Religulous

aerosolben said:
I liked that the best theologian was the theme park Jesus.
Click to expand...

Wasn't that man the sweetest guy? He was one of the wackiest and weirdest but one of the most intelligent and interesting guests.

He came off like The Big Lebowski as a Christian performance artist.
 
Pardalis said:
I like him too, you don't have to agree 100% with someone to enjoy them. I think as long as it's funny, I'll watch. You probably won't believe me, but I sometimes enjoy John Stewart when I stumble upon his show. ...
Click to expand...
Why would this be difficult to believe. Regardless of one's political views, Stewart shares his insight of the news coverage in his comedy, just as Maher shares his insight of religion in his.
 
fls said:
I have to admit that I am a bit confused about what is meant by certainty/uncertainty. The only uncertainty principle I am familiar with is Heisenberg's, and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with this discussion. While I have heard scientific ideas discussed in terms of the extent to which they are supported by evidence (among scientists and the science-minded), I must admit that it is only in these religious discussions (and I guess also in various paranormal discussions) that I hear about science discussed in terms of certainty/uncertainty. Is this a real scientific principle, and if so, can you direct me to some reading on this topic?

Linda
Click to expand...
I can see your confusion. I use this kind of terminology after hearing what Rick Piltz testified to in the Congressional oversight hearings on the Bush administrations interference with government scientists. Piltz said something to the effect the anti-science crowd "has a predatory relationship with the uncertainty language of science". That uncertainty language is not what you are thinking of in terms of the uncertainty principle.
 
Whiplash said:
My only comment would be that I think it's highly arrogant of him to think that he is going to come along and single handidly destroy thousands of years of devoted tradition that many millions of people are quite fervent and obsessed about with his movie.

I can only see one reason to even make a movie like this, and that is to try and tear down religion. .....
Click to expand...
Challenging false beliefs can have that consequence. :rolleyes:
 
Whiplash said:
I can only see one reason to even make a movie like this, and that is to try and tear down religion.
Click to expand...


And your problem with this is ... ?

I don't think religion (in general) is going anywhere for a long, long time, and certainly not just because some snarky commedian makes a movie making fun of it, and using some of the same old arugments that are repeatedly used against (and then handwaved by) relgious people.
Click to expand...


Though Maher does make an impassioned plea for humankind to leave religion behind, he probably doesn't think that it's achievable in the near future. But he's also doing something that is quite practical and useful -- giving encouragement to the non-religious (atheist and otherwise) to emerge from hiding and take their place in the discussion about how the body politic incorporates religious belief, as opposed to rational thought.

This is the same kind of useful encouragement provided by the recent spate of atheist literature - Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris.
 
skeptigirl said:
I can see your confusion. I use this kind of terminology after hearing what Rick Piltz testified to in the Congressional oversight hearings on the Bush administrations interference with government scientists. Piltz said something to the effect the anti-science crowd "has a predatory relationship with the uncertainty language of science". That uncertainty language is not what you are thinking of in terms of the uncertainty principle.
Click to expand...

So when you were referring to the "uncertainty principle in science", you were referring to the way language is used in science (and subsequently misunderstandings arise when the language is used in a strict sense but is interpreted as though it is used in an everyday sense)?

Linda
 
fls said:
So when you were referring to the "uncertainty principle in science", you were referring to the way language is used in science (and subsequently misunderstandings arise when the language is used in a strict sense but is interpreted as though it is used in an everyday sense)?

Linda
Click to expand...
When I used the word, 'principle', that was my bad. I only intended to use the term, 'uncertainty', in reference to the concept of never proving theories and being unable to prove the negative. I thought that was clear by the rest of my statement but I can see why it was confusing.
I have no issue with the uncertainty principles of science. I understand the concept that theories are not considered proven and proofs are generally restricted to the field of mathematics. The Universe is an incredible place and its mysteries enormous.

I can, however, separate those principles from the god question.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Tanstaafl said:
I just saw the movie this weekend, and I think it was excellent. As in very funny, and not excessively in-your-face (as I had feared). Lots of laugh out loud moments. I thought it was interesting that the two Catholic priests were the most rational people he interviewed (by a rather large margin, I'd say). And one of them was just hysterical. I loved that guy.
Click to expand...

Agree across the board. I saw it last weekend, and I might go see it tonight with my atheist group.

Maher really captures the absurdity of religion; I think everyone would enjoy it when it's making fun of religions other than their own.
 
Tanstaafl said:
I think my favorite moment was when the US Senator confirms his fundamentalist beliefs. He then says "Well, there's no I.Q. test to get into the Senate." And then he gets this I wish I hadn't said that look on his face...
Click to expand...
As a side note, did you notice the little sign sitting at the front of his desk? It said, "Arkansas First". That amused me in light of the criticism Palin has gotten for putting Alaska ahead of the US in her politics. I guess it really does matter whose ox is getting gored. :)
 
I don't think Maher is under the delusion that his movie will put an end to religion overnight. I think that like Dawkins, Hitchens, et al, he sees his movie as one cog in the machinery needed to bring down religion.

Many people have complained that Dawkins and Hitchens were too mean to religious believers and, because of this, their message wouldn't be heard. Maher's humour is a nice alternative to that. Perhaps a few more people will get the message.
 
Does anyone think it will go to general release due to success, or am I doomed to wait for the DVD or drive two hours to see it?
 
Look for it in smaller and/or independent theaters.

My daughter and I saw this yesterday. I really liked it. There were some very funny lol moments and a lot of butt-clenchingly alarming moments, too. I don't have cable/dish, so I get most of my news from BBC, Slate, CNN, Seattle Times/PI, plus various blog links (all online) so seeing many of the images was new and frightening. Seeing the Towers hit... that's why I dumped cable in the first place.

Bill Maher is first an entertainer and this movie was entertaining, so he's done his job. I felt a little frisson when he said "I'm just asking questions" because it reminded me of the 9/11 CT whack-jobs, but he did go on to state his views at the end. Our theater was about 1/3 to 1/2 full for the Saturday afternoon matinee, mostly adults.
 
qayak said:
I don't think Maher is under the delusion that his movie will put an end to religion overnight. I think that like Dawkins, Hitchens, et al, he sees his movie as one cog in the machinery needed to bring down religion.

Many people have complained that Dawkins and Hitchens were too mean to religious believers and, because of this, their message wouldn't be heard. Maher's humour is a nice alternative to that. Perhaps a few more people will get the message.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

There is, IMO, a fundamental misunderstanding when it comes to social change. Such significant social change requires concerted efforts from many quarters. Humans are quite diverse and no single method will bear fruit. I was born in 1961 and I got to witness significant social change. it's purely anecdotal but if I had to guess based on my observations the change was achieved after years of battles on a number of fronts.

A change in the zeitgeist is coming. I have little question of that. We are seeing these things because change is possible. Ideas are being brought to the forefront. People are discussing and debating. Whenever that happens in an open and free society reason will win out.

That's our strength. Reason.
 
And with the internet we can share and discuss these ideas and most people who want reason and evidence have access to it. Faith thrives on ignorance, isolation, and fear of those who don't support the paradigm. It's getting harder to keep people in that bubble.

Strong faith reminds me of cocaine-- the user feels confident and invincible, but the light of truth reveals it all to be a trick of the mind.

I think of Bill's movie more as a call for rationalists to speak up and an invitation for others to question their indoctrination with the same eyes they use to scrutinize the beliefs of others.

Religions encourage the blind obedience and trust of liars and the delusional while making people fear those who'd eagerly give them evidence for some of the most profound and useful truths and ideas humans have assimilated over time.
 
RandFan said:
Exactly.

There is, IMO, a fundamental misunderstanding when it comes to social change. Such significant social change requires concerted efforts from many quarters. Humans are quite diverse and no single method will bear fruit. I was born in 1961 and I got to witness significant social change. it's purely anecdotal but if I had to guess based on my observations the change was achieved after years of battles on a number of fronts.

A change in the zeitgeist is coming. I have little question of that. We are seeing these things because change is possible. Ideas are being brought to the forefront. People are discussing and debating. Whenever that happens in an open and free society reason will win out.

That's our strength. Reason.
Click to expand...



From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. :)
 
I really thought it was, even in SC. Hopefully the local indie theater will be able to pick it up next month.
 
Bill Maher is an idiot. His just trying to make money by creating a hype. People could spend their money and something more useful. Controversy sells. Maher really is a clown and Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens are no better. Christopher Hitchens accusing Henry Kissinger of being a war criminal and same time Christopher Hitchens himself is supporting the Iraq war and George W. Bush?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom