• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Religulous

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,007
Location
Yokohama, Japan
So there's this new movie by Bill Maher called Religulous.

It seems to be getting "Generally favorable reviews" according to Metacritic. (Trailer can be seen here.)

Here's the NY Times review (Trailer, clips and interview with Maher can be seen/heard here.)

“Religulous” is directed by Larry Charles, whose credits include “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan” and many episodes of HBO’s “Curb Your Enthusiasm.” And the movie has the same loose, on-the-road structure as “Borat.” Much of Mr. Maher’s film is extremely funny in a similarly irreverent, offhanded way. Some true believers — at least those who have a sense of humor about their faith — may even be amused. But most will not.

In a small journalistic coup Mr. Maher interviews a Roman Catholic priest in front of the Vatican, who laughingly agrees with him that the fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church are nonsense that are not to be taken literally. Mr. Maher, unfortunately, doesn’t press him on why he wears priestly vestments and presumes to exert religious authority.

Although theologians and scientists are interviewed in the film, they are fleeting presences in a documentary that doesn’t pretend to be a serious cultural or scientific exploration of the roots of faith. Because Mr. Maher adopts the attitude of an inquiring reporter instead of a pundit, his contempt for organized religion isn’t as pointed in the movie as it is in his television monologues.

His strategy is to coax most of those subjects who are true believers to appear foolish as they offer stumbling, inarticulate responses to his friendly interrogations. The majority of his subjects are easy targets. One such sitting duck is José Luis de Jesús Miranda, a nattily dressed Miami preacher who declares that he is the second coming of Christ and claims that his Growing in Grace ministry has 100,000 followers. Like the fulminating televangelists whose ministries the film glosses over, he comes across as a greedy, self-satisfied charlatan with a fondness for gold.

Anyone want to see this?
Is Bill Maher a good spokesman for the non-religious?

:boxedin:
 
Last edited:
So there's this new movie by Bill Maher called Religulous.

It seems to be getting "Generally favorable reviews" according to Metacritic. (Trailer can be seen here.)

Here's the NY Times review (Trailer, clips and interview with Maher can be seen/heard here.)



Anyone want to see this?
Is Bill Maher a good spokesman for the non-religious?

:boxedin:

I'll probably watch it but I have a bad feeling it will claim that "religious" and "stupid" are synonymous.

I don't think he has really researched the issue much...he is apparently unfamiliar with agnostic atheism. Mahr was on the Daily Show recently and badmouthed atheists because he thought atheism was based on certainty.
 
Last edited:
I'll probably watch it but I have a bad feeling it will claim that "religious" and "stupid" are synonymous.

I don't think he has really researched the issue much...he is apparently unfamiliar with agnostic atheism. Mahr was on the Daily Show recently and badmouthed atheists because he thought atheism was based on certainty.

I never know what to call myself either. I just know that religions are wrong from the point of view of natural history and objective reality, I don't claim to know the how and why of the Universe. I guess that makes me an agnostic, but I'm comfortable with atheism too if it's not defined as making any claim to know the how and why of the Universe.

Non-religious is a pretty neutral term that works for me.
 
Last edited:
So there's this new movie by Bill Maher called Religulous.

It seems to be getting "Generally favorable reviews" according to Metacritic. (Trailer can be seen here.)

Here's the NY Times review (Trailer, clips and interview with Maher can be seen/heard here.)

Anyone want to see this?
Is Bill Maher a good spokesman for the non-religious?

:boxedin:


Well, Maher being half Jewish, half Christian, surely is a good spokesman
for anyone being critical of Religion. On the other Hand, posting in here,
he may be the devil himself.

And yes, I want to see it - but since it won't be shown in Germany due
to the lack of interest, I wait for the Google-Video version.
 
As with Borat, I'll probably wait to watch it on video, and wonder what the fuss was about.
 
I'll probably watch it but I have a bad feeling it will claim that "religious" and "stupid" are synonymous.

I don't think he has really researched the issue much...he is apparently unfamiliar with agnostic atheism. Mahr was on the Daily Show recently and badmouthed atheists because he thought atheism was based on certainty.

Wouldn't call it badmouthing. He simply said he doesn't like 'absolutes'. On either side. He said in all honesty he doesn't know for sure, but made it pretty clear where he stands. The point he made was he let people speak for themselves, and the lack of logic/idiocy of their statements and beliefs would be self evident.
Thought he was pretty funny - it is a comedy show (although gives me most of my insight? into American politics), and I'm sure a lot of Americans will now be praying for his soul/for a big lightning bolt to strike. Except doubtful they were watching.
 
So there's this new movie by Bill Maher called Religulous.

It seems to be getting "Generally favorable reviews" according to Metacritic. (Trailer can be seen here.)

Here's the NY Times review (Trailer, clips and interview with Maher can be seen/heard here.)



Anyone want to see this?
Is Bill Maher a good spokesman for the non-religious?

:boxedin:
I can already see the apologists marching in:
"by only choosing and coaxing no-true-christian idiots Maher gives a very biased view of christians... if he had interviewed ---(insert favourite theologian here)--- he would have been brought to the approriate&required dimitude..." etc. etc....
I'll watch it for a few laughs, not expecting new stuff.
 
I'll probably watch it but I have a bad feeling it will claim that "religious" and "stupid" are synonymous.

I don't think he has really researched the issue much...he is apparently unfamiliar with agnostic atheism. Mahr was on the Daily Show recently and badmouthed atheists because he thought atheism was based on certainty.

I got the impression, from watching the Daily Show interview, that he holds the same views as most atheists/agnostics - that the gods of the various religions are fairly obviously unbelievable. It would make sense that he is aware that atheism is presented as though it includes certainty, and that he would want to distance himself somewhat from that position, in order to appeal to a broader audience. I'm sure he wants lots of people to see his movie, after all. :)

Linda
 
I never know what to call myself either. I just know that religions are wrong from the point of view of natural history and objective reality, I don't claim to know the how and why of the Universe. I guess that makes me an agnostic, but I'm comfortable with atheism too if it's not defined as making any claim to know the how and why of the Universe.

Non-religious is a pretty neutral term that works for me.

That's what I have been using as well, when it comes up in real life. It's a comfortable term to use and reasonably describes the relevant characteristics, without a lot of irrelevant, accumulated baggage.

Linda
 
I never know what to call myself either. I just know that religions are wrong from the point of view of natural history and objective reality, I don't claim to know the how and why of the Universe. I guess that makes me an agnostic, but I'm comfortable with atheism too if it's not defined as making any claim to know the how and why of the Universe.

Non-religious is a pretty neutral term that works for me.

I got the impression, from watching the Daily Show interview, that he holds the same views as most atheists/agnostics - that the gods of the various religions are fairly obviously unbelievable. It would make sense that he is aware that atheism is presented as though it includes certainty, and that he would want to distance himself somewhat from that position, in order to appeal to a broader audience. I'm sure he wants lots of people to see his movie, after all. :)

Linda

If I remember correctly (fat chance of that), he said that he was not an atheist and said that he sees atheism "as a mirror" to other fundamentalism. He also said that he didn't like the "certainty" of atheism.
 
I can already see the apologists marching in:
"by only choosing and coaxing no-true-christian idiots Maher gives a very biased view of christians... if he had interviewed ---(insert favourite theologian here)--- he would have been brought to the approriate&required dimitude..." etc. etc....

I have already seen something like that.
 
If I remember correctly (fat chance of that), he said that he was not an atheist and said that he sees atheism "as a mirror" to other fundamentalism. He also said that he didn't like the "certainty" of atheism.

Yeah, that is the standard disclaimer, is it not? I think he said he was an agnostic for that reason.

He doesn't seem at all uncertain about whether the earth is 6000 years old, though.

Linda
 
Last edited:
We're going to go see it opening night (Friday). Only to show my support for non-religion. And because sometimes on opening night there are fun protesters and such.

I, too, was disappointed to hear him say on The Daily Show that atheists are "certain." I think he's got his definition of atheist mixed up. I'm not certain. I just don't believe there are any gods.

But I'll go see it anyway... :)
 
That's what I have been using as well, when it comes up in real life. It's a comfortable term to use and reasonably describes the relevant characteristics, without a lot of irrelevant, accumulated baggage.

Linda
I don't really like the term "non-religious" because it can too easily be taken to mean that you just aren't terribly religious. Like you don't go to church or read the bible, but you're still "normal" and believe in God like everyone else. You could say, "I'm non-religious" to someone and have them say, "Yeah, me too. I hardly ever go to church. God's going to smack me down one day. Ha ha." I prefer that my belief (or lack of) be in no uncertain terms. I'm an atheist.
 
What's interesting, I've already seen people crtique this film, they always say he's "Christian Bashing", even though he attacks all faiths. They totally disregard the fact that he is questioning other religions and they have no problem with that, even though he spreads it around.
 

Back
Top Bottom