Coming Soon.. Bill Maher: The Movie

Sapien · 07-06-2008 4:47am #1

It actually looks rather fun:

Religulous

Of course, there's no way to judge the substance of the thing from a trailer, but I still really want to see it. Maybe rigourous intellectual refutations of religious belief, as per Dawkins, Dennett, Harris et al., are overkill, and feed dignity to something that deserves simple dismissal. Perhaps ridicule is the way to go.

Either way, I'm sure I'll see some of you guys at the big screen when this comes out. I'll be the one in purple velvet.

Jesus Wept · 07-06-2008 5:02am

Should be good

PDN · 07-06-2008 7:37am

Moved this from Christianity forum to here since it appears to be against all religion, not simply the Christian variety.

Have fun.

PDN

Sapien · 07-06-2008 10:06am

PDN wrote: »

Moved this from Christianity forum to here since it appears to be against all religion, not simply the Christian variety.

Have fun.

PDN

Oh yes - sorry. A Freudian slip of sorts, I think.

robindch · 07-06-2008 11:31am

Sapien wrote: »

Perhaps ridicule is the way to go.

Having seen the creationists hooting their way to multi-million dollar success, derision does seem increasingly attractive.

It'll be interesting to see how Maher's outing compares in the US with "Expelled", which tanked after a dismal five-week run.

Galvasean · 07-06-2008 11:33am

Looks fun. Suffice to say i'll probably enjoy it.

limerick_woody · 07-06-2008 11:49am

I think Bill Maher is fantastic - he has killed many a mile of my daiily drives between limerick and cork, courtesy of the podcasts. I doubt that we will get Religulous in the cinema, probably have to wait for dvd, but it should be entertaining if nothing else listening to all the poor offended people.

Jesus Wept · 07-06-2008 6:05pm

Didn't know he has podcasts, must check them out, I like watching Real Time.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 07-06-2008 6:11pm

real time has gotten a bit hit and miss the last season, and i really want to punch bill in the face when he goes off on one of his 'antibiotics are bad' rants but he's good people.

JimiTime · 07-06-2008 6:40pm

Sapien wrote: »

. Perhaps ridicule is the way to go.
.

robindch wrote:

Having seen the creationists hooting their way to multi-million dollar success, derision does seem increasingly attractive

So ridicule and derision are the way to go. where is it you're going?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 07-06-2008 7:43pm

towards a stalinist purge of all religious leaders, we're atheists dontcha'know

Dades · 07-06-2008 7:52pm

JimiTime wrote: »

So ridicule and derision are the way to go. where is it you're going?

What if something is ridiculous?

limerick_woody · 07-06-2008 10:38pm

The-Rigger wrote: »

Didn't know he has podcasts, must check them out, I like watching Real Time.

the podcasts are just recordings of the show - though with a few minutes extra. I don't have CBS to watch them so i just listen to them in the car.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 07-06-2008 10:39pm

the extra few minutes is real time 'overtime', it's broadcast on hbo.com after the show ends.. they are all on youtube, and I think alot of them are on bill maher's hbo page

JimiTime · 07-06-2008 10:44pm

Dades wrote: »

What if something is ridiculous?

Fine, but the question still stands. Where is it you're going?

limerick_woody · 07-06-2008 10:49pm

i said hbo didn't i...

Galvasean · 08-06-2008 11:58am

JimiTime wrote: »

Fine, but the question still stands. Where is it you're going?

Here.

Mordances with the proletariat wrote: »

towards a stalinist purge of all religious leaders,

Or failing that we might just have a bit of fun at someone else's expense.

Mordances with the proletariat wrote: »

we're atheists dontcha'know

:pac:

JimiTime · 08-06-2008 12:07pm

Galvasean wrote: »

Here.

Or failing that we might just have a bit of fun at someone else's expense.

Ok, a few humourous replies, but is there a serious answer to the question? Is there something you're hoping to achieve? A goal you are working towards? Once again, as per sapien and robindch, Where is it you're going?

robindch · 08-06-2008 12:18pm

JimiTime wrote: »

So ridicule and derision are the way to go. where is it you're going?

As Dades says, there are some things which don't merit much more than a few hoots and a thigh-slap. That's not a reflection of where anybody's going (or not going), but of the innate silliness of the original idea.

Where are you going when you watch Police Squad or Basil Fawlty?

JimiTime · 08-06-2008 12:51pm

robindch wrote: »

As Dades says, there are some things which don't merit much more than a few hoots and a thigh-slap. That's not a reflection of where anybody's going (or not going), but of the innate silliness of the original idea.

Just picked up on the language used. 'Maybe dawkins etc give religious belief too much dignity, maybe derision is the way to go'. Certainly indicates a target.

Where are you going when you watch Police Squad or Basil Fawlty?

Merely watching a comedy, to make me laugh. I've no other goal but to be entertained. Poor analogy tbh. There has been process talked about 'Dawkins etc may give religion too much dignity'. Then a suggestion of changing to 'Ridicule is the way to go'. All indicates a process with an objective. None of the language used indicates that you are merely looking to be entertained. So again, where is it you're going?

robindch · 08-06-2008 1:20pm

JimiTime wrote: »

All indicates a process with an objective. None of the language used indicates that you are merely looking to be entertained. So again, where is it you're going?

I won't deny that I'd love to see an world without religion in which people are able to think coherently for themselves and where the common good is the highest aspiration of everybody.

But given that this is not going to happen, there are three options available -- ignore it (difficult), get upset by it (pointless) or find it funny (sadly, seems the only option). There's also the widely-held, but improper, view that public displays of religiosity confer status -- so, finding religion's rituals entertaining rather than serious is as good a way as any of helping the air out of the frightfully over-inflated and their pious pretension.

Or in simpler terms, who here hasn't switched over to satellite telly and wept with laughter at some of the pop-eyed, hyper-ventilating preachers there? That's not "going" anywhere, that's just having a laugh real-life Basil Fawltys.

Fanny Cradock · 08-06-2008 2:16pm

robindch wrote: »

I won't deny that I'd love to see an world without religion in which people are able to think coherently for themselves and where the common good is the highest aspiration of everybody.

Well, as you said, that's not going to happen. I can't quite understand the leap you take from our religious world (presumably you mean this is a world where those of faith don't think for themselves and the common good isn't the highest aspiration of everybody) and this post-religious utopian world that you mention. But if you sincerely believe that this utopian society will be the result of a non-religious world, then I can understand why atheists on internet forums are often, to my perception, quite hostile and belittling towards those of faith. This mocumentary is just that.

There is a 4th option that you seem to have overlooked: mature discussion - though I realise such a thing is often rare enough when it comes to such diametrically opposed views.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 08-06-2008 2:18pm

would you have a mature discussion with someone who believed they could tell your future with playing cards? or could speak to the dead with a game board?

what about water diviners, psychic surgeons or spoon benders?

sometimes people just need to be laughed at.

robindch · 08-06-2008 2:33pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There is a 4th option that you seem to have overlooked: mature discussion.

Mature discussion happens when informed people gather together to reach a common consensus on some topic or other. Unfortunately, this isn't possible when one side is unwilling to move from a position where it believes it holds absolute and inerrant truth. It's a dialog of the selectively deaf, as we can see in the creationism thread, for example.

Fanny Cradock · 08-06-2008 3:30pm

Mordances with the proletariat wrote: »

would you have a mature discussion with someone who believed they could tell your future with playing cards? or could speak to the dead with a game board?

what about water diviners, psychic surgeons or spoon benders?

sometimes people just need to be laughed at.

I would consider it mature discussion if you entered into debate with at least some of the billions of people of there who happen to hold views contrary to yours. Going to church must be like a free comedy show to you.

@ Robin
People on either side of the debate hold fast to what they see as inerrant truths. I've certainly encountered atheists who are as stubborn and definite in their belief that there is no God (or no belief if you will) as some of the more passionate creationists out there.

You must have a horrible opinion of many people out there if you honestly think that derision - not debate - is your best option when interacting with them.

robindch · 08-06-2008 4:01pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

People on either side of the debate hold fast to what they see as inerrant truths.

Religious people, on the whole, declare their facts and their intellectual processes as inerrant. Irreligious people, on the whole, declare the scientific process, or something similar to it, as being the best possible way of reaching an accurate understanding of the world; as part of that, facts are open to correction and no fact is held as inerrant.

This is a major and fundamental difference between the two sides and you are entirely wrong to imply that there are similar amounts of inerrancy-assertion going on.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You must have a horrible opinion of many people out there if you honestly think that derision - not debate - is your best option when interacting with them.

I've already given the reasons why, in certain circumstances, having a giggle is the best option -- not because I want to laugh at other people with all the callousness that this implies, but because there isn't any reasonable alternative. What about the satellite telly example I mentioned -- when you see these guys doing their thing, do you treat them with total respect, or do you occasionally find it funny?

Likewise, I've also said why discussion is pointless with people who enter a discussion with a sincere conviction that they possess absolute truth and who have no interest in changing their point of view, and much in converting me to theirs. Do you yourself call such discussions "mature" or do you find them irritating or amusing?

It's almost surprising that you misinterpret what I think is a fairly reasonable, and fairly common, position to conclude that my opinions are "horrible", but then again, that's really part of the "I'm right and I'm going to judge you" attitude that many religious people seem to hold, but rarely acknowledge.

Fanny Cradock · 08-06-2008 5:09pm

robindch wrote: »

Religious people, on the whole, declare their facts and their intellectual processes as inerrant. Irreligious people, on the whole, declare the scientific process, or something similar to it, as being the best possible way of reaching an accurate understanding of thewrld; as part of that, facts are open to correction and no fact is held as inerrant.

This is a major and fundamental difference between the two sides and you are entirely wrong to imply that there are similar amounts of inerrancy-assertion going on.I've already given the reasons why, in certain circumstances, having a giggle is the best option -- not because I want to laugh at other people with all the callousness that this implies, but because there isn't any reasonable alternative. What about the satellite telly example I mentioned -- when you see these guys doing their thing, do you treat them with total respect, or do you occasionally find it funny?

Likewise, I've also said why discussion is pointless with people who enter a discussion with a sincere conviction that they possess absolute truth and who have no interest in changing their point of view, and much in converting me to theirs. Do you yourself call such discussions "mature" or do you find them irritating or amusing?

It's almost surprising that you misinterpret what I think is a fairly reasonable, and fairly common, position to conclude that my opinions are "horrible", but then again, that's really part of the "I'm right and I'm going to judge you" attitude that many religious people seem to hold, but rarely acknowledge.

A few things to mention.

Firstly, I wasn't talking about the scientific method - something which is hardly the realm of the irreligious. I was talking about the assertion that there is or isn't a God. (Incidentally, this is something science isn't able to expressly comment upon.) This singular belief (however one arrives at it) is often held as an inerrant position, or one underpinned by a '99.999999%' certainty qualifier, which is really just another way of saying 'I'm certain'.

This was a originally a response to your point:

robindch wrote: »

[Mature discussion] 'isn't possible when one side is unwilling to move from a position where it believes it holds absolute and inerrant truth'.

I agree with you, robin. Indeed, I said as much in my first post. Where we differ is that I was trying to highlight the fact that Christians (or the religious) aren't the only ones who take this position. You fail to see that I'm not pointing the finger at one side alone. So in this regard, I put it to you that 'it's almost surprising that you misinterpret what I think is a fairly reasonable [position]'.

Secondly, I never stated that there were 'similar amounts of inerrancy-assertion going on'. To my knowledge there are more people in the world who subscribe to some sort of divinity than there are those who don't. It would seem logical then that there would be more people claiming to be absolutely correct from the religious.

Finally, I have never concluded "that [your] opinions are horrible". You must have misread what I actually typed.

robindch · 08-06-2008 7:31pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Firstly, I wasn't talking about the scientific method

Fair enough -- you should be clearer then when making general comments!

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I was talking about the assertion that there is or isn't a God. [...] This singular belief (however one arrives at it) is often held as an inerrant position, or one underpinned by a '99.999999%' certainty qualifier, which is really just another way of saying 'I'm certain'.

I must say that I don't know any people who do say that there's no god, in the generic meaning of the word. In the specific sense, yes, there are billions of people who reject the existence of specific gods, and most of these are religions people themselves who rejecting the god of other religions and these certainly outnumber those who go one step further and reject the one remaining deity. For me, I don't believe the christian god exists, simply because (a) he's endowed with contradictory powers (so something's got to give), and (b) I find it impossible to believe that something amazing as the universe would have been created by such an immensely petty being. However, I might be wrong on both of these counts.

So, I'm simply very unclear about where you pick up the idea that the rejection of 'god' is 'often held as an inerrant position' amongst the religion-free.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Secondly, I never stated that there were 'similar amounts of inerrancy-assertion going on'. To my knowledge there are more people in the world who subscribe to some sort of divinity than there are those who don't. It would seem logical then that there would be more people claiming to be absolutely correct from the religious.

Again, fair enough. It simply wasn't clear from your original post that this is what you meant.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Finally, I have never concluded "that [your] opinions are horrible". You must have misread what I actually typed.

I should have made it clear that I was referring to you commenting upon what you believe my opinions of people are ("You must have a horrible opinion of many people out there" was what you said). As this is not what you meant, I stand (or in this case, sit) corrected -- thanks.

Have a good evening

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 08-06-2008 7:34pm

i don't think a thread about bill maher is an appropriate place for a conversation that would fly over his pretty little blonde head.

pinksoir · 08-06-2008 9:41pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

@ Robin
People on either side of the debate hold fast to what they see as inerrant truths. I've certainly encountered atheists who are as stubborn and definite in their belief that there is no God (or no belief if you will) as some of the more passionate creationists out there.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Firstly, I wasn't talking about the scientific method - something which is hardly the realm of the irreligious. I was talking about the assertion that there is or isn't a God. (Incidentally, this is something science isn't able to expressly comment upon.) This singular belief (however one arrives at it) is often held as an inerrant position, or one underpinned by a '99.999999%' certainty qualifier, which is really just another way of saying 'I'm certain'.

There is a slight but significant difference between the religious and atheists with regard to what you describe as 'belief held as an inerrant position'. The problem is that as an atheist, I know exactly what would make me believe in the existence of god, even the Christian god; evidence. So whilst I do hold fast to my beliefs, I would change them at the drop of a hat were there any good reason to and I certainly do not see them as inerrant truths, but rather as the only possible rational position to hold when the evidence is taken into account.

Since the religious' position is not based on evidence, or lack thereof, but is faith-based, they are generally far less likely to change their views on the matter of a god's existence and indeed often cannot even give an answer as to what would be sufficient to make them change their minds.

Maybe you could answer that Fanny? What would make you change your mind about the existence of God?

Galvasean · 08-06-2008 10:09pm

All this from 'going' down the path of humor.
Talk about knee jerk reactions. :rolleyes:

Coming Soon.. Bill Maher: The Movie

Comments