I loved Religulous

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Great movie. Saw it with my biddies last night. It may be a topic for TNZ but that's the point. It's so controvertial that the basic logic that people would apply to other topics of conversation somehow don't apply. I'm glad Maher did. The movie, directed by the guy that did Borat, was overall funny as hell... ooops!

 

[auntiehill]

I loved it, too! I'm glad someone had the guts to make it.

I loved Bill's approach, and I loved that scene in Rome where's he talking with that priest outside the Vatican. It was great.

 

[Augustus]

I don't think I would ever see it, but I don't see how mocking the sincere beliefs of millions if not billions of people is a thing to really celebrate...

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I don't think I would ever see it, but I don't see how mocking the sincere beliefs of millions if not billions of people is a thing to really celebrate...

Ironically, the first phrase I thought of regarding this movie is that it's "preaching to the choir". He makes it for his fellow atheists, of course; they'll love it, those with faith won't, and never the twain shall meet.

Guess he picks the battles he thinks he can win. I think we all know what would have happened if he'd done an "Islamulous"... (and no, I wouldn't have gone to see that either)

 

[auntiehill]

Er...Islam is a religion, and Bill Maher makes fun of it, too, just like all religions. Hence the title is "Regliguous," as in ALL religion is ridiculous.

He meets with Christian Fundamentalists, Catholics, Rabbis, and Muslims. Everyone gets skewered. He is an equal opportunity mocker.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Wonder if he can take it as well as dish it out? If there was a Maher-ulous, I would see that one.

As for this film...nope, won't be seeing it, for reasons that must be obvious. I don't begrudge Maher his right to make the film, of course. I will just steer clear of it.

 

[TheBrew]

He makes it for his fellow atheists, of course; they'll love it, those with faith won't, and never the twain shall meet.

Umm... he isn't an atheist.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

He makes it for his fellow atheists, of course; they'll love it, those with faith won't, and never the twain shall meet.

Umm... he isn't an atheist.

Excuse me?

I thought he made it fairly clear on that subject even BEFORE he made this film.

 

[auntiehill]

You might want to read the article you linked, because in it, he is sighted as a deist and an apatheist.

Maher has stated on both Politically Incorrect and Real Time, and in several appearances on Larry King Live, viewpoints that reference a kind of deism, although Maher has never declared himself a deist. He has stated that he does indeed believe in a god, but that religion is nothing more than tradition and superstition.

Most recently, Maher has declared himself an apatheist instead of an agnostic on Scarborough Country on April 24, 2007

An apatheist is also someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods exist or do not exist. In other words, an apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of gods as neither meaningful nor relevant to his or her life; nor to human affairs. (wiki)

 

[TheBrew]

He makes it for his fellow atheists, of course; they'll love it, those with faith won't, and never the twain shall meet.

Umm... he isn't an atheist.

Excuse me?

I thought he made it fairly clear on that subject even BEFORE he made this film.

Since you obviously know nothing about this besides your own presumption, you might want direct your mocking laughter inwards. He has stated quite clearly that he isn't an Atheist because Atheists are just a different type of religious organization.

The main thrust of film is to not anti-religion, but to be anti-organized religion. He feels that it is absurd to be able to state with any certainty religious (or spiritual) truths and that people who do are dangerous because of the violence and hatred that rises from it.

His thoughts can probably be summed up with a paraphrase from Dogma: It is better to have an idea than faith, because an idea can changed while faith is much harder to do.

EDIT: Auntie beat me to it. Amazing how some people don't even read the "proof" they post.

 

[Aragorn]

These type of flicks can be entertaining, especially if you're already the choir being preached to, but doesn't this Michael Moore-type of style start to get repetitive where you interview the most stupid people possible so that your point comes across with the subtlety of a sledgehammer because you don't have to debate your equal, and edit the movie to make yourself look like a demigod?

 

[auntiehill]

I found it surprisingly funny and entertaining, and it actually brought up ideas I hadn't considered before. It wasn't as shrill or crass as some of Michael Moore's work has been. But it is certainly a film that only people who agree from the outset will ever bother to see, so I suppose in that way they are very similar.

I think that Bill interviewed such a wide variety of people in so many different places, that it kept it fairly fresh.

 

[Augustus]

Apathist, Atheist, Agnostic, I know there are differences in tone and exact meaning but the theme is that they do not rely on a higher being for the deeper aspects of their being.

I like religion personally, mine and others. I do not see anything so offensive about a belief in God... like I said before, I think it rude to insult the beliefs of others.

Not just religion, but in anything. What if I made a movie about Britian and how they are so stupid for having a royal family. I am sure it wouldn't be hard to do and make it pretty funny. But is that kind? Is that helpful at all?

 

[John Picard]

Apathist, Atheist, Agnostic, I know there are differences in tone and exact meaning but the theme is that they do not rely on a higher being for the deeper aspects of their being.

I like religion personally, mine and others. I do not see anything so offensive about a belief in God... like I said before, I think it rude to insult the beliefs of others.

Not just religion, but in anything. What if I made a movie about Britian and how they are so stupid for having a royal family. I am sure it wouldn't be hard to do and make it pretty funny. But is that kind? Is that helpful at all?

He's not knocking the belief in [a] God, but the extent that religious fundamentalism goes in people's lives. You know, fatwas, the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc. Plus, how some people are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO convinced that only *they* follow the one true religion.

Like Maher, I more-or-less believe in God, but I don't have any use for religion.

 

[TheBrew]

Apathist, Atheist, Agnostic, I know there are differences in tone and exact meaning but the theme is that they do not rely on a higher being for the deeper aspects of their being.

I like religion personally, mine and others. I do not see anything so offensive about a belief in God... like I said before, I think it rude to insult the beliefs of others.

Not just religion, but in anything. What if I made a movie about Britian and how they are so stupid for having a royal family. I am sure it wouldn't be hard to do and make it pretty funny. But is that kind? Is that helpful at all?

He's not knocking the belief in [a] God, but the extent that religious fundamentalism goes in people's lives. You know, fatwas, the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc. Plus, how some people are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO convinced that only *they* follow the one true religion.

Like Maher, I more-or-less believe in God, but I don't have any use for religion.

QFT.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Not just religion, but in anything. What if I made a movie about Britian and how they are so stupid for having a royal family. I am sure it wouldn't be hard to do and make it pretty funny. But is that kind? Is that helpful at all?

You should get into comedy if you find it so easy to make funny movies.

And btw. religious fanaticism is a topic that just screams for being made fun of.

 

[Augustus]

I actually do make comedy films for a small production company in TX.

But anyway, I know it is easy to make fun of and there is some genuine criticism to be made of undue religious influence of the kind you mentioned, the crusades, fatwahs, mass suicides or whatever.
But I have seen clips of the movie and seen other things he has said, he is not just making fun of the most ridiculous and extreme versions of religion. He is entitled to his opinion and viewpoint, I am just making the case that his film does nothing good.

You could say it is just so very un-Christian of him to make such a film.

 

[Luminus]

These type of flicks can be entertaining, especially if you're already the choir being preached to, but doesn't this Michael Moore-type of style start to get repetitive where you interview the most stupid people possible so that your point comes across with the subtlety of a sledgehammer because you don't have to debate your equal, and edit the movie to make yourself look like a demigod?

You haven't read any religous books, have you? I haven't gotten the chance to see the film yet, but it is my understanding that, from the 400+ hours filmed, some VERY respectable people were interviewed. The entire movie is currently being pitched to HBO as a series. You can't claim stupidity on someone who represents your religion everytime the silliness of the belief is exposed.

As for the people complaining about this movie mocking religion, it is your own fault. Religion deserves to be mocked, just the same as the belief in a Flat Earth deserves. And, yes, there are actually people who believe the Earth is flat. It is standard fare that when someone makes claims, but doesn't provide proof that they are to be ridiculed. Otherwise, many sales of the Brooklyn Bridge would see the light of day.

Why is it okay to make "The Passion of the Christ," but not okay to make "Religulous"? You make "The Greatest Story Ever Told," but any opposite of that film is criticized. You invite the mockery you so despise.

 

[John Picard]

These type of flicks can be entertaining, especially if you're already the choir being preached to, but doesn't this Michael Moore-type of style start to get repetitive where you interview the most stupid people possible so that your point comes across with the subtlety of a sledgehammer because you don't have to debate your equal, and edit the movie to make yourself look like a demigod?

You haven't read any religous books, have you? I haven't gotten the chance to see the film yet, but it is my understanding that, from the 400+ hours filmed, some VERY respectable people were interviewed. The entire movie is currently being pitched to HBO as a series. You can't claim stupidity on someone who represents your religion everytime the silliness of the belief is exposed.

As for the people complaining about this movie mocking religion, it is your own fault. Religion deserves to be mocked, just the same as the belief in a Flat Earth deserves. And, yes, there are actually people who believe the Earth is flat. It is standard fare that when someone makes claims, but doesn't provide proof that they are to be ridiculed. Otherwise, many sales of the Brooklyn Bridge would see the light of day.

Why is it okay to make "The Passion of the Christ," but not okay to make "Religulous"? You make "The Greatest Story Ever Told," but any opposite of that film is criticized. You invite the mockery you so despise.

Monty Python and the Life of Brian is one of the best films that satirizes religion and shows how truly ridiculous it can be.

 

[auntiehill]

I actually do make comedy films for a small production company in TX.

But anyway, I know it is easy to make fun of and there is some genuine criticism to be made of undue religious influence of the kind you mentioned, the crusades, fatwahs, mass suicides or whatever.
But I have seen clips of the movie and seen other things he has said, he is not just making fun of the most ridiculous and extreme versions of religion. He is entitled to his opinion and viewpoint, I am just making the case that his film does nothing good.

You could say it is just so very un-Christian of him to make such a film.

Actually, it was very Christian, in that Christ as he's described in the Bible would have been very unhappy with a lot of the things Bill pointed out in the film---hatred, violence, greed, pride and power-seeking, all brought about in His name. Since you haven't seen the film, you really aren't qualified to judge the arguments it makes. If you don't like the film's premise, fine. Don't see it. I didn't see "Passion of the Christ," but I didn't go around criticizing it, either.

His film does nothing good? It did me a lot of good. When you do subscribe to any religion, people look at you like you're something evil or immoral. If you believe in a logical, rational approach to the "big questions," you are branded an evil heathen. Here's a man willing to stand up and say, "Hey, at least 16% of the population don't believe this stuff. Here's why."

I never thought I would see the day when someone had the guts to stand up in public and point out the ridiculousness of all organized religions. It did me a lot of good to see this movie.