Religulous

[Puppycow]

So there's this new movie by Bill Maher called Religulous.

It seems to be getting "Generally favorable reviews" according to Metacritic (http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/religulous). (Trailer can be seen here.)

Here's the NY Times review (http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/movies/01reli.html?th&&em) (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:

[KingMerv00]

So there's this new movie by Bill Maher called Religulous.

It seems to be getting "Generally favorable reviews" according to Metacritic (http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/religulous). (Trailer can be seen here.)

Here's the NY Times review (http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/movies/01reli.html?th&&em) (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.

[Puppycow]

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.

[Oliver]

So there's this new movie by Bill Maher called Religulous.

It seems to be getting "Generally favorable reviews" according to Metacritic (http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/religulous). (Trailer can be seen here.)

Here's the NY Times review (http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/movies/01reli.html?th&&em) (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.

[bokonon]

As with Borat, I'll probably wait to watch it on video, and wonder what the fuss was about.

[Lonewulf]

I'll watch it.

[fagin]

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.

[PaKu]

So there's this new movie by Bill Maher called Religulous.

It seems to be getting "Generally favorable reviews" according to Metacritic (http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/religulous). (Trailer can be seen here.)

Here's the NY Times review (http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/movies/01reli.html?th&&em) (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.

[fls]

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

[fls]

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

[Piscivore]

Anybody else laugh a little/cringe a little when he said "I'm just asking questions" a couple of times on that interview? :)

[HarryKeogh]

It's only playing in a few theaters by me but I hope to catch it this weekend.

[fls]

Anybody else laugh a little/cringe a little when he said "I'm just asking questions" a couple of times on that interview? :)

I took it as a Public Relations trick.

Linda

[KingMerv00]

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.

[Lord Emsworth]

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.

[Pardalis]

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.

Is it true? The movie won't be released in Germany because of a "lack of interest"?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0815241/releaseinfo

Release date for Germany: November 6th

Seems to me you just don't want to pay the ticket.

[fls]

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

[wolfgirl]

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... :)

[wolfgirl]

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.

LindaI 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.

[bobcarp]

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.

[fls]

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 don't think that there's any term that can't be subject to mis-interpretation. And if it's important, I will specify that I don't believe in god(s), not just that I don't go to church. But as it is, many people, even those who should know better, assign all sorts of characteristics to 'atheist' that are unnecessary, in order to advance their own agenda. I'd just rather not have to deal with this in real life, when all I usually want to convey is that I don't do or believe in the same things that you do.

I prefer that my belief (or lack of) be in no uncertain terms. I'm an atheist.

But now that your lack of belief is conveyed in no uncertain terms, you have also conveyed that you are arrogant, certain that our knowledge of the universe is complete, intolerant of anyone who is religious, and unwilling to entertain the slightest bit of speculation.

I don't mind challenging what I see as mis-perceptions in an appropriate forum, such as the JREF forum. But the opportunity isn't really there in most every day situations, so I'd rather try to keep it simple. I don't know if I'm a coward or prudent, though. :)

Linda

[Lord Emsworth]

Is it true? The movie won't be released in Germany because of a "lack of interest"?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0815241/releaseinfo

Release date for Germany: November 6th

Seems to me you just don't want to pay the ticket.

I don't think that many theaters will actually show this movie though due to a likely lack of interest. (Just as is in my case.)

[Moochie]

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.


Isn't it?


M.

[Moochie]

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.

Bill's got his own "woo-spot." It's probably based on the pharmaceutical industry's behavior, with the collusion of the medical profession. But I could be mistaken. All I know is that he doesn't think much of either profession.


M.

[KingMerv00]

Isn't it?

:rolleyes:

For the 80 trillionth time...it is not.

See? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism)

Edit: It is possible you are making a semantic joke.

[Moochie]

:rolleyes:

For the 80 trillionth time...it is not.

See? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism)

Edit: It is possible you are making a semantic joke.


You're probably right, but he's alluding to those who know without a doubt and categorically state that there's nothing to these (religious) ideas, and who are just as dogmatic about their views as the staunchest fundamentalist. His position, if I understand it, is that there's no evidence, and so he doesn't know. It's a less arrogant position, perhaps.

ETA: Personally, I am just as fatigued by those that absolutely know there's no god as by those who absolutely know that there is a god. Neither position aids understanding nor rapprochement.


M.

[dudalb]

Bill's got his own "woo-spot." It's probably based on the pharmaceutical industry's behavior, with the collusion of the medical profession. But I could be mistaken. All I know is that he doesn't think much of either profession.


M.


You are being kind.
Maher does not believe in the Germ Theory of Medicine, and thinks all illness and disease is due to bad diet:jaw-dropp
He has called modern medicine more or less a giant fraud,including the old,old, "Pasteur took back the germ theory on his deathbed" malarky.
He is an active supporter of PETA.
I would hardly call Maher a poster boy for rational though when he pushes woo as dangerous as that. If it was something less dangerous ,such as a belief in UFOs, I would not mind so much but a complete rejection of Modern Medicine....that is not just stupid, that is freaking dangerous.
Understand, this is not just criticism of the medical system in the US,but a denial of the science behind modern medicine.
In fact, I think it is about as bad and dangerous as Woo gets.
I think we have a couple of threads going in Science on Maher.

[Marcus]

As evidenced on this board, you can tell a Christian dozens of times that atheism is not a religion or belief system, but just a lack of belief, and they will ignore it, or just fail to comprehend it.

So I call myself an atheist, and don't worry about their wacky interpetations, even the one where they claim that all atheists are secret Believers, and just being rebellious.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Am I the only one who has seen it? I loved it. It was hilarious.

Maher is not a skeptic. One shouldn't confuse his willingness to challenge the establishment with our version of skepticism. He has come to his agnosticism through a skeptical view of religion, but the principles of evidence and scientific inquiry escape him. He challenges authority just fine, but I don't think he has quite figured out how one gets to scientific truths.

Maher's interview on The Daily Show gave an accurate description of the movie. But the movie was well done. I'm not sure why anyone would draw a negative conclusion about the movie from the interview. This was not the opposite of "Expelled" or anything of the kind. He did point out the harm religion has done and got a tad preachy in the final few minutes of the movie. But, hey, there are suicide bombers and End Times preachers running around right now, so it is hard to say that wasn't justified.

He included his own religious experiences and interviewed his mother and sister about their family experiences throughout the movie. He just points out the lack of logic and the incredulity in many religious beliefs, but I don't think he tries to make believers look stupid. Rather, he tries to point out the hypocrisy and irrationality of current and past religious beliefs. But that is what it is. It's just that not everyone wants to examine those facts.

I disagree with a lot of what Maher believes so the fact he thinks my atheism is not any better than someone else's theism doesn't bother me. I don't respect all his opinions anyway. But I still like a lot of what he has to say and he does do some funny stuff.

[Marcus]

You are being kind.
Maher does not believe in the Germ Theory of Medicine, and thinks all illness and disease is due to bad diet:jaw-dropp
He has called modern medicine more or less a giant fraud,including the old,old, "Pasteur took back the germ theory on his deathbed" malarky.
He is an active supporter of PETA.
I would hardly call Maher a poster boy for rational though when he pushes woo as dangerous as that. If it was something less dangerous ,such as a belief in UFOs, I would not mind so much but a complete rejection of Modern Medicine....that is not just stupid, that is freaking dangerous.
Understand, this is not just criticism of the medical system in the US,but a denial of the science behind modern medicine.
In fact, I think it is about as bad and dangerous as Woo gets.
I think we have a couple of threads going in Science on Maher.

I'm glad he is not an atheist, he could give us a bad name with idiocy like that.http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/icons/icon6.gif

[dudalb]

There is a link to one of the JREF threads about Maher and his big time woo:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=35791

[Moochie]

Am I the only one who has seen it? I loved it. It was hilarious.

Maher is not a skeptic. One shouldn't confuse his willingness to challenge the establishment with our version of skepticism. He has come to his agnosticism through a skeptical view of religion, but the principles of evidence and scientific inquiry escape him. He challenges authority just fine, but I don't think he has quite figured out how one gets to scientific truths.

Maher's interview on The Daily Show gave an accurate description of the movie. But it was well done. I'm not sure why anyone would draw a negative conclusion about the movie from the interview. This was not the opposite of "Expelled" or anything of the kind. He did point out the harm religion has done and got a tad preachy in the final few minutes of the movie. But, hey, there are suicide bombers and End Times preachers running around right now, so it is hard to say that wasn't justified.

He included his own religious experiences and interviewed his mother and sister about their family experiences throughout the movie. He just points out the lack of logic and the incredulity in many religious beliefs, but I don't think he tries to make believers look stupid. Rather, he tries to point out the hypocrisy and irrationality of current and past religious beliefs. But that is what it is. It's just that not everyone wants to examine those facts.


There's a review/interview in the current Salon, as well.


M.

[dudalb]

Maher is not a skeptic. One shouldn't confuse his willingness to challenge the establishment with our version of skepticism. He has come to his agnosticism through a skeptical view of religion, but the principles of evidence and scientific inquiry escape him. He challenges authority just fine, but I don't think he has quite figured out how one gets to scientific truths.

I think his opinions on medicine show that quite clearly.

[dudalb]

I'm glad he is not an atheist, he could give us a bad name with idiocy like that.http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/icons/icon6.gif

Maher should be a textbook example that just because you reject religon, does not mean that you can't fall for woo, bigtime.

[KingMerv00]

You're probably right, but he's alluding to those who know without a doubt and categorically state that there's nothing to these (religious) ideas, and who are just as dogmatic about their views as the staunchest fundamentalist. His position, if I understand it, is that there's no evidence, and so he doesn't know. It's a less arrogant position, perhaps.

In context, I believe he was referring to atheism in general. In one breath he said he was not an atheist and in the next he said atheism is too certain for his taste.

ETA: Personally, I am just as fatigued by those that absolutely know there's no god as by those who absolutely know that there is a god. Neither position aids understanding nor rapprochement.

I have never met an atheist who said they were certain there was no God...and I've met Christopher Hitchens. Is it really a common occurrence for you?

[Yoink]

ETA: Personally, I am just as fatigued by those that absolutely know there's no god as by those who absolutely know that there is a god. Neither position aids understanding nor rapprochement.

You know, I've been an atheist all my life, and hung out with a lot of other atheists, and I've only ever met one person who claimed to "absolutely know that there's no god" (admittedly that person was on this forum). I wonder if you could name a philosopher or prominent public figure who holds that position? In my view it's an almost empty category; theists and self-described "agnostics" love to impute that view to atheists, but there's hardly a single real atheist who espouses it.

The atheists I know personally all agree that it is possible that some kind of God exists, they simply hold that the god-hypothesis has, as yet, no supporting evidence. They're all happy to accept that it's impossible to rule out the future discovery of evidence for a deity's existence--just as they are happy to accept that it's impossible to rule out the future discovery of evidence for the existence of unicorns or leprechauns or magic. What they don't see is why nobody gets accused of "arrogance" or "rudeness" for saying "unicorns are mythical animals" or "there's no such thing as magic" (when it is clearly shorthand for "all the evidence we have suggests that unicorns are mythical animals" and "so far as we can tell there is no such thing as magic") but immediately get jumped if they say "god doesn't exist" when that is clearly shorthand for "to the best of our knowledge god doesn't exist."

Sorry to rehash a done-to-death talking point. But the fact that despite being done-to-death people keep on bringing up these near-mythical "absolutist" atheists may be sufficient excuse.

[Skeptic Ginger]

You know, I've been an atheist all my life, and hung out with a lot of other atheists, and I've only ever met one person who claimed to "absolutely know that there's no god" (admittedly that person was on this forum). ...Either that is me or there are 2 of us. :D

[Yoink]

Either that is me or there are 2 of us. :D
You know what, I can't remember who it was--I remember the argument, but not the interlocutor. So...you would say that you are 100% absolutely certain that it is impossible that our universe could be the creation of a deity? Would you say that you have evidence that that is the case, that the concept of a deity is inherently self-contradictory, or that it's just an article of faith?

[Moochie]

You know, I've been an atheist all my life, and hung out with a lot of other atheists, and I've only ever met one person who claimed to "absolutely know that there's no god" (admittedly that person was on this forum). I wonder if you could name a philosopher or prominent public figure who holds that position? In my view it's an almost empty category; theists and self-described "agnostics" love to impute that view to atheists, but there's hardly a single real atheist who espouses it.

The atheists I know personally all agree that it is possible that some kind of God exists, they simply hold that the god-hypothesis has, as yet, no supporting evidence.

<snipped for brevity>


That's my understanding of Maher's view. I stand to be corrected, as ever.


M.

[Yoink]

<snipped for brevity>


That's my understanding of Maher's view. I stand to be corrected, as ever.


M.

Perhaps, but that's not the same thing as claiming that you "absolutely know there's no god" is it?

[Verde]

Am I the only one who has seen it? I loved it. It was hilarious.


I haven't had a chance to see it yet, and like most movies I'll probably wait for it to appear on DVD.

Based on the trailer (which seems to be getting a lot of play these days) it looks like a limited version of the John Safran classic series:

http://www.australiantelevision.net/johnsafranvsgod/

OK, that was a multi-part TV series, so there was more time to develop the stories. I'll certainly be interested to see the movie audiences will accept 'Religulous'

V.

[Skeptic Ginger]

You know what, I can't remember who it was--I remember the argument, but not the interlocutor. So...you would say that you are 100% absolutely certain that it is impossible that our universe could be the creation of a deity? Would you say that you have evidence that that is the case, that the concept of a deity is inherently self-contradictory, or that it's just an article of faith?I don't want to hijack the thread because that is what this discussion does. So let me state my views and post a link to two threads which the discussion most recently has been going on in.




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. While some might argue ad nauseum that one cannot disprove gods exist, in reality, most of those same people do not feel the same way stating, "we cannot disprove flying spaghetti monsters, invisible pink unicorns or JK Rowling's Harry Potter". We know the latter three are the result of human imagination. There is overwhelming evidence god beliefs are also the result of human imagination. There is no evidence that god beliefs arose from any interaction with real gods.

The uncertainty principle in science can be and often is misapplied. If the intent of the uncertainty of conclusions in the scientific process is to allow every bit of nonsense one could possibly imagine to be left on the table, how is that any different from those who describe the Universe as influenced by magic. Maybe the sorcerers are tricking us. Maybe we are all in the Matrix. At some point you lose the value of the scientific process to reveal the Universe.

We draw many conclusions and in most cases we do say, according to the rules of the scientific process, we can't be certain. But at some point one reaches the tipping point and declares certainty for some things. I am certain the Earth is not flat. I am certain the Earth is not 6,000 years old. The evidence is so completely overwhelming for these facts that one no longer needs to maintain an uncertain conclusion just because that is a principle in the scientific process.

Where do you then put fictional characters and aspects of the Universe? Do you put them in the, 'if you can imagine them they are possible' category? Or do you separate them from the category of things you imagine when you contemplate the Universe?

I can separate nonsense and fantasy from what is possible. I think it is just as wrong to use the claim one cannot disprove something as de facto evidence we must therefore claim we cannot rule it out. Do you seriously claim you cannot say with certainty that JK Rowling's fiction is fiction?

I understand the scientific principle. I just don't hold to its being applicable to everything one can possibly imagine. As for how I came to my conclusion there are no gods, if one follows the evidence rather than fitting the evidence to the conclusion, 'one cannot disprove the existence of gods', the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion, god beliefs are of a fictional nature generated by human imagination. It comes down to asking yourself, are only arguing the semantics of the uncertainty principle in the scientific process, or are you really arguing we can never be certain of anything ever? I get the scientific principle, I just don't think it is compromised if my Universe is not quite that uncertain.




To continue this discussion, take your pick of the following threads currently discussing the matter:

"I lack belief in any god." vs. "There is no god." (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=124496)

You Can Neither Prove Nor Disprove the Existence of God (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=116699)

[Pardalis]

I disagree with a lot of what Maher believes so the fact he thinks my atheism is not any better than someone else's theism doesn't bother me. I don't respect all his opinions anyway. But I still like a lot of what he has to say and he does do some funny stuff.

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. Humor is probably the only true and honest reaction you can have, when you laugh it's instinctive, you don't really think about it, and when you do you can't deny it happened, this means there must be something that hit a nerve.

I probably am going to wait for the DVD though, I reserve the big screen for movies that are visually grandiose like those of Ridley Scott. Maher is funny, but he's no Keira Knightley.

[Smarter Than U]

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


Which is basically true.

If you believe in unicorns, you are stupid. If you believe in Santa Claus, you are stupid. ...Need I go on?

[dudalb]

Which is basically true.

If you believe in unicorns, you are stupid. If you believe in Santa Claus, you are stupid. ...Need I go on?


You will have to do a LOT better then that to make the grade here.

[dudalb]

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. Humor is probably the only true and honest reaction you can have, when you laugh it's instinctive, you don't really think about it, and when you do you can't deny it happened, this means there must be something that hit a nerve.

I probably am going to wait for the DVD though, I reserve the big screen for movies that are visually grandiose like those of Ridley Scott. Maher is funny, but he's no Keira Knightley.

He is funny on occasion. but I admit his full scale assault on Modern Medicine and advocacy of Woo medicine has really turned me against him. that is not just a harmless woo belief, that is a dangerous one.

[Kopji]

I heard a rumor that this is playing in a double feature with Kirk Cameron's 'Fireproof'.

[Lonewulf]

You will have to do a LOT better then that to make the grade here.Yeah, I agree with you here...

but I admit his full scale assault on Modern Medicine and advocacy of Woo medicine has really turned me against him. that is not just a harmless woo belief, that is a dangerous one.That would worry me, too.

Although I think his attacks on religion and his attacks on medicine are two separate issues. Hopefully they don't cross lines, at all, in the film he's helped make.

I also admit, the bit where it says "by the same people that made Fahrenheit 9/11", gives ME real cause for pause.

[Puppycow]

When I posted the link to Metacritic yesterday, the reviews were "mostly favorable" but since then a lot more reviews have been added and it's down to "mixed reviews" now. Here's one of the more negative reviews (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?node=cityguide/profile&id=%20%20%201142445&categories=Movies).

But one of the rules of satire is that you can't mock things you don't understand, and "Religulous" starts developing fault lines when it becomes clear that Maher's view of religious faith is based on a sophomoric reading of the Scriptures and that he doesn't understand that some thoughtful people actually do believe in some sort of spiritual life.

So there. (Just knew someone would eventually come with that hoary old chestnut.)

I was not aware of Maher's other woo beliefs about vaccinations. I'm not really an especially big fan of his and I don't watch his TV show, so I didn't know about that.

[westprog]

Which is basically true.

If you believe in unicorns, you are stupid. If you believe in Santa Claus, you are stupid. ...Need I go on?

I really should be collecting these. I wonder do the "Christians are stupid" people operate on that basis out in The Real World?

[Lonewulf]

I really should be collecting these. I wonder do the "Christians are stupid" people operate on that basis out in The Real World?I wonder if I should start collecting the extremist religious quotes I hear, or the anti-atheist quotes. But then, I'd probably overload my system with too much data.

And we certainly know that some extremists certainly do operate on a scary basis in The Real World.

[Vanda]

We draw many conclusions and in most cases we do say, according to the rules of the scientific process, we can't be certain. But at some point one reaches the tipping point and declares certainty for some things.

Thank you for this post. I’ve always gone back and forth, getting confused between the usage of the terms “agnostic” and “atheist.” Your elaboration is very helpful.

Instead of using the terms that represent the concepts, just using the concepts helps me.

There seems to be the concepts of “not knowing” (as in “not proving”) and “not believing” and the two philosophies seem to often be conflated or intertwined and repeating back to each other.

To the question, “do you believe in gods?” my answer is no for the reasons Skeptigirl espoused. I am an atheist. My lack of belief is certain and absolute at this time based upon the complete lack of evidence for the existence of gods.

To the question, “do you know (can prove) there are no gods?” my answer is no, I cannot prove there are no gods. I am an agnostic because I do not know for certain and cannot prove for certain that there are no gods.

So, since I can’t prove, I have to decide on my position until there is proof. I return to atheism, and my reasons for being an atheist (as described by Skeptigirl) will remain my position until there is new evidence.

So when people ask me, I respond that I am an atheist, and then I say “I do not know, but I definitely do not believe.”

[westprog]

I wonder if I should start collecting the extremist religious quotes I hear, or the anti-atheist quotes. But then, I'd probably overload my system with too much data.


Until I visited this site, I don't think I'd heard anyone saying something like "Christians are stupid". Anti-atheist quotes are two a penny, from the president on down. And there are plenty of proselytising atheists out there, Dawkins being the main example. But they tend to be averse to repeating the same kind of things the religious fundamentalists say.


And we certainly know that some extremists certainly do operate on a scary basis in The Real World.


Which is why it's always worth pointing it out when it happens.

[Yoink]

To continue this discussion, take your pick of the following threads currently discussing the matter:

"I lack belief in any god." vs. "There is no god." (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=124496)

You Can Neither Prove Nor Disprove the Existence of God (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=116699)

Hi Skepticgirl. I've replied to your argument in the "I lack belief in any god" thread. See you there, perhaps.

[Dunstan]

The Onion AV Club (http://www.avclub.com/content/cinema/religulous) just gave Religulous a D+. There's also a Q&A with Maher posted on their site.

[wolfgirl]

We're going to see it tonight. I'll be wearing my Darwin-fish T-shirt that says "Science Not Superstition" on the back. In Missouri! Wish me luck...

[fls]

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.

...

The uncertainty principle in science can be and often is misapplied. If the intent of the uncertainty of conclusions in the scientific process is to allow every bit of nonsense one could possibly imagine to be left on the table, how is that any different from those who describe the Universe as influenced by magic. Maybe the sorcerers are tricking us. Maybe we are all in the Matrix. At some point you lose the value of the scientific process to reveal the Universe.

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

[dudalb]

Although I think his attacks on religion and his attacks on medicine are two separate issues. Hopefully they don't cross lines, at all, in the film he's helped make.

The film is a vehicle for Maher. The other people involved are pretty much the hired help.
The problem is that a lot of people think that because he is anti religous, Maher is immune to woo, and therefore there might be something to his medical opinions, particularly since the peddlers of this woo are careful to use Psuedo Scientific terms.
The sad fact is a lot of Athiests are not really rational thinkers. They hate religon for basically emotional reasons, and just use a few reason based arguments to back up their viewpoints. They have no real grasp of the scientific method, and are very vulnerable to woo as long as it is not religious in nature.
Just because somebody does not beleive in God does not mean he is a rational thinker.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I saw it today and liked it well enough. It would get a 7 out of 10 from me.

Jim Emerson gave it a bad review but Roger Ebert granted it 3 and a half stars and said he found it very funny.

I'm a fan of Bill's and still regularly watch his show but he's not the best fit for a Michael Moore or Borat style documentary. His monolouges about religion on his show are interesting and funny but explanded to a 2 hour movie, they do come off as mean, cheap and a little relentless.

I think he intended his movie to be a Bowling for Columbine for atheists and agnostics or accomplish some of what Richard Dawkin's books did and it certainly doesn't do that. The movie is certainly watchable and entertaining and it is well-made but minor.

[Tumblehome]

You know, I've been an atheist all my life, and hung out with a lot of other atheists, and I've only ever met one person who claimed to "absolutely know that there's no god" (admittedly that person was on this forum). I wonder if you could name a philosopher or prominent public figure who holds that position? In my view it's an almost empty category; theists and self-described "agnostics" love to impute that view to atheists, but there's hardly a single real atheist who espouses it.

The atheists I know personally all agree that it is possible that some kind of God exists, they simply hold that the god-hypothesis has, as yet, no supporting evidence. They're all happy to accept that it's impossible to rule out the future discovery of evidence for a deity's existence--just as they are happy to accept that it's impossible to rule out the future discovery of evidence for the existence of unicorns or leprechauns or magic. What they don't see is why nobody gets accused of "arrogance" or "rudeness" for saying "unicorns are mythical animals" or "there's no such thing as magic" (when it is clearly shorthand for "all the evidence we have suggests that unicorns are mythical animals" and "so far as we can tell there is no such thing as magic") but immediately get jumped if they say "god doesn't exist" when that is clearly shorthand for "to the best of our knowledge god doesn't exist."

Sorry to rehash a done-to-death talking point. But the fact that despite being done-to-death people keep on bringing up these near-mythical "absolutist" atheists may be sufficient excuse.


Religions describe specific gods that can be accepted or rejected on their own merits. When you start talking about some undefined, incomprehensible force or whatever that might have created the Universe, that isn't religion.

When I say I'm an atheist, I'm not talking about a wildly speculative possibility that can't be defined. I'm claiming that there certainly is no god as spelled out by Jews/Christians/Muslims or any religion that claims it has the answers.

Just because we don't know how or why the Universe began doesn't mean we can't outright reject fanciful inventions for it.

[Marcus]

I really should be collecting these. I wonder do the "Christians are stupid" people operate on that basis out in The Real World?

Well, no. Can't go around insulting friends and relatives just because they hold irrational beliefs. The principal doesn't hold for some Christians, though. It seems atheists are fair game, since they are of course evil, mean, and damned.

[Marcus]

There was a whole thread on atheist vs agnostic, and it really boiled down to semantics. My own definition is simple. If I ask someone "Do you believe God exists?" and they answer "no" then in my mind they are an atheist.

[Yoink]

Religions describe specific gods that can be accepted or rejected on their own merits. When you start talking about some undefined, incomprehensible force or whatever that might have created the Universe, that isn't religion.
It's a lot like what many self-described "religious" people hold their "religion" to be.

When I say I'm an atheist, I'm not talking about a wildly speculative possibility that can't be defined. I'm claiming that there certainly is no god as spelled out by Jews/Christians/Muslims or any religion that claims it has the answers.
If you say "certainly no" then you are making a claim based on faith, not reason. If you say "there is simply no good reason for me to accept the hypothesis of such a god's existence" you are making a reasonable (and, in my view, atheistic) claim.

Just because we don't know how or why the Universe began doesn't mean we can't outright reject fanciful inventions for it.
Again, it depends what you mean by "outright reject." If you mean "reject the idea that it is worth spending any serious amount of time or resources exploring this hypothesis" then you're on solid ground. If you mean "reject even the hypothetical possibility that the invention may in fact describe something like the truth" then you are, again, adopting a position of faith, not reason.

By the way, Skepticgirl is right about one thing--this argument is something of a threadjack, so we should take it to the "I lack belief in god" thread that she linked to.

[westprog]

Well, no. Can't go around insulting friends and relatives just because they hold irrational beliefs. The principal doesn't hold for some Christians, though.

No, it doesn't. That isn't, IMO, a good reason for adding to the total of dumb things said.

[bobcarp]

Well, no. Can't go around insulting friends and relatives just because they hold irrational beliefs. The principal doesn't hold for some Christians, though. It seems atheists are fair game, since they are of course evil, mean, and damned.


Atheists in the religion world are like Native American Indians in the socio-world. You can’t insult blacks, whites, Asians, Latinos, Polish, middle-easterners, etc., but it doesn’t seem to apply to NA Indians (eg Washington Redskins, Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians). How’bout those Aberdeen Atheists!

[Mister Agenda]

I was going to see it with Godless Columbia today, but alas, it isn't showing in Columbia. The nearest venue I could find was 2 hours away. I'm off to see 'Burn After Reading'.

[Dunstan]

There was a whole thread on atheist vs agnostic, and it really boiled down to semantics. My own definition is simple. If I ask someone "Do you believe God exists?" and they answer "no" then in my mind they are an atheist.

That's my test, too.

If they answer "yes," then they are some variety of theist.

If they answer "maybe," then they are an agnostic. (And yes, I know that is not a universally accepted definition. Go away already.)

If they start quibbling about definitions of "God," "exists," and/or "believe," then I wander off in search of a beer.

(sorry for contributing to threadjack)

[Oliver]

Is it true? The movie won't be released in Germany because of a "lack of interest"?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0815241/releaseinfo

Release date for Germany: November 6th

Seems to me you just don't want to pay the ticket.


I live in a pretty rural area - it won't be shown due to lack
of interest. Obviously, it will be shown elsewhere here in
Germany - but you claiming I simply won't buy a ticket, is
not true. Thanks for the info, I will take a look if it will be
shown in one of the bigger Cinemas in my state.

[Rodibidably]

I just got back from seeing the movie, and I'd HIGHLY recommend it to all of my friends...

There are a few places I though Maher did not go far enough, but overall I think they did a GREAT job of infusing humor into a very serious subject.

If you find any of the fundamentalist variations of islam, christianity, lds, scientology, or judaism to be a bit *woo-woo*, and are not afraid of offending the beliefs of others, then this movie is one you'll enjoy.

[Pardalis]

I live in a pretty rural area - it won't be shown due to lack
of interest.

That's not what you said, you said it won't be shown in Germany. If it's not going to be shown in your rural area, it's probably not because of a lack of interest in the movie, but rather the distributor's lack of interest in your rural town, because of a lack of money and profitability. Stop making things up.

[Oliver]

That's not what you said, you said it won't be shown in Germany. If it's not going to be shown in your rural area, it's probably not because of a lack of interest in the movie, but rather the distributor's lack of interest in your rural town, because of a lack of money and profitability. Stop making things up.


Making what up? Yes, I was wrong about it's release. Will it be
shown all over Germany - a US-religious-Documentary from a
guy nobody knows over here? No. There is no target audience
for that type of entertainment. But what do I know about the
place I live and the movies being shown in cinemas? :boggled:

[Pardalis]

But what do I know about the
place I live and the movies being shown in cinemas? :boggled:

Apparently I know more than you do. Why don't you just admit you lied about Germany not showing the movie because of a "lack of interest" and deal with it, instead of making excuses?

[Oliver]

Apparently I know more than you do. Why don't you just admit you lied about Germany not showing the movie because of a "lack of interest" and deal with it, instead of making excuses?


The real question is: Why are you obsessed with me?
Just because something is released, doesn't mean it will be shown
in many cinemas. Or shown at all in any German cinema.

[And I checked it: it won't be shown (http://www.cineplex.de/kino/filmstars_bundesstarts/) in the next bigger cinema in my area.]

Which is still my point:

I most probably will have to wait for religulous being on GoogleVideo.
What about that don't you understand? - I mean: honestly.

[Pardalis]

I most probably will have to wait for religulous being on GoogleVideo. What about that don't you understand? - I mean: honestly.

You want to watch it for free. Honesty, at last.

[ravdin]

I saw the movie tonight and I give it high marks. I don't agree with Bill Maher on everything. But I completely agreed with his message at the end- we have given too much power to religious extremists with Bronze Age beliefs, and we need to step up and take it back. As he put it so well: Grow up or die.

I'd definitely recommend it to the JREF crowd. Go see it in the theater, too. Movies like this need your support.

[jimtron]

I read a NYT article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/movies/28lela.html) about the film (not the review linked in the OP), and I have a few thoughts:


From the article: “This is a very religious country,” he (Maher) said, ignoring for the moment that he was in Canada, where the movie played at the Toronto International Film Festival (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/t/toronto_international_film_festival/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) earlier this month. “I would at least like them” — meaning the 16 percent of Americans who in a recent poll by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life described themselves as “unaffiliated” with any religion — “to stand up and say we’re not the crazy ones. (snip) Mr. Maher is not quite accurate here. Of the 16 percent who told Pew researchers they were unaffiliated, only 4 percent said they were atheistic or agnostic; the others said they were “nothing in particular.” And even among disbelievers, 21 percent of atheists and 55 percent of agnostics said they believed in God. Bold added, because WTF?!@#$% 21 percent of atheists said they believe in god?
(Maher speaking) “Anyone who’s religious is extremist. See, we’re just used to religion. It’s like what Matthew Arnold said about a tree. It’s not that there are no miracles. A tree is a miracle. You’re just used to it. And conversely religion is something we’re just used to. So the notion that God had a son, that he’s a single parent, and the son went on a suicide mission, and you’re drinking his blood on Sunday, that a man lived inside a whale and that the earth is 5,000 years old — all the essentials of religion that are in the Bible or the Koran — we’re used to them. But it doesn’t mean they’re not crazy, doesn’t mean they’re not ridiculous. And so to be religious at all is to be an extremist, is to be irrational. One problem with this argument: there are many Christians who are religious, but don't believe much of the Bible. There are Rabbis that don't believe in god (at least I know one). Religion bugs me, but I know many intelligent, sensible, people who are religous and not intolerant or stupid.
The pickings are easy. Mr. Charles said they had hoped to interview major religious figures, including the pope, the president of the Mormon Church and the Dalai Lama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/_dalai_lama/index.html?inline=nyt-per). Instead they got members of the Truckers Chapel in Raleigh, N.C., the guy who plays Jesus at the Holy Land Experience theme park in Orlando, and an Islamic rapper named Propa-Gandhi.

I'm looking forward to seeing the movie, but I'm afraid it's going to make the argument against religion appear obnoxious and ill-informed. It seems as though Maher is resorting to at least one straw man argument. IOW, a lot of religious people might agree that it's dumb to believe in the Bible literally, etc., so they could say that Maher's argument is against religious idiocy, not religion in general, and they might be right.

[not_so_new]

I'd definitely recommend it to the JREF crowd. Go see it in the theater, too. Movies like this need your support.

I am a luke warm supporter of Maher. When he is talking politics I think he is usually logical.

When he is talking religion I tend to agree but I wish he were a little less forceful about it because it tends to give people a bad impression of my side of the debate. That said, I am happy that there are people on a national stage talking about the harm of religion.

Some of his other beliefs on the other hand frankly scare me b-jesus out of me (pun intended).

My partner and I are going to see Religulous for exactly the same reason above, movies like this need support. I suspect it will be funny while not to informative to a staunch atheist such as myself but given the relatively few offerings in this category I want to vote with my dollar.

In short, I am not going to benefit Maher, I am going to benefit atheism and I hope, rational thinking.

[Gurdur]

.... Maher does not believe in the Germ Theory of Medicine, and thinks all illness and disease is due to bad diet:jaw-dropp
He has called modern medicine more or less a giant fraud,including the old,old, "Pasteur took back the germ theory on his deathbed" malarky.....


Oh dear. And this is someone supposed to reveal in a film the woo of religion?

A living example of the adage that sometimes one's 'friends' are worse than one's enemies.

[KingMerv00]

Which is basically true.

It's about time someone took my bait. In response:

Religious people can be smart...duh.

[Brainache]

I'm not a big fan of Mr Maher, but I am a big fan of Larry Charles' work on Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm.

Not sure what kind of release it will have in Australia, but I hope I get a chance to watch it some day.

[Puppycow]

Just because somebody does not beleive in God does not mean he is a rational thinker.

Communists are a case in point.

[Kittyclaws]

HBO (Maher's Real Time network) makes his shows available as podcasts, usually a couple days after they're aired. He has a great selection of guests, from many sides of many issues, and they're always entertaining and sometimes quite astute. I've only been listening for the last part of last season and this season just started so I've not heard all his opinions regarding medicine but I did catch a rant about how bad nutrition and poor environmental factors are mainly responsible for health problems. All in all, it sounded more like a slam on big pharma and the mercenary position of doctors and hospitals. But no one asked him the obvious question: if he were sick, really seriously ill, would he see an M.D.? Go to a hospital? Accept drugs and treatments that time and experience have shown to be effective?

That said, I enjoy his shows and will see the movie when it comes out on dvd. For me, enjoying an entertainer isn't necessarily dependent on his/her personal views. I love watching P&T but some of Penn's Libertarian views bug me. I think Jim Carrey is a hoot but he's wrong in his anti-vac stance. And of course, that list could go on...

[Tumblehome]

By the way, Skepticgirl is right about one thing--this argument is something of a threadjack, so we should take it to the "I lack belief in god" thread that she linked to.


That's one thing I wholeheartedly agree with you on. :) Done.

[wolfgirl]

We saw it last night, and it was hilarious. The film (playing to a full house, by the way, though in a small theatre) had lots of laugh-out-loud moments. In fact, my biggest complaint would be that when editing, they didn't seem to realize what moments would be laugh-out-loud moments and didn't allow time for the laughs afterwards, so you miss the next line every time due to the audience laughter.

Having said that, it is pretty much preaching to the choir. I doubt many people will go see it and suddenly "see the light." But it's good to have something like this out there.

And for that reason, I reiterate the opinion stated by others that you should go see this movie to show your support. That's why we made a point to go on opening day (something we haven't done in years).

[JoeTheJuggler]

We saw it last night, and it was hilarious.

<snip>
And for that reason, I reiterate the opinion stated by others that you should go see this movie to show your support. That's why we made a point to go on opening day (something we haven't done in years).

I saw it last night with some 25-30 people from my atheist group. It was lots of fun!

It certainly wasn't a very informative documentary, but I wasn't much expecting that.

I like that he found such colorful characters to talk to. He also had a great line for moderate believers of any kind--oh sure this is all nonsense, but the talking snake and the virgin birth --yeah that's all believable!

I think it's a good sign that a movie like this can be made and possibly even make money.

[articulett]

Digital Bit skeptic gave it a great review: http://www.dbskeptic.com/
I don't know whether to go tonight or to see it with my local atheist group next Saturday.

The reviewer, at first thought Bill was "preaching to the choir", but changed his mind because his friend who was Catholic saw the show with him and has decided to examine what exactly he believes and why. I think that's a good sign.

[Prometheus]

....Just because somebody does not beleive in God does not mean he is a rational thinker.

That's certainly true. In my own case, I became an atheist quite a few years before I became a full-fledged skeptic, though I think that escaping religion certainly helped me learn to think more critically in other arenas.

[KingMerv00]

Did anyone catch the clip of McCain stating that the Constitution establishes America as a Christian nation?

[UnrepentantSinner]

I don't go to movies, but I am adding it to my Netflix queue.

[Moochie]

I saw it today and liked it well enough. It would get a 7 out of 10 from me.

Jim Emerson gave it a bad review but Roger Ebert granted it 3 and a half stars and said he found it very funny.

I'm a fan of Bill's and still regularly watch his show but he's not the best fit for a Michael Moore or Borat style documentary. His monolouges about religion on his show are interesting and funny but explanded to a 2 hour movie, they do come off as mean, cheap and a little relentless.

I think he intended his movie to be a Bowling for Columbine for atheists and agnostics or accomplish some of what Richard Dawkin's books did and it certainly doesn't do that. The movie is certainly watchable and entertaining and it is well-made but minor.

I'll watch it when it reaches our cable movie channels.

I like Maher, too, but he can seem a bit "in your face" sometimes, particularly when he's on about his pet peeves -- the medical/pharmaceutical professions. That happens to be his "woo spot," and I don't dismiss him for having it, since I've met very few skeptics who don't have a "woo spot" or three in the deeper recesses of their brains. I think it comes with being human, so no big deal.

Fortunately, Maher's HBO show has just made it to one of our cable channels here in Australia, and both episodes I've seen so far had some laugh out loud moments. I'm a fan. :)


M.

[technoextreme]

I've only been listening for the last part of last season and this season just started so I've not heard all his opinions regarding medicine but I did catch a rant about how bad nutrition and poor environmental factors are mainly responsible for health problems.

Yeah.... He said he doesn't believe in vaccination. He's a woomeister.

[Whiplash]

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. 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. It's only going to go away by education of upcoming generations and changing attitudes of people as a whole as we progress and advance.

It's preaching to the choir, it will only resonate with people who already agree. And it could end up causing him some personal problems (in terms of his personal safety) depending on what he has had to say about certain religions. It's an awfully big risk for little to no real progress or change. But it'll make him some money.

[Professor Yaffle]

Yeah.... He said he doesn't believe in vaccination. He's a woomeister.

Except when its the HPV vaccine...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/03/02/hpv/

[pounce]

i saw it last night and found it quite amusing. there were a decent amount of people in the audience, and it was well received by them as well. the crowd was definately reacting to it in a good way.

the movie was exactly what i expected it to be. a comedian made the movie. it was never going to be the be all end all debate, but it does one thing well. it might make a moderate person think a little more about religious beliefs that they were indoctrinated with. it's tough to question that kind of thing, and this may help open that door up for reasonable people who are still somewhat religious.

i'd recommend the film to anyone, and thought it was successful. it did remind me of the borat movie generally. there is a similar approach here, and i think that approach works.

i suspect for people just beginning to question their odd beliefs that this is a good and funny start, dawkins or hitchens come after this. in fact, i've found that the best way to discuss religion if i want to be persuasive when talking with believers is to start to get some rational thinking going, and start to question these odd bits of belief. you just get the ball rolling on rational thought and then something is accomplished. you can't do an aggressive attack at all religion straight away (although i'm absolutely anti-religion myself). so i think this film is a humerous start in the right direction of questioning for the moderate religious person.

[VulcanWay]

I caught it on opening night and the theater was packed (the Oriental Theater in Milwaukee). I found it knee-slapping funny in many parts and, while this may not have been a documentary, definitely was an amusing look at religion and well worth my price of admission.

For a good portion of the movie I was looking around to see when the religious protesters would bust in or start yelling over the movie, but that never happened. Not even protesters in front of the theater.

If only this would make more money than Fireproof...

[bobcarp]

I saw it on Saturday at 11:00 am and there was a pretty good sized crowd. Everyone seemed to enjoy it and lots of laughter. I was kinda disappointed there were no protesters...:(

[jimmygun]

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.

The idea that there might be a god is so miniscule that it is a non-issue. There is ample lack of evidence in my opinion that there is no god and I dismiss the term 'agnostic' outright. I don't need to eat a dog turd to make sure it doesn't taste good.

[Tanstaafl]

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.

It isn't much of a serious documentary, of course. But it was a lot of fun. And the theater was nearly full, with a most enthusiastic crowd.

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...

[thaiboxerken]

Saw it, loved it. The serious point at the end makes quite a bit of sense. I do find it scary that people who wish for the world to end are often the same ones that have political power to bring it to pass.

[aerosolben]

Saw it with a group of friends. Lots of funny moments, but definitely concur that it was a preaching to the choir type of film, and not a serious treatise against religion - too much interview editing and jumping from topic to topic for that. The AV Club review mentioned a targeted focus on religion and politics would have helped reinforce the closing sentiments, and I agree - it's enjoyable, but not really a great condemnation of religion in general.

It did score some points on religion and politics (though perhaps in a narrow scope). Also against televangelist-type hucksters, and the insanity of the Middle East situation.

ETA: There's also nothing tremendously new here, for the knowledgeable non-theist (and perhaps theist) - most of the humor is Maher's presentation.

I liked that the best theologian was the theme park Jesus.

[Mark Alan Sauer]

Maybe, but I don't think so.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I liked that the best theologian was the theme park Jesus.

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.

[Skeptic Ginger]

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. ...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.

[Skeptic Ginger]

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?

LindaI 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.

[Skeptic Ginger]

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. .....Challenging false beliefs can have that consequence. :rolleyes:

[hgc]

I can only see one reason to even make a movie like this, and that is to try and tear down religion.


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.


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.

[fls]

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.

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

[Skeptic Ginger]

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)?

LindaWhen 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.

[articulett]

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.



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.

[Shadow]

I want to go see it.

[SezMe]

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...
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. :)

[qayak]

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.

[Mister Agenda]

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?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Surely Columbia is a big enough venue to get this movie.

[Kittyclaws]

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.

[RandFan]

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.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.

[articulett]

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.

[Ichneumonwasp]

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.



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. :)

[Mister Agenda]

I really thought it was, even in SC. Hopefully the local indie theater will be able to pick it up next month.

[moon1969]

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?

[articulett]

Hitchens supports Obama...

And I'd rather read or hear all those you dis more than I like the critics of such-- go figure. I guess there's no accounting for taste, eh?

Before proffering you opinion on the subject, don't you think you ought to see it, eh? Otherwise, what's the point?

Here's a review from someone who saw it: http://blog.secularphilosophy.com/index.php?entry=entry081017-134529

[Ichneumonwasp]

Hitchens supports Obama...

And I'd rather read or hear all those you dis more than I like the critics of such-- go figure. I guess there's no accounting for taste, eh?

Before proffering you opinion on the subject, don't you think you ought to see it, eh? Otherwise, what's the point?

Here's a review from someone who saw it: http://blog.secularphilosophy.com/index.php?entry=entry081017-134529


Hitchens supports Obama? Really? Is this a result of his water-boarding experience?

ETA:

Holy smokes, he did. Well, paint me in honey and stick me over a blooming fire ant mound ..........................

I never thought I would see that. Can Maher get him on Real Time before the election?

[articulett]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/13/christopher-hitchens-obam_n_134234.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2202642/

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/whoa_hitchens_endorses_obama.php


Oh, and OT, but this came out today, Ich--

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/10/18/the_soul_it_may_all_be_in_your_mind/

and this: http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-candles-in-the-dark

(randfan is correct... paradigms are shifting... fa la la la la la la la la)

[Ichneumonwasp]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/13/christopher-hitchens-obam_n_134234.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2202642/

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/whoa_hitchens_endorses_obama.php


Oh, and OT, but this came out today, Ich--

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/10/18/the_soul_it_may_all_be_in_your_mind/

and this: http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-candles-in-the-dark

(randfan is correct... paradigms are shifting... fa la la la la la la la la)



Whoa, thanks. I was wondering if there was going to be a Beyond Belief this year. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Except when it's available on google video I probably won't see the light of day for a week.:)

[thaiboxerken]

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?

Wow. The movie was actually good, and Maher is hardly an idiot. He's making money while bringing awareness of the idiocy that religions teach is dangerous. He makes a really good point in the movie, and that is," how can we trust people to make the world a better place when their religions tell them that the end of the world is a good thing?"

[Segnosaur]

Bill Maher is an idiot. His just trying to make money by creating a hype.

Why exactly is attempting to make money make someone an idiot? Sounds just the opposite to me... attempting to make money is actually a smart thing to do.


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?

Umm... why exactly is that so suprising?

From what I know about Hitchens, his political leanings are to the political left, with a very strong anti-religious sentiment. He may support George Bush, but his support probably has more to do with the idea that bringing secular democracy to the middle east benefits his anti-religous views, even if he may not agree with other aspects of George Bush's presidency. However, the incidents that Kissinger may have been involved in had little to do with religion. So, supporting Bush over Iraq is not necessarily in conflict with his criticisms over Kissinger.

[Matthew Best]

I saw the movie in London last week and, after reading some of the comments here, found I was disappointed. In particular, I simply didn't trust the movie - there were too many examples of editing that I didn't believe; where Bill would say something and they'd immediately cut to a shot (filmed who knows when?) of the other person looking confused; or Bill would say something and they'd cut away before we had a chance to hear what the response was.

Larry Charles (the director) was at the screening and said that there is a 14 hour cut of the movie, which he hopes to turn into a TV series at some point, and I hope we'll get to see more of the conversations then.

Overall I felt it told me very little I didn't already know (the story of Horus was an interesting exception to this), and going for the laughs (of which there were plenty) by clever editing detracted somewhat from my belief (hah!) in the movie.

[Skeptic Ginger]

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?

Kissinger has been charged as a war criminal. He had to flee France a while back when some citizens tried to serve a legit arrest warrant on him for war crimes.

Your opinion is not supported by the facts.