>> ^stephenfryftw:
That was unbelievably shit. No not THE shit, just shit. *snip*


Yeah because Maher and Charles really were out to make a movie dedicated to effectively discrediting religion. No documentary is going to make the faithful change their mind about their beliefs. This movie was made to poke fun at them for the benefit of the non believers in the audience, just like Expelled was made so the faithful watching it could feel self-righteous.

Now if you want a good documentary illustrating the dangers of religion, watch Jesus Camp. It's fucking scary as shit, and the great part about it is that the "star" of the movie (the scary Rosie O'Donnell looking Jesus freak lady) thinks it's a great film for promoting her camp.

That was unbelievably shit. No not THE shit, just shit. This is exhibit A in how to absolutely ruin what has the potential to be a very, very good movie. Larry Charles is obviously exceedingly satisfied with himself after having made Borat and decided to make Borat 2 and call it Religulous. Every single interview in this is so entirely FUCKED by slimeball editing techniques and fast cut MTV style stock clip inserts (OOHhhhhhh!!! look at the SHINY SHINY!), that I can almost never actually tell AT ALL when the interviewee's answers were actually to the question that was just asked, or not. Any pretense of intellectual honesty (a thing that I should bloody well think a movie setting out to criticize irrationality would hold in VERY high esteem) is entirely obliterated by snide, underhanded bullshit production techniques. This movie is the "Expelled: No evolution allowed" of the secular world. I say all of this of course as a dyed in the wool, inveterate atheist. Religion, especially the more harmful flavors, deserves to be excoriated, mocked and generally devalued, but if you have to literally rearrange the words of your opponents on tape to do it, you've failed. I can't even much enjoy the parts where the religious nuts actually DO appear to make fools of themselves without any help from Charles, because I'm constantly second guessing the context. I don't blame Maher for it at all, but this was an extreme disappointment. I recommend Johnathan Miller's "A Brief History of Disbelief" or Dawkin's "The Root of All Evil?" over this turd any day.

Indeed.

In reply to this comment by rasch187:
I guess we'll just have to disagree again, my fellow unbeliever. And I can't shove it up my ass, there's still stuff up there from last night

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
One is true, one is not. Nothing hypocritical about that.

My point was that expelled does the same thing, just much worse. There is absolutely no factual basis for the conclusions that are drawn there, but there is here. If people actually look forward to the End Times and are actively trying to bring it about, they should be stopped by any means necessary to ensure the survival of our race. Unlike religious people I actually care for my fellow man, because I want them to live not delude themselves to go to "a better place".

Religion is a clear threat to human kind and if propaganda is the only way people will listen and start asking questions, then so be it. It could have been done much more forcefully than this and it could certainly be toned down. Try only listening to it, or edit out the bombs and all that inconsequential crap.

And shove your "oh please" right up your ass.

I guess we'll just have to disagree again, my fellow unbeliever. And I can't shove it up my ass, there's still stuff up there from last night

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
One is true, one is not. Nothing hypocritical about that.

My point was that expelled does the same thing, just much worse. There is absolutely no factual basis for the conclusions that are drawn there, but there is here. If people actually look forward to the End Times and are actively trying to bring it about, they should be stopped by any means necessary to ensure the survival of our race. Unlike religious people I actually care for my fellow man, because I want them to live not delude themselves to go to "a better place".

Religion is a clear threat to human kind and if propaganda is the only way people will listen and start asking questions, then so be it. It could have been done much more forcefully than this and it could certainly be toned down. Try only listening to it, or edit out the bombs and all that inconsequential crap.

And shove your "oh please" right up your ass.

One is true, one is not. Nothing hypocritical about that.

My point was that expelled does the same thing, just much worse. There is absolutely no factual basis for the conclusions that are drawn there, but there is here. If people actually look forward to the End Times and are actively trying to bring it about, they should be stopped by any means necessary to ensure the survival of our race. Unlike religious people I actually care for my fellow man, because I want them to live not delude themselves to go to "a better place".

Religion is a clear threat to human kind and if propaganda is the only way people will listen and start asking questions, then so be it. It could have been done much more forcefully than this and it could certainly be toned down. Try only listening to it, or edit out the bombs and all that inconsequential crap.

And shove your "oh please" right up your ass.

>> ^rasch187:
^ oh, please. If a movie agrees with your opinions on religion and evolution, it's seems pretty clear you're willing to turn the other cheek when it comes to the subjectivity of what's represented. It's perfectly normal and understandable to do so, but don't be a hypocrite.

>> ^rasch187:
I don't think you caught my point exactly. I have no problem with his message, I do however have a problem with the way he delivers his message. See my other comments in that thread for details.
And furthermore, there is no need for personal attacks like that.
In reply to this comment by muddro:
>> ^rasch187:
Propaganda is fun. Let's upvote it.

Sure, your jewish zombie is the truth and anyone saying "come again?" is telling you propaganda.
Don't forget to plug your ears with your fingers and scream LALALALALA at the top of your lungs while you're doing it.
If there was a glaring hole in what he said, you would have pointed that out if you're so convinced it's propaganda. But he's right, faith asks the faithful not to think, so you'd be at a disadvantage to argue with reason.


I did see your other comments.

In the context of his movie these comments don't amount to propaganda. It is religion that both preaches of the coming end, but also encourages its followers by saying it's the ultimate path to their enlightenment. Casting a criticism in that light hardly seems unfair to me. The images he chose are the type of images described in scriptures that say that after those tribulations, those who were faithful will live on in paradise.

If what I said does not apply to you, then so be it. vOv It's the internet, dude.

>> ^quantumushroom:
An atheist is a person who claims either an absence of faith in deities or that there are no deities.
What atheists cannot claim (and the religous do not) is that they are rational and logical all the time, believe only what is factually true and cannot be tricked by their own emotions.
Put another way, atheists have the same human weaknesses as the religious, they just come out in different ways.


Just for the record, Maher is not atheist (firm belief there is no God), he's agnostic (meh, I dunno). He believes that agnostics are almost as wacky as Religious folks, simply because nobody can know for sure...

>> ^rasch187:
Propaganda is fun. Let's upvote it.


Sure, your jewish zombie is the truth and anyone saying "come again?" is telling you propaganda.

Don't forget to plug your ears with your fingers and scream LALALALALA at the top of your lungs while you're doing it.

If there was a glaring hole in what he said, you would have pointed that out if you're so convinced it's propaganda. But he's right, faith asks the faithful not to think, so you'd be at a disadvantage to argue with reason.

I felt the same way. The first part until this is all fun and games, he's just mocking religious people, and this part gets all serious. I like this part much more. Of course it's over the top, but apparently some people need it spoon fed.

>> ^RedSky:
Watched the movie last week and found this section completely out of tone with the rest of the film. One moment he's ridiculing the supposed second coming of Christ, mocking biblical re-enactments and arguing for doubt over certainty the next he's painting the screen with raining fire and apocalypse. Not that I disagree with what's he's saying here, if anything I'd argue he's probably exaggerating as a vast majority of the developed world is already predominantly secular, I just find it totally out of whack with the rest of the film.

>> ^osama1234:
I realize the videosift teritory is fairly areligious, but please read this comment with an open mind.
I dont know so much about the christian parts of that clips, but from the muslim bits he used, to me it seemed to show that he didn't have a proper understanding of the religion. This fact really struck me when he was making the leap of logic that just because a religion believes in the final day, that somehow its OK to pillage the earth (environmentally), according to the religion.
I haven't seem the whole movie, perhaps its better, but this clip was simply a series of picking and choosing one liners to prove a point, instead of an actual understanding of the overall picture.
The last thing that i found strange was his claim that moderates should free themselves of these chains because the entity of religion has been used for so much hate, killing, etc. I really think that's absurd. What if I worded the exact same thing, except put in a country.
'Moderate Americans should emancipate themselves from America because the USA has commited crimes such as starting wars, killing thousands, napalming thousands.... etc, all in the name of USA.'
You probably realize how absurd his reasoning is. Clearly Americans SHOULDN't emancipate themselves just because there are some people committing crimes in its name, so why is this train of logic appropriate for religions?


The discussion about the End of Days is just to illustrate how people hoping for the world to end have no reason to better the world.

"Faith [Religion] means making a virtue of not thinking. It's nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith and enable and elevate it, are our intellectual slave holders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense."

That is the heart of the entire film, that if people live their lives and make their decisions based on millennia old superstition and faerie tales they become a detriment to society and a danger to the future of all mankind.

>> ^messenger:
A bit much with all that editing and music.
Good message though.
I haven't seen the whole movie, but I hope he makes a point somewhere about separating the negative effect religion has on politics from the positive effect religion has on many people's private lives.


I actually think his point (though perhaps, not in this clip, but I watch a lot of Bill Maher) is that the impact religion has on private lives is actually one of false hope where they fail to realise reality. The want something to be true so much and it does provide them confort. But just because it provides them confort, doesn't make it true.

I don't want to railroad the thread, but it's a bit like the matrix. One pill for "bliss" but it's not real, or the other one for reality???

>> ^osama1234:
Clearly Americans SHOULDN't emancipate themselves just because there are some people committing crimes in its name, so why is this train of logic appropriate for religions?


Because a country and a democratic nation are different things. A religion shouldn't really change although in the real world they do (cherry picking, watering down, extremism etc). A democratic nation is all about the possibility of change: when things go wrong the citizens vote new people into the government to change laws, taxing policies and so on...

In my view the moderate religious people are to their holy books (Bible, Quran...) like George W Bush and his pals are to the US Constitution. They talk like it's the greatest thing ever, yet they don't follow it themselves.

>> ^osama1234:
I dont know so much about the christian parts of that clips, but from the muslim bits he used, to me it seemed to show that he didn't have a proper understanding of the religion. This fact really struck me when he was making the leap of logic that just because a religion believes in the final day, that somehow its OK to pillage the earth (environmentally), according to the religion.

I don't know about Muslims, but I have personally spoken with Christians who feel that God put everything here just for our benefit. Therefore, it's perfectly fine to pillage the environment because it's here specifically for our benefit anyway. It's a really convenient worldview that ignores any consequences for those actions.

Is the word "agnostic" that hard to say? "Ang... ang... an andgos... an antoaster... an agnostic!" Go, diploma-boy!

The basis of science is exactly not to be certain that what is true today will stand true tomorrow. Believing that a demonstrated fact (in past and present) is going to continue intact tomorrow is dogmatic and counter-scientific to say the least. In science there's no place for belief. Putting a theory to the test is always about checking if all given factors involved in that theory are at the moment as they were.

In practical terms the fact that the day begun means the sun is pretty much the same, so there isn't even a real concern there. If such elementar characteristics of the World would suddenly change, scientists would've to figure out why and not go "Hey, it's God's caprice..." which is exactly what this little man is implying when assuming nothing of science can be proven without recurring to God.

In fact, this elementar characteristics do change but in a slow rate for the span of a human life-time. And it's the work of scientists always checking if these characteristics are as they were that aknowledge that in fact they aren't. If these scientists believed in the cycle of the sun (to save time for pray perhaps, lazy christians?) this knowledge would never be. Way to go, amateur, relgious-driven science.

And to wrap it up, they ask mean ole not-god-guided creatures to stand before such task of proving religulous-sciencers wrong, with a money reward. Isn't this a suculent prize, MONEY, oh fellow imoral, no-goddy humans?

>> ^jerryku:
While I'm an agnostic, I'm not convinced that America, as it is now, should be free of religion, organized or not. The country is very capitalist, and I think religion serves as a major check against the excesses of capitalism. I think there's a common belief amongst left-wing athiests in America that if religion could be defeated, left-wing ideals will suddenly become very popular, society would become more democratic. I think the opposite would be true. Left-wing ideals of equality would be quickly crushed by the inherently pro-inequality aspects of capitalism.


Religions are inherently capitalistic in the modern, western world. If people don't believe, they don't give money. If they don't give money, the religion dies.

Capitalism, as a concept, is far more pro-equality than religion. Anyone with money can participate on an equal basis, and money is distributed to all according to the value of their productivity. Of course that doesn't quite work in practice, but if people mature enough to not be hoodwinked by religion, they are, in my opinion, less likely to be hoodwinked by unethical corporations.

Keep in mind that Wal-Mart, one of the biggest corporations on the planet, is very religious in nature, and it is constantly under attack for the poor treatment of its employees. I really can't think of a way that religion acts as a check against corporate excesses.