Perhaps the worst documentary ever made - Religulous (2008) Discussion

[–] Blueghost 9 years ago

It's more of a comedic look at faith in some of its worst forms. Bill rarely visits mainstream churches and talks seriously with a lot of regular priests. He talks with the serious heads and professional thinkers after he's given us a real hard look at the most rediculous aspects and followers of various faiths.

The church in a trailer rig.
The Hispanic evangelist.
The Christian theme park with the actor playing Jesus.
The Mormons and their cartoon.
The Rabbi who visited Iran.

And so forth.

He shows us the absurd, and then gives us thoughts of rational thinkers as well as his own, including his mother and sister.

That's what the film is really about. It's not meant as an in depth exploration of various faiths, because (in the words of Bill Maher) let's face it, they're all nonsense.

Whether your pouring water over a grave like the Japanese, hurling yourself onto a flaming pyre for your husband (as Hindu wives have done), chanting and stomp-dancing around a fire to summon rain (as Native American tribes have done), or preaching about a super natural overlord who'll punish you if you don't believe in him (and it is a male). It's all delusional thinking. That was Bill Maher's aim.

reply

[–] Rizzyay 9 years ago

Whether your pouring water over a grave like the Japanese, hurling yourself onto a flaming pyre for your husband (as Hindu wives have done), chanting and stomp-dancing around a fire to summon rain (as Native American tribes have done), or preaching about a super natural overlord who'll punish you if you don't believe in him (and it is a male). It's all delusional thinking. That was Bill Maher's aim.

That is exactly my point. If your aim is to prove that "idiotic people are idiots", then you are not really doing anything worthwhile, now are you? I mean, even most of the religious people would agree that these people are idiots! So - *beep* - what? A believer being idiotic does not yet prove anything about religion, just as meeting an idiotic atheist (there are surprisingly many of them out there) doesn't say a thing about atheism.

My point is, whatever there is to religion, good or bad, Maher failed utterly to capture any of it. He didn't really even try. His aim was simply to prove that grass is green - that the most idiotic forms of religion are idiotic, just like the most idiotic forms of absolutely anything can be idiotic - and he doesn't even do a very good job with it.

Worst documentary film ever. Period.

reply

[–] Blueghost 9 years ago

But that's kind of his point, because there are lot of people who go to church without really thinking about what it is that they're supporting.

Why would you believe in something that is ludicrous? That's what he's posing to the audience.

reply

[–] Rizzyay 9 years ago

I don't see how that conclusion can be drawn from what mr. Maher presented on screen. If I was one who goes to church, this movie certainly wouldn't make me think about what I was supporting. I mean, it's just a bunch of extremists he is making fun of. The average christian already knows those things are stupid, and the average believer already knows (s)he doesn't believe in that stuff. If you are trying to make an analogy between extremists and the average believer, that analogy doesn't work out at all: ludicrious stupidity is not reserved only for believers, but is rather a very human phenomenom, so proving that some extremists are stupid does not mean all believers are participating in it.

The same way you could make a documentary about idiotic atheists (there are some, and there have been many throughout history) - and then say this will make people realize they shouldn't be atheists. It doesn't work like that.

Besides, at least here, people who go to church already think a lot about their relations with extremist views, because they have to defend their religion to everyone all the time. At least the believers who I know. But that might be more of a cultural difference between Europe and America. So perhaps that's why the movie works better for Americans.

But as for me, the only function of this movie was to put those people down, there was absolutely nothing informative or funny about it.

reply

[–] Blueghost 9 years ago

But that's the crux of the film; what is the difference between what you observe as extremism, and what your average church goer believes?

The truth is there isn't. The whole judaic christian bible is supposed to be "the word of god", and yet when something negative arises in that text, no one challenges is.

If you don't believe in Noah's Ark, then why don't you dismiss the Garden of Eden story? Or the crossing of the Red Sea? Or the sacrament? That's Maher's point.

reply

[–] Rizzyay 9 years ago

Once again: what is the difference between French revolutionary atheists of the 18th century, who believed that atheism was a good enough reason in itself to murder christians, and the more intelligent and modest atheism which (usually) doesn't resort to violence? It would of course be idiotic to claim that you can blame the entire sub-group of people based on a few extremist individuals. If you do, you are pretty much forced to adopt double-standards (as the example above demonstrates), since there can be extremists in almost all sub-groups of people. That is why most intelligent atheists (unlike mr. Maher) don't use that sort of analogy: it would seem a bit futile to fight one kind of idiocy with another kind of idiocy.

reply

[–] Blueghost 9 years ago

Look, you're not listening to me. Maher's point is what's the difference between one set of imaginary things and another set? Why believe one over the other when they're both unproven?

To say you don't act a certain way or only believe in part of some religious text is still saying that you believe in nonsense.

reply

[–] Rizzyay 9 years ago

I was listening to you, it was just that your point was horrible.

Religious stupidity is not about set of beliefs. It is about how you conduct yourself with those beliefs. What do I mean by this? Well, for example: what good is it to have a realistic set of beliefs, if you are still completely unable to think rationally? It is really unfortunate how many atheists fall under this category. Then again I for one have met many christians who can argue their point perfectly rationally (even admitting the intellectual shortcomings of religion)despite their set of beliefs.

If there is idiocy in religion (and there is), it is because it seems to make some of those people think they have the right to dismiss rationality entirely, and even more: to act like major a-holes. But hey, Maher does these things too! Thus I see no major difference between religious nutheads and people like Maher, who, unfortunately, does not even seems to understand the basics of rational thinking.

If it was Maher's intention to point out that atheists are equally idiotic to believers, and equally unable to perform rational thinking when necessary, then he did a fine job with it. Not a good point to make in my opinion, though.

reply

[–] mobilephone9 7 years ago

You are missing the point. It's very simple what he was trying to convey here and that is believing in any one of the hundreds of religions that exist on earth is the same as telling people that you believe in fiction, fairy tales, fables, make believe characters, monsters, magic, etc. and not just telling people you believe in that stuff but that you live your life based on these make believe set of rules. It's insane to believe in religion. By believing in religion you voluntarily shut down the part of your brain that is responsible for rational thought, critical thinking, and intelligence. By definition a non-functioning brain is clinically dead and religious beliefs casue the brain to become non-functioning.

reply

[–] Blueghost 7 years ago

by mobilephone9 » 3 days ago (Thu Jan 12 2017 15:32:57)
IMDb member since February 2007
You are missing the point. It's very simple what he was trying to convey here and that is believing in any one of the hundreds of religions that exist on earth is the same as telling people that you believe in fiction, fairy tales, fables, make believe characters, monsters, magic, etc. and not just telling people you believe in that stuff but that you live your life based on these make believe set of rules. It's insane to believe in religion. By believing in religion you voluntarily shut down the part of your brain that is responsible for rational thought, critical thinking, and intelligence. By definition a non-functioning brain is clinically dead and religious beliefs casue the brain to become non-functioning.

Precisely, thank you.

reply

[–] mobilephone9 7 years ago

And one last thing, just take a look at most major wars throughout the existence of our race. The majority of them are all motivated by religious beliefs. Religion is very dangerous and has been the cause for so much blood shed.

reply

[–] objviewer 9 years ago

I can only speak about my experience with Christianity, but your characterization of Christians who believe the bible is literally true (and this is what the documentary focused on) as "extremist" I think is incorrect.

Saw a Gallop poll that estimated 1/3 of AMERICANS (not even Christians) believed the bible to be the literal word of God. Don't think it is accurate to characterize Religulous as being about a fringe element.

reply

[–] Rizzyay 9 years ago

There might be a different viewpoint here because I am an European, where a very smaller number of people (21%) consider themselves to be christians at all. Because they are so much less represented than in America, people who end up converting to christianity (well at least the people I know) tend to think about it quite a lot, both on a personal level and intellectually. They've all been aware of the intellectual problems etc. Then again it might be because I've mostly been talking to believers who went to a university... might be a bit different in the rural areas.

reply

[–] Devils-Night 9 years ago

this sort of documentary is neither funny (as it should be) or informative (as it very easily could be).

One is relative and the other I agree with you.

It should not be funny to anyone

Or maybe, just maybe, humor is subjective and the comedy in this movie didn't fall into your taste?

Possibly the worst documentary film I've ever seen.

That statement doesn't really say much. I mean, how many bad documentaries have you seen? What documentaries are you comparing it to? I doubt you've seen movies such as zeit-geist or expelled: no intelligence allowed if you would consider religulous the worst of the worst.

harrasses those poor truckers

I guess we have different definitions of harassment.

when someone bullies people like that

And different definitions of bullying.

I mean, sure, some kids love it when a bully picks on the small guy in the school yard, and the more blood comes out the funnier some people consider it to be. But don't come telling me that the bully is a hero and the guy bleeding was an idiot, I'm not buying into that.

I don't buy your analogy.

By the way, just to get ahead of you: I am not saying this is a good movie. Or a good documentary.

_________________
Come, lovely child! Oh come thou with me!
For many a game I will play with thee!

reply

[–] Rizzyay 9 years ago

Well obviously we had a different perspective to the film. But to me, it really did seem like this whole "hey let's find out more about religion" -thing was just a bad excuse to go make fun of people who are different than him. Condesending, disrespectful and - worst of all - extremely unintelligent. And yes, I do consider it bullying when the whole point of a conversation is to put the other person down.

Humor is subjective? Of course it is. Like I said, some people will always find it funny when people are being put down. I am not one of those people, nor do I think any intelligent people really are. But some people will propably find this all very amuzing.

That statement doesn't really say much. I mean, how many bad documentaries have you seen? What documentaries are you comparing it to? I doubt you've seen movies such as zeit-geist or expelled: no intelligence allowed if you would consider religulous the worst of the worst.

Of course I've seen documentaries that aren't as well made as this one. Some that are cleraly directed towards a teenager audience. But they are honestly bad films. Those documentaries don't try to be good and intelligent films. What I personally find most annoying is a film that tries to be more intelligent than it actually is. And what's even worse, Maher actually seems to believe that he really *is* as intelligent as any of the more profound atheistic thinkers who've written about the subject with much more originality and vision.

Btw, I've seen the Finnish version of Zeitgeist, and I gave it a 7/10, altough I've heard from several different people that the American version is much worse, filled with all sorts of conspiracy theories that wouldn't work so well for a Finnish audience. While I found (the Finnish) Zeitgeist to be flawed on many levels, I respected it for making an effort to say something original. That is already something Maher never even bothered to try.

He is just a bad comedian way out of his league, and he doesn't even realize it. It would be sad if it wasn't so goddam (no pun intented) annoying.

reply

[–] Devils-Night 9 years ago

"hey let's find out more about religion" -thing was just a bad excuse to go make fun of people who are different than him.

That is comedy for you. Have you never seen or listened to the worlds greatest comedians, like George Carlin and Richard Pryor? Comedy IS making fun of people who are different; either yourself and/or others. Granted, Maher's comedy could have been a lot better, but it got a few chuckles out of me and I didn't see any of it as particularly offensive. I've seen plenty of other much more disrespectful anti-religious stuff. Even Maher himself has said much worse things outside the movie about religions and religious people.

The comedy in the movie, to which Maher subjected the people he met with, was pretty mild... You ain't seen nothin' yet if you think Maher, in this movie, was condescending.

And yes, I do consider it bullying when the whole point of a conversation is to put the other person down.

That would require the whole point to be about putting the other person down. Of which I don't think it was. At best it was about putting down their beliefs. He, at least, tried to be on neutral terms with the people he met.

Despite making fun of them I felt that he was mildly respectful towards them. He told them his opinion in a very watered down version, didn't shout or scream (you should see some of those street corner religious preaching nuts), weren't preaching to them, laughed with them, let people walk out who didn't want to participate, walked out if he wasn't welcome.. I don't really see the bullying and disrespectfulness that you see.

Maybe you should elaborate a bit on the disrespectful nature of Maher in the movie.

Humor is subjective? Of course it is. Like I said, some people will always find it funny when people are being put down. I am not one of those people, nor do I think any intelligent people really are.

Well, there really isn't much to say to this other than you are wrong  There are plenty of intelligent people who enjoy comedy in which groups of people, or even individuals, are put down, for comedic purposes.
By the way, I fancy how you inadvertently declared that I then couldn't be intelligent either since I enjoy such comedy that you think no intelligent person could enjoy. Thanks, I guess?

While I found (the Finnish) Zeitgeist to be flawed on many levels, I respected it for making an effort to say something original.

Original..? And how does that in any way make up for what it is?

Of course I've seen documentaries that aren't as well made as this one. Some that are cleraly directed towards a teenager audience. But they are honestly bad films. Those documentaries don't try to be good and intelligent films.

Again; then you haven't seen a lot of the bad documentaries around. Try and watch Expelled: no intelligence allowed for starters; you'd be shocked at the amount of elitist pretense and deception taking place.

He is just a bad comedian way out of his league, and he doesn't even realize it.

OR... he is just a comedian whose comedy doesn't interest you. You dropped that whole 'humor is subjective' thing pretty quickly?

_________________
Come, lovely child! Oh come thou with me!
For many a game I will play with thee!

reply

[–] Rizzyay 9 years ago

I'm afraid that in order to elaborate more closely what mr. Maher says and doesn't say, I'd have to view at least parts of his so-called documentary film again, and I do not intent to perform that sort of brainrape for myself.

There are plenty of intelligent people who enjoy comedy in which groups of people, or even individuals, are put down, for comedic purposes.
By the way, I fancy how you inadvertently declared that I then couldn't be intelligent either since I enjoy such comedy that you think no intelligent person could enjoy. Thanks, I guess?

I might've gone a bit too far claiming that intelligent people can't find stupid humor funny. Sometimes they do. However I do claim that this sort of humor is easy and cheap - literally ANYONE can perform the same sort of "jokes" as mister Mahel without any trace of originality or cleverness - and usually intelligent people consider this sort of idiocy to be beneath them.

I'm sure there are plenty of comedians just like him, who make people laugh with very easy tricks. I do not intent to seek that sort of humor to be present in my own life.

You dropped that whole 'humor is subjective' thing pretty quickly?

I never dropped it, but I never claimed that the rules of relativism would apply to comedy just because comedic taste is subjective. There are people who will enjoy the so-called "easy" humor: the sort that takes cheap shots against people who are basically asking for it. It is subjective in the sense that people will subjectively seek humor at the level of their intelligence. That is why bad comedians such as mr. Mahler will always find an audience. Usually the intelligent people are looking for humor with a bit more depth to it, though. On average, that is. But I'm not trying to point any fingers here, it is quite possible that you might make an exception. ;)

I won't get deeper into Zeitgeist since the American version is propably quite different than the Finnish one. I'll just say that having something original to say is almost always - even when badly elaborated - a better thing than pulling off something entirely predictable that doesn't add anything to the subject, something what anyone else could've done as well. Heck, at least they make an effort. At least they say something. At least you have to think about what they say. Mr. Mahler doesn't really say anything at all, he just makes a lot of useless boring noise.

reply

[–] Devils-Night 9 years ago

I'm afraid that in order to elaborate more closely what mr. Maher says and doesn't say, I'd have to view at least parts of his so-called documentary film again

Well, if you don't remember what he said, nor is willing to go back to clarify/verify your claim then there isn't much to argue about on this point.

and I do not intent to perform that sort of brainrape for myself.

I assume that was an insinuation in that it is only brainrape for someone like yourself who doesn't find him funny.

I might've gone a bit too far claiming that intelligent people can't find stupid humor funny. Sometimes they do. However I do claim that this sort of humor is easy and cheap - literally ANYONE can perform the same sort of "jokes" as mister Mahel without any trace of originality or cleverness

Easy and cheap is often times the best sort of humor. It all depends on how you deliver it. A lot of the TV shows that has existed is based on cheap and easy improv humor. I particularly enjoy 'QI' and 'whose line is it anyway' - shows that you wont' like based on your dislike for this kind of humor.

Also, reiterating what I said before; I don't think either that Maher's comedy in this was spectacular in any way. But the sort of "jokes" that he did is something almost all comedians do, including the very best - Maher just did a worse job at it. Worth chuckles.

'll just say that having something original to say is almost always - even when badly elaborated - a better thing than pulling off something entirely predictable that doesn't add anything to the subject, something what anyone else could've done as well.

I am not going to disagree with you that originality trumps banality. But I would like to know what exactly Zeitgeist did that was so original.

... That is why bad comedians such as mr. Mahler ... He is just a bad comedian way out of his league ... I'd have to view at least parts of his so-called documentary film again, and I do not intent to perform that sort of brainrape for myself ... Condesending, disrespectful and - worst of all - extremely unintelligent ... the guy is a complete a-hole ... he just makes a lot of useless boring noise ...

Would it be fair of me to presume a tad of bias in your evaluation of Maher?

_________________
Come, lovely child! Oh come thou with me!
For many a game I will play with thee!

reply

[–] Rizzyay 9 years ago

I do think watching the film at least without questioning the idiocy behind it would indeed be a violent act against intelligence for anyone, regardless of wether or not you find him funny.

Perhaps my evaluation was somewhat subjective, I'll grant you that, but like we've discussed before, comedic taste usually is. I do, by the way, enjoy "whose line is it anyway" -sort of humor, because I enjoy surprising insightfulness which you can find in that sort of programs. In fact this quality of insight, this surprising originality, can be found in many so-called "bad quality" tv shows. So it all depends how you determine "cheap and easy". At the right spot, even toilet humor can turn out to be insightful.

Maher didn't demonstrate a trace of this sort of originality.

Here's my question: what if the show was "making fun" of extremist atheists (there are some, I've met them) and seriously claiming that we all need to question the questioning of religion because of those few individuals regardless of all logical arguments, would you find it amuzing? I wouldn't. I'd be rather pissed off. (Even though that would at least be a more original approach to the subject.)

So in the end, it's all about double-standards to demonstrate how you are better than people around you. That's the schoolyard bully humor disguised as intelligent wittyness right there. I don't care if most comedians are doing it - just as I don't care if most movie directors base their entire careers on big explosions. Quality does not equal popularity. Atheists of all people should know that: should 18th century atheism be considered unintelligent just because most well-educated people were believers back in those days, if we were to use that logic?

So I know I'm biased, just as I'm biased when I claim that movies based on big explosions aren't automatically good - not even if they sell well. It is a bias, however, that I believe can be intelligently justified.

reply

[–] Devils-Night 9 years ago

I do think watching the film at least without questioning the idiocy behind it would indeed be a violent act against intelligence for anyone, regardless of wether or not you find him funny.

Sure.

Maher didn't demonstrate a trace of this sort of originality.

He demonstrated his own personalized humor and ideas. That is what it is, and who he is. It's Maher being Maher, and if you don't like Maher then you don't like the movie.

Here's my question: what if the show was "making fun" of extremist atheists (there are some, I've met them) and seriously claiming that we all need to question the questioning of religion because of those few individuals regardless of all logical arguments, would you find it amuzing?

Probably not. But this movie isn't targeted at making everyone laugh; it's demography are atheists and any theist/deist who isn't too hardly butt clenched about their beliefs - and a special focus on those asking: can you question religion?

So in the end, it's all about double-standards to demonstrate how you are better than people around you.

I'd say it is about pointing out how religions aren't perfect and how you can make fun of them and their beliefs - of which are good points in an era where people are trying to find the courage to speak against religions. The problem with the movie is that it was Maher who made it (and partially the slack'ish research); the ideas themselves in the movie are fine, and there were greater potential for humor than what Maher came up with. But I am content with what I got; I got what I expected.

That's the schoolyard bully humor disguised as intelligent wittyness right there.

Again; this whole 'bully' thing I don't see.

So I know I'm biased, just as I'm biased when I claim that movies based on big explosions aren't automatically good

I am not claiming the movie is good or intelligent. I am saying it made me laugh here and there, and that it has some good points.

_________________
Come, lovely child! Oh come thou with me!
For many a game I will play with thee!

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] supercygnus 9 years ago

It did very much come off as a movie about a smug jerk that just kind of rolls his eyes in the face of people he was talking to, followed by him trashing them afterwards. If the movie was suppose to be about Maher not being able to understand that someone might actually have a different point of view or set of beliefs than him, mission accomplished. It just doesn't make for a very interesting documentary unfortunately. And I would consider myself to be pretty neutral on the subject.

reply

[–] jktomas 9 years ago

"I mean, sure, some kids love it when a bully picks on the small guy in the school yard"

In USA religion isn't a small guy. It's the juggernaut, especially in some states. Only 8% are atheists and they have to live with the rules that stupid religious people dictate. You were spoiled by living in a country that doesn't give a *beep* about religion, so was I. But I feel really sad for fellow atheists in America who have to deal with that *beep*

reply

[–] Rizzyay 9 years ago

I suppose the difference is, like you point out, that in Europe we are talking about the small guy that gets picked at, while in America (especially in some states) it might be the bully itself.

Still, I wonder if it is really religion that is the problem. We have a lot of idiocy going on in politics etc even without religion... Human stupidity in my opinion is the root of the problem, and while sometimes this stupidity takes the form of religion, it can very well function even without one.

reply

[–] jktomas 9 years ago

But how else could you fight this stupidity other than by pointing out what's stupid about people's thinking?
I don't enjoy hating on religion either, but mostly because I live in a country where the majority of church goers are old ladies and former drug addicts who found Jesus. No point in arguing with them, if religion gives you confort and reason to live, enjoy it. But if I lived in a place where a big portion of all people ignored facts, had a distorted view on the issues of global importance, tried to teach fauls information in schools, hated on people with different sexual orientation or skin color, hated on people with other religions and they justified it all by saying that the bible tells them to do so and I should respect their faith, then I would lose my mind.

reply

[–] Rizzyay 9 years ago

But how else could you fight this stupidity other than by pointing out what's stupid about people's thinking?

I think it is wonderful to point out what is stupid about people's thinking! And a documentary about how that can be seen in religious thinking is indeed an interresting and possibly amuzing subject. Unless of course if you are equally stupid and unable to even comprehend what those people you made fun of were even trying to tell you, like mr. Maher. ;)

In order to understand people's thinking, you need to understand their motivations, their personalities, etc.. This is pretty much the 101 of documentaries (and all informative entertainment, really). Mahler was not interrested in any of that. In fact, he wasn't even interrested in pointing out what precisely it was that didn't work in religious thinking. He was only interrested in making fun of people who were different from him. That, in my books, is pretty much the definition of human stupidity.

I'm not claiming that you were wrong with what you said (hell I wouldn't want to live in a place like that either), just claiming that this documentary failed utterly at pointing out what it was trying to point out, ultimately making believers seem almost like Maher's victims, which I suppose was not the reaction this documentary was looking for.

reply

[–] jktomas 9 years ago

That's a good point. Some great documentaries can get into the minds of even the craziest people and you might even sympathise with them, no matter how different your world view is. This one apparently doesn't want to do anything but to make fun of stupidity. That's just too lazy. Even South Park creators, who constantly make fun of mormons, acknowledge that they are mostly really nice people. This American Life is a good example of secular people being able to tell stories of all kinds of people without any judgement whatsoever.
I think that Maher is right on most of the things he's talking about (involving religion) but he's incredibly smug about it and that's not likable. That's not the way to deal with this problem.
However, I still believe that actively making fun of and arguing with religious people to unmask the flaws of their arguments is very important in those areas where religion is a dominant force.

reply

[–] Rizzyay 9 years ago

Indeed! Once you know the motivations of the believers, perhaps even symphatize with them, only then you start to realize how their belief system actually works psychologically; and only then you can objectively point out the flaws in the belief system itself, and how it affects people psychologically (instead of just making big noise about how "people that are different from me are stupid" etc). And if you can turn that attitude into humor, well, that sort of satire works on many levels!

That is the logical way to go, both intellectually and entertainment-wise. South Park manages to approach that level of satire occasionally. Mr. Maher cannot. I haven't heard of "This American Life", but I suppose I ought to check it out, thanks for the hint! :)

reply

[–] Thelsttm 9 years ago

No point in arguing with them, if religion gives you confort and reason to live, enjoy it. But if I lived in a place where a big portion of all people ignored facts, had a distorted view on the issues of global importance, tried to teach fauls information in schools, hated on people with different sexual orientation or skin color, hated on people with other religions and they justified it all by saying that the bible tells them to do so and I should respect their faith, then I would lose my mind.

I'm curious where you're seeing these people?

Granted, I have encountered any number of individuals who have espoused many of the views you offer, but I'm looking for the one who says all of the above and then ends with, "You should respect my faith?"

Virtually every diligent busybody with too much free time on their hands that I have met doesn't care one way or another what you or I or anyone else think of their beliefs. So I think you're mixing up your categories here.

Take the truckers in the first scene, they're minding their own business, conducting a service, and Bill comes in and starts asking smug questions that could be easily answered without even leaving Los Angeles county. Instead he felt the need to go to a trucker's chapel in North Carolina. Why? He was hoping to find some dumb hicks to get on tape acting ornery about his fancy book learnin' I reckon. Then, when someone gets upset that he's disrupting their church, he feigns like he's not trying to do that, but only "asking questions." If you want to be a jerk, be one, but don't pretend that's not what you're doing.

And since you're talking about stupidity, did you look up those "Jesus is a big copycat" claims that Bill makes in the movie? Try and you'll find his near lack of citations is a deliberate thing, as the parallels Bill offers betwixt Jesus and the other figures is something he probably got off the Internet and just...believed they were true.

I can find a number of stupid things people have done in the name of politics, economics, aesthetics, sex, etc. What point does any of it make?

Bill's calling names and bullying, not because he's picking on the little guy, but because he's not engaging these seemingly ridiculous people so much as filming and editing them so he's always the smart one with all the answers.

Just watch the Francis Collins interview and notice the sheer amount of editing that takes place.

Who are a little wise the best fools be.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Rizzyay 8 years ago

Well in case you didn't notice, your own post isn't really filled with clever rational argumentation either! And even if "religionists" are morons, that is still no excuse for more stupidity by non-believers. Mr. Maher, for example, doesn't seem to be any less moronic than the people he is picking on.

I don't see any atheists killing people in the name of atheism

Really? Then you need go open a few history books! The most famous atheist killing spree took place during the French revolution, of course. Over recent decades, there have been many religious persecutions in the name of atheism especially in communist countries. Check out Scorsese's movie "Kundun", for example, if books are too heavy stuff for you. The monks are killed in the very name of atheism.

And no, saying this doesn't mean I would be defending religion in any way. I'm just saying I don't see much difference between religious killing sprees and atheist killing sprees. People are capable of being complete morons regardless of what their belief system is.

(Btw, I think you are propably just trolling, but I thought I'd give you a reply anyway, if only to see if my speculations are indeed correct :D)

reply

[–] Devils-Night 8 years ago

I'm just saying I don't see much difference between religious killing sprees and atheist killing sprees. People are capable of being complete morons regardless of what their belief system is.

I agree, the deciding factor lies in the individual and what motivated and justified them to commit murder.

Which means there are 2 things to consider:
1. What their motivation is.
2. What their justification is.

So, if I could ask you, where do you think people, who kill, get their motivation and justification from?

_________________
Come, lovely child! Oh come thou with me!
For many a game I will play with thee!

reply

[–] Rizzyay 8 years ago

Interresting questions.

I'm not an expert on the subject so of course I'm mostly speculating, but...

Religious zealots (and I'm not talking about the typical believer but rather the extreme fundamentalist) seem to believe
A) that they are righteous people because and ONLY because of their right beliefs, and
B) that they are above others because of this righteousness.

Then again there are atheist people (and I've seen many of them on IMDB) who seem to believe likewise regarding their own belief system: being an atheist somehow puts them above the rest, even hands them the right to ridicule others in a very personal and demeaning way.

When this attitude is taken to one extreme or another, I believe it can eventually lead to belief-system-related murders, such as the ones we've unfortunately seen in France recently.

But of course this alone is not enough. Even if this attitude is justification enough to consider someone else's life less valuable than your own, it is still not a motive for murder. (I could not imagine, for example, mr. Maher killing anyone because of their religious beliefs even though he acts demeaningly towards religious people.)

Now I am speculating even more widely here, but it seems to me that when belief-system-based murders or killing sprees take place, there very often seems to be politics involved one way or another. If one believes to be righteous because of one's beliefs, that is one thing; but once one starts constructing a social reality which is reserved only for the righteous people - wether those people are religious (Isis) or atheist (French revolution, communism) - violence might take place, as those who oppose you and think differently are seen as obstacles. And of course if you already believe they are less valuable people than you - if people at all - then why not get rid of them, right?

So to sum it up: people who are considered non-righteous and thus less valuable are killed if they are seen as obstacles to one's attempt to build a social reality which is reserved only for the righteous. It seems to me that is usually the case, altough there might be individual differences behind these sort of motives.

But enough of my speculations and kitchen psychology. What is your take on this?

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Rizzyay 8 years ago

(Btw, I think you are propably just trolling, but I thought I'd give you a reply anyway, if only to see if my speculations are indeed correct :D)

Once again, my prophecy has been fulfilled! :D

You propably haven't even heard of the infamous "september massacres"?
I don't know why I even bother, but:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianization_of_France_during_the_French_Revolution

Not that it matters what I say, because
A) of course you are not going to read this anyway, and
B) since you are calling me an "idiot" while I am making a reasonable argument, you will get on my ignore list, like all trolls will. Goodbye.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] andreaswae 8 years ago

You display bad manners and name calling for all to see. And your nick "RapeIsASsocialConstruction" don't help.

This sentence has nothing to do with what I just have written above.

reply

[–] THE_Tetsuo 8 years ago

Religionists are morons and deserve to be picked on. I don't see any atheists killing people in the name of atheism

Sure, if you ignore the actions of Pol Pot, Josef Stain, Kim Jong-Il, Than Shwe, Benito Mussolini and Mao Zedong. But by all means, carry on with your pseudo-intellectual ignorance.

This year I'm voting Republican. The Democrats left a bad taste in my mouth.
-Monica Lewinsky

reply

[–] willjohn 8 years ago

Benito Mussolini gave the Vatican to the Church. How was he an atheist?

Donald Trump works on the principle of there is a sucker born every minute. He is on taerget with you.

reply

[–] Medinensis 8 years ago

The way this rich big shot harrasses those poor truckers who are not hurting anyone was just painful to watch.

Excerpt of Bill Maher and the truckers:

"Yeah, you could be right. I don't think it's very likely, but, yes, you could be right . . . because my big thing IS I DON'T KNOW..

That's what I preach.

I preach the gospel of I don't know!

I mean that's what I'm here promoting-- doubt.

The other guys are selling certainty, not me. I'm on the corner with doubt.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

But you guys aren't dumb. You're smart people. How can smart people-- how can they believe
in the talking snake, people living to 900 years old and the virgin birth?

And you know, that's my question.

You guys have your own questions.

Pray for me.

After the truckers say a prayer for Bill, he compliments them:

Thank you for being Christ-like, and not just Christian.

Then he jokes:

Okay. Hey, my wallet!

No, I'm kidding.

They all laugh and part amicably

Afterward, Bill comments:

"You see so many NICE PEOPLE trying to make it about something good . . . "

Oh those poor truckers -- how could anyone treat them so badly?!?!?!

They must have been severely traumatized after that barbarism.

reply