Religulous

Ben.

Ben.

Active member
I just watched the movie and.....

I just don't get it. Religion that is. I just, dont, get it.
 
Religulous wasnt that good in my opinion.

As for religion, hard for me to say. I, like everyone else, seem to follow my parents example, and a large part of your world is shaped by how you grow up.
 
He tried to hard to make it funny and entertaining i think.

And yes, Im sure upbringing had a lot to do with it. But just having that much faith in ANYTHING.... idk.
 
ya religion doesnt really make sense, a lot of good and bad comes from it.
most of the major charities in the world are backed or run by religious groups though, so i say fuck it, if it helps people i dont really care if its real or not
 
I think whats interesting is the fact that human being seem inclined to have faith. Look at how much real progressive discovery is shunned and ridiculed by "experts", who later claim that the new idea was theirs all along. Humans like to believe things, and hate being wrong even more.
 
Thats pretty much what it comes down to. People hate being wrong, so they just pick something (clearly its not really that basic of a decision but you get my point) and as long as they believe hard enough they cant be wrong.

Wow i basically just repeated what you said... im not really sure where im going from this, i just dont understand the refusal to even LISTEN to anything, much less ever admit your wrong.
 
Being aware that human nature is to believe and to abhor those beliefs being destroyed is enough. If everyone in the world was aware of this, I think we'd take our beliefs and our humility a bit more evenly.
 
It was a funny movie, but I felt that Maher was really rude and biased when talking to the religious people in the movie. I know he would be biased since he has a clear stance on the topic, but he could have at least let the people make their points and then respectfully argue them and not just call them stupid.
 
I actually thought the movie was really good. Other than the last 5 minutes, he seemed to be mostly asking questions, not stating his beleifs. It was mildly funny, but mostly it just made sense.
And who doesnt love the scene where theyre smoking pot and the guys hair catches on fire!?!
 
not a huge fan of the movie, mayer just called relgious people stupid and he pointed out only the bad parts of reglion
 
I am a freethinker so I am no way associated with religion but, I was Jewish and did have a bar mitzvah. I liked the movie, but I thought maher(sp?) was very rude. I don't understand religion in sense of how people can devote to those things. (No offense to any religious folk)
 
he had the right intentions, but he didn't go about it in the right way. movie sucked, aside from some of the really stupid shit the religious people said.

 
I haven't seen it, but Bill Maher is such a pretentious douche, I don't know if I could handle it without an overload of rage. The man is not NEARLY as funny and clever as he thinks he is.
 
The movie did a good job explaining that religion is a problem. And it sure is. The biggest problem. Killing women and children in the name of jesus doesnt make any sense to me, but then again, neither does the bible.
 
Religion to me is a something one does for themselves and their soul. One should be free to choose what they believe in and that is that. Unfortunately I live in the bible belt full of southern baptists that are crazy and more of a cult than a church. They try to pressure you to partake in their religion. If you even show any sign of not loving JESUS and GOD you are shunned from the community.
 
i agree with you. religion really should be your own choice and i feel ya because i live in a mostly mormon community and i'm not mormon so sometimes i have trouble making friends out here just because of that which sucks
 
Ahhh the mormons. I was in Utah a few years ago and they are a little nuts as well. I'm not trying to disrespect their religion but some of them take it too far.
 
churchsign.jpg
 
religulous is an alright film. bill maher is a pretty funny cat but he doesnt push hard enough or dig deep enough into the subject matter to bring up any points...he just runs around turning down all religion without much reason.

with that being said..it's still fucking hilarious and he makes each of the religious followers in that film seem like complete tards.

i am not a religious person. mainly because i grew up with a mother who believes religion causes more problems than it solves. i am a firm believer that religion carries a heavy burden of 'interperetation" when it comes to religious literature. the bible, quran, for example..they are both widely open to your own perspective as to what it means to you. this causes extremists to use religious literature to justify their actions...and in my opinion these actions, i.e. suicide bombing, threatening and violent behaviour toward women who walk in and out of abortion clinics, etc, are detramental to our society and we could definitely do without such extremists.

thank u, end rant.
 
bill mahr...maher...however you spell his name usually make me laugh s hard that my juicebox is spat all over the oober high tech 12 t.v. screen

but this one let me down
 
I thought it was really funny, his closing statements were pretty strong for a comedian. HIm getting inside the mosque on temple mount was insane though because nobody outside of islam is allowed in.
 
To be honest i have a similar view on religion and religious people as Richard Dawkins does... that being that i actually think people who are anything more than firmly agnostic have either been brainwashed by family/friends/the church etc at a young age (or any age really), and anyone who has consciously turned to religion on their own accord is in fact just not very intelligent.

Sure religion helps people... but it does more harm than good. its prized concept is having 'faith'... basically telling people to blindly believe in something without any proof whatsover. Religion is slowing the progress of humanity.
 
I dont think people, or human nature for that matter is influcened or based on believing, but instead UNDERSTANDING. What people cant or dont understand they desire an explaination for. Whether its the creation of the solar system or merely why the sky is blue, people strive and aim to gain SOME form of understanding of the world around them.

So this means that if something can be explained by a group of like minded people who share the same beliefs (ex. religion), then that is what they will form to UNDERSTAND thier situation.

I dont believe in religion, but thats my opinion.
 
I don't know how many people are aware of this, but Dawkins' arguments have been the subject of some very potent refutations, both by Christians and, more notably, number of other atheists. His own colleagues have called him an "amateur" and worse. This New York Times article is a good overview: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E7DC1731F930A35750C0A9619C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

I'm just saying, you might want to examine your beliefs, because it appears they may not extend much deeper than Dawkin's brand of airport-book-store pop-atheism.

 
In case I didn't give sufficient cause to check out that link, here's a quote from a noted Marxist literary critic from the London Review of Books on "The God Delusion": "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the

subject is the Book of British Birds and you

have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on

theology." Wow. Harsh.
 
i find that the way he deals with religion is effective. these people are bashing him because he doesnt respect religion or give religion any credit, and although it may be harsh to do that, and he may offend a lot of people, i think its almost necessary. es basically using shock tactics.

I dont think Dawkins claims to be an expert on theology, but i dont think that was really the goal of his book. his goal was to get people to pay more attention to how religion is a cancer on society, and he did so successfully. theology in his (and my eyes to a degree) doesnt deserve much mention.

i think that being anything except a very skeptical agnostic is pretty stupid, and to give credit to religion for anything nowadays is ridiculous. we cant know if there is or isnt a god obviously, but to think there there is any more than an incredibly slim chance of there being one is just ignorant in my opinion.

p.s. i read The God Delusion a year ago at least so my memory isnt great on everything he says about theology and whatnot, so excuse me if i made any incorrect assumptions.
 
As for his expertise on theology, or lack thereof, I know he's said something to the effect of, "Does someone have to be an expert on leprachaunology to say that leprechauns don't exist?" My response, I think, would be maybe not, but if you feel the topic is worth writing a book on, some background would be helpful. Frankly, and I mean no disrespect, I think the rationale you and Dawkins use to justify not addressing legitimate theology is a bit of a cop-out, and it's also fallacious in that it's an argument from your conclusion ("There can be no legitimate case made for the existence of God, therefore no case made for the existence of God should be considered or addressed.")

But he's been criticized for much more than just that. Many of his atheist colleagues think he's resorted to what you acknowledge as shock tactics instead of raising legitimate objections. I.e., he uses a lot of straw men.

He's also caught a lot of flak (again, from atheists) for being very selective with his "evidence." He addresses all of the evils done by religion without acknowledging any of the good, and does just the opposite for atheistic systems. Additionally, it may be worth mentioning that such anecdotal evidence doesn't establish a causal relationship in any event.

Finally, you say that you think anyone who is "anything except a very skeptical agnostic is pretty stupid." I doubt Dawkins would consider himself agnostic at all; he's an avowed atheist. Do you mean to say, "Anyone who accepts that there is anything more than a slim chance that God exists is pretty stupid"? Or would you include atheists in your dismissal of any viewpoints other than agnosticism?

 
i thought it was a good movie, if you saw bill maher on the jon stuart show he said he was "just asking questions" maybe he says it in the movie to, but he definately brings up a lot of good points
religion is absolutely ridiculous, a magical man who lives in some kingdom that holds everyone who ever died? wtf
also i love how some of the really religious people who believe in god (basically magic) say that magic (like harry potter) is like witchcraft
 
I don't think that even makes sense grammatically, let alone in any other way.

If you're trying to make the cliche and uninformed argument that "religion starts all wars," what about the fact that atheistic systems (especially Communism in the Soviet Union and China) had a FAR higher death toll in the 20th century than religious ones? Going by that logic (which I don't buy, for the record), the most benign worldviews are not the ones that reject the idea of God.
 
counterpoint though. religion, has caused some of the LONGEST and BLOODIEST wars in the world. the Crusades, the war in the Middle East currently between Israel and everyone else, the Egyptians fighting the Hebrews (yes, the Hebrews were fucking butchers on a battlefield), the war in Northern Ireland. these are things that cant be denied.
 
hey guys people that think that santa is real are retarded, but obviously that guy in the sky that lets people into a giant cloud place is real. yup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top