knack for making things much worse when we meddle. people like saddam and bin laden largely owe their success to our meddling.  and ironically, we have historically tolerating/supported one of the most well known religious wars, with the israel-palestine situation.

i don't have any solutions.

Re: religulous
« Reply #24 on: May 20, 2010, 02:13:45 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
Saw about 15 mins of this the other night.

Besides the whole thing about him basically trying to plaigiarize Michael Moore, but not doing it well I found a major irony.

He seems to insist people get too wrapped up in their religion and religion is dumb yadda yadda, but it's clear he is a a very devout follower of his own religion - self worship.

Also he's just not funny, so why does he act like he is?

Re: religulous
« Reply #25 on: May 20, 2010, 05:39:38 PM »

Offline jackson_34

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2036
  • Tommy Points: 166
Wow. The anti-religion sentiment on this site is intense, the disgust almost palpable. I guess it would be pointless for a religulous bloke like myself to weigh in, seeing as how the general consensus of the folks on this board is that people such as myself don't even have a brain, much less anything intelligent to say. As my wife says, it's now cool to hate religion, particularly since religion is about the only thing standing in the way of our society's wish to be completely hedonistic. I do wonder, though: Do cynics ever take the time to fully think through what's in the Bible, to see if there might be a good reason for what is described therein? The "genocide" knock, for example: Genocide is the mass murder of a group of people for no reason other than that they exist; a good example: the Nazis' murder of the Jews simply because ... they were Jews. As for the warfare described in the Old Testament, it wasn't "for no good reason"; the various people groups of ancient Canaan practiced child sacrifice, not to mention temple prostitution -- does that sound like a "good" people, a people who deserve to live? More to the point, since the popular conception of God is that only "bad" people should suffer, is it not appropriate that these obviously terrible people, with their detestable practices, were wiped out?

Who's right is it to wipe out an entire race?!





Re: religulous
« Reply #26 on: May 20, 2010, 05:40:46 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
edit: Sorry, thread got split while I was posting.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: religulous
« Reply #27 on: May 20, 2010, 06:27:21 PM »

Offline guava_wrench

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9931
  • Tommy Points: 777
Wow. The anti-religion sentiment on this site is intense, the disgust almost palpable. I guess it would be pointless for a religulous bloke like myself to weigh in, seeing as how the general consensus of the folks on this board is that people such as myself don't even have a brain, much less anything intelligent to say. As my wife says, it's now cool to hate religion, particularly since religion is about the only thing standing in the way of our society's wish to be completely hedonistic. I do wonder, though: Do cynics ever take the time to fully think through what's in the Bible, to see if there might be a good reason for what is described therein? The "genocide" knock, for example: Genocide is the mass murder of a group of people for no reason other than that they exist; a good example: the Nazis' murder of the Jews simply because ... they were Jews. As for the warfare described in the Old Testament, it wasn't "for no good reason"; the various people groups of ancient Canaan practiced child sacrifice, not to mention temple prostitution -- does that sound like a "good" people, a people who deserve to live? More to the point, since the popular conception of God is that only "bad" people should suffer, is it not appropriate that these obviously terrible people, with their detestable practices, were wiped out?

Who's right is it to wipe out an entire race?!


Beyond that, the previous poster clearly has not read or does not remember what is actually in the Bible.

The god character commanded the Israelites to kill all the infants in a land they were invading multiple times. That is genocide.

"the various people groups of ancient Canaan practiced child sacrifice"

Solution of the god in the OT: kill all the Canaanites, including the babies. That is perverse. And how much evidence do we have to differentiate between legitimate claims of child sacrifice and propaganda?

And how is prostitution a big deal? I really have to wonder about any human who thinks prostitution is a good reason for a genocide. I'm not sure I see how prostitution is unethical in the first place.

And by the way, there are always "reasons" for genocide. They are just twisted reasons. Fortunately, most humans changed their gods over the years to make them more civil and humane.

Sadly, weirdness is still popular with new sci-fi religions like Scientology (which Maher skewers quite well in the movie). Likely that too will change with time.

Re: religulous
« Reply #28 on: May 20, 2010, 06:37:25 PM »

Offline Jon

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6499
  • Tommy Points: 385
It's been a long time since I've seen it, so I don't remember the specifics well.  However, as someone who generally believes that all religions (due to the fact that they were created by humans, who are inherently flawed) are inherently flawed, I was fairly disappointed.  I really thought he could've delved much deeper than he did.  Too often I thought he was trying to be funny or spiteful rather than simply exposing major hypocrisies and fallacies that exist in religions.  

Re: religulous
« Reply #29 on: May 20, 2010, 06:50:58 PM »

Offline guava_wrench

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9931
  • Tommy Points: 777
It's been a long time since I've seen it, so I don't remember the specifics well.  However, as someone who generally believes that all religions (due to the fact that they were created by humans, who are inherently flawed) are inherently flawed, I was fairly disappointed.  I really thought he could've delved much deeper than he did.  Too often I thought he was trying to be funny or spiteful rather than simply exposing major hypocrisies and fallacies that exist in religions.  
Maher is a comedian who likes to make fun of people, so it is unavoidable that his movie will be a bit low brow. I share your sentiments usually, but it is entertaining to see an over the top presentation on occasion.