Religulous - The Hour - Tuesday

[driveway]

So these two guys said, "Hey buddy we're Christians and we don't like what you said about Jesus."

And then I said, "So forgive me."

--Bill Hicks.

[Thor]

Well, a good conversation and it only makes me more excited to see the film on Friday

[RougeUnderoos]

http://mikeheath.blogspot.com/2008/0...-it-fixes.html

I am not saying I know whether this financial crisis is God's judgment or not. It is not for me to know that definitively.

I am not saying I know whether this is stupid or not, but this is stupid.

[troutman]

From The Hour, Sept. 30th:

http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/videos.html?id=873392700

[Thor]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

http://mikeheath.blogspot.com/2008/0...-it-fixes.html



I am not saying I know whether this is stupid or not, but this is stupid.

Wow

[calgaryred]

Im not a religous person but I don't feel making fun of people for having religion makes others think "what am I believing!"

the movie is just going to make atheists laugh, and religious people upset

don't see the value in it

If people feel good believing in a faith whatever it is, then let it be

I can't judge the movie but the trailer makes Bill Maher come across arrogant and style of humor rude, just don't agree questioning peoples beliefs in a format where they are the brunt of the joke appealing.

[MacFlame]

Originally Posted by calgaryred

If people feel good believing in a faith whatever it is, then let it be

Normally I would totally agree with this statement....but lately...I"m not so sure. Religon is so influential in our society today, that it is affecting us.

The separation of church and state is not so separate...not that it really ever has been...but it's much more noticeable now.

[calgaryred]

I don't have a problem with people questioning religion but when it is done in the way the trailer has it, thats offensive.

I wouldn't want a christian group parading a movie with a guy making fun of an atheist, with the purpose to make him look stupid for what he believes condemning him to hell.

Just don't see how making people's personal beliefs look sillywill open up debate and convert people to say, "hey science is god". I think this movie will make non believers laugh, and believers insulted.

Don't believe this movie can convert believers, it has a better chance to convert people that are followers of anything that are looking for answers. Even then I believe a portion of those will eventually follow something else. I'd rather point out how letting religion into politics does no good and I agree with that, but pointing out religion is stupid and people that follow it are pretty much stupid, to me thats offensive and thats what the trailer represents.

[Devils'Advocate]

FYI - Maher made the point on the "Daily Show" that he is ABSOLUTELY not an atheist and he finds atheism to suffer from the same issues that he has with religious people: That they are typically close-minded and self-assured about a subject that nobody should be 100% sure about. He said there may well be a God - there is no way for us to know or not know. What really bothers him is that people are so absolutely 100% sure that their religion (or lack thereof) is the only correct religion. And they are so committed to it that they will fight wars, suicide bomb, disrespect human rights, etc all in the name of their religion.

[troutman]

63% of top critics think Bill Maher is funny (65% overall):

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1188...itic=creamcrop

This movie is about Bill Maher's opinion of religion. He's very smart, quick and funny, and I found the movie entertaining, although sometimes he's a little mean to his targets. - Roger Ebert

[Thor]

Just got home from the 1pm show, and gotta say it was a lot of fun and of course preaching to the choir.

It ends with a serious note, which was appropriate and what he built up towards throughout the film.

I think it was about as 'nice' as you can be when dealing with religion, people think debating religion is mean so really its a no win when doing a film like this.

But I liked that he was 'asking tough questions' and even got this senior priest at the Vatican outside to say some pretty amazing things about his religion. The guy seemed kind of senile, but he was brutally honest and really took Bill and everyone in the theater a back.

Oddly enough, there was a fair number of retired elderly people in the theater, maybe a retirement home near Westhills theater, but they did seem to enjoy it; heard laughs coming from them.

I really do hope Bill and Larry put out all that extra footage they have either on DVD or on TV like they speculated might happen.

[Tyler]

Where is this playing in Calgary?

[MarchHare]

FYI - Maher made the point on the "Daily Show" that he is ABSOLUTELY not an atheist and he finds atheism to suffer from the same issues that he has with religious people: That they are typically close-minded and self-assured about a subject that nobody should be 100% sure about.

I've mentioned this in previous religion/atheism threads, but I don't know of a single atheist who ever states with 100% certainty that there isn't a god or gods. Not even Richard Dawkins makes that claim. Most atheists will point to the complete and total lack of evidence of a god's existance, and therefore choose to lead there lives, quite logically, as if there is no god. Should there suddenly appear indisputable evidence that a god exists, the vast majority of atheists would quickly change their viewpoint in light of that new information.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Where is this playing in Calgary?

Its Westhills and Eau Claire, www.famousplayers.ca for times.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I've mentioned this in previous religion/atheism threads, but I don't know of a single atheist who ever states with 100% certainty that there isn't a god or gods. Not even Richard Dawkins makes that claim. Most atheists will point to the complete and total lack of evidence of a god's existance, and therefore choose to lead there lives, quite logically, as if there is no god. Should there suddenly appear indisputable evidence that a god exists, the vast majority of atheists would quickly change their viewpoint in light of that new information.

Dawkins statement that the probability of a god is very slim is not backed up by his argument at the very end of his logic when the gets down to the Big Bang and multi versus and 747 theory he just says science will find a solution to explain it without the existance of God. It was a very unsatisfying answer. He is willing to accept that there is a multiverse with an infinant number of Big Bang events that occur enough times so that in one of the universes humans evlove enough to question whether or not God exists but is not willing to except that a being capable of creating a single Big Bang event with the right paramters exits. Both solutions suffer from the 747 problem yet he entirely discredits one because it doesn't suit his world view.

I fundementally agree with what Dawkins says in "The God Effect" except that I believe in the exsistance of God. The indoctornation of youth and the abuse of religeuos power is definately something that needs to be looked at.

[photon]

Originally Posted by GGG

he just says science will find a solution to explain it without the existance of God. It was a very unsatisfying answer. He is willing to accept that there is a multiverse with an infinant number of Big Bang events that occur enough times so that in one of the universes humans evlove enough to question whether or not God exists but is not willing to except that a being capable of creating a single Big Bang event with the right paramters exits. Both solutions suffer from the 747 problem yet he entirely discredits one because it doesn't suit his world view.

The two positions aren't really equal though, in the case of multiple universes it is a natural (meaning non-supernatural) process that results in the observed universe. This is the preferred position because everything else observed is the result of natural processes.

If there were other things that were clear evidence of supernatural, invoking the supernatural with respect to the creation of the universe might be a more equal position, but there isn't...

So invoking God as a solution to the problem of what started the universe is a God of the gaps fallacy, it's preferable to simply say "I don't know yet".

[GGG]

Originally Posted by photon

The two positions aren't really equal though, in the case of multiple universes it is a natural (meaning non-supernatural) process that results in the observed universe. This is the preferred position because everything else observed is the result of natural processes.

If there were other things that were clear evidence of supernatural, invoking the supernatural with respect to the creation of the universe might be a more equal position, but there isn't...

So invoking God as a solution to the problem of what started the universe is a God of the gaps fallacy, it's preferable to simply say "I don't know yet".

But the origing universe will always suffer from Chinease Dolls problem everytime you have an answer you can always ask well how did it get there. So if we accept multiverses we can always ask how did they start and if we find and answer to that we can always ask well how did that start. So the Universe will always suffer from 747 syndrom no amount of theory or research is going to solve that.

Religeon always uses the excuse that if you can't explain it it must have been God. Science always says we just can't explain it yet. Niether are satisfying answers and niether will ever be.

[MarchHare]

Religeon always uses the excuse that if you can't explain it it must have been God. Science always says we just can't explain it yet. Niether are satisfying answers and niether will ever be.

Except one of those leaves open the possibility that we may, with sufficient research, learn the answer at some point in the future.

Saying, "We don't know yet," is not instantly satisfying, but it does encourage the pursuit of knowledge which may lead to further discoveries. Saying, "God did it," closes the case and discourages further research. It's also an intellectually-dishonest cop-out.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Except one of those leaves open the possibility that we may, with sufficient research, learn the answer at some point in the future.

Saying, "We don't know yet," is not instantly satisfying, but it does encourage the pursuit of knowledge which may lead to further discoveries. Saying, "God did it," closes the case and discourages further research. It's also an intellectually-dishonest cop-out.

I agree that science is a better model for predicting and developing technologies but the belief that science can give us 1 ultimate and satisfying solution answering all of our questions is false. In the end there will always be room for God.

Interestingly enough Quantum Physics allows for miricles. Since it is entirely probability based God has allowed himself a way to intervene in the world without violating his own laws of physics.

[HotHotHeat]

I'm going to try exchanging the word 'religion/religious' with 'irrational/irrationality' for a little while.

"Organized irrationality is the root cause of all the world's problems"

"Irrationality is based on faith"


Seems to work.