I was kind of disappointed in this movie. It was alright, but I just felt like he undermined a lot of valid arguments by making stupid jokes and playing video clips to make crude jokes about homosexuality etc.
I have no problem with crude humour, or the idea of adding a humorous element to a serious subject, I just think it becomes a problem when you are actually substituting a valid response with a sarcastic comment that intentionally avoids the other person's arguments instead of refuting them.
He also seemed to kind of flipflop a little bit as to whether he's agnostic or atheist. Initially he's saying "I don't know" and then he's saying "Religion is a fairy tale" halfway into it.
It was worth watching, there were good portions and funny bits, but overall I think he really did a poor job of presenting his arguments. I'd much rather watch Richard Dawkins.
Also, the dude who played Jesus at the theme park was really smart. That guy owned Bill in their discussion IMO. Just goes to show that arguing isn't about right or wrong, it's just about who can be more persuasive and linguistically appealing. His holy trinity analogy really was g0ddamn brilliant.
It really was disappointing. He doesn't go after Catholics or mainstream Judaism.
I don't mind countering non-valid points with sarcasm. People misinterpreting or not knowing their religious faith. I disagree with treating those invalid beliefs with respect. Hopefully, biological darwinism eventually occurs and wipes out those genetic lines.
i agree with what you guys have said, i was entertained by this movie and enjoyed it a lot, but he didnt exactly come out swinging like i thought he would. it was HEAVILY edited too which kind of made me disappointed. it seemed almost daily show-esque a lot of the time
hey what a wonderful kind of day if we can learn to work and play and get along with each other
Overall it was disappointing. There was plenty of decent points and good jokes he made, but a lot of the stuff he was spouting is stuff most atheist/agnostic/people skeptical of religion already know.
He also tended to resort to jokes and sarcasm instead of actually debating. I was hoping for much more discussion, and far more convincing wins in the debate instead of what we got.
The point of the movie isn't to debate religion. You only debate things that have meaning. This movie was to show how completely and utterly rediculous religion is. It's not even worth debating. It's completely useless.
#12 has it. it's religion and ridiculous put together to show you people how absurd it all is.
and aether, one can claim/practice atheism, but in theory we must ALL be agnostic since we can't prove or disprove anything, just look at the evidence.
I liked it, I think he picked dumb people to defend certain point of views and did not give them the right to reply, well he did but edited it off from the movie. As for the humour well it is more of a mockumentary than a documentary so I'm not against it.
I think I liked it mostly because I agree with most of his views.
PS. Yes Jesus did own him but then again he is Jesus, whatelse do you expect from the son of god?
I dunno, it was alright I guess. I thought it was kind of stupid though. I agree with you about undermining the arguments by playing video clips in the middle of interviews. It's like, "let's see what the nutjob has to say about this!" and then they play a montage or clip instead of letting him answer. I mean, I know they're crazy, but I thought he wanted to figure out why.
The first segment was nice, though -- in the backwoods-ass mini-church. I liked that.
I don't think he knew what he wanted to do with this movie. The whole "I'm preaching uncertainty" thing sounds like a cop-out. I don't know about the afterlife or creation any more than the next person, but I'm confident enough that it doesn't begin and end with Jesus Christ. He knows that, too, but he doesn't always follow his own advise that he offers at the end about atheists, agnostics and antitheists coming out of the ideological closet. Whatevs.
shame on a NUH who try to step TUH the old dirty bas put my foot up yer UH WU FOREVER ALWAYS BALLIN~
If you're a hardcore atheist and expected Bill Maher to try to convince the world that all religions are illegitimate than this really isn't the movie for you. It's a documentary that doesn't take itself too seriously and doesn't expect to turn any Christians into atheists. If you're a big fan of Bill Maher's dry, sarcastic humor then you'll enjoy the film. If you were hoping that this film would change the way religion is viewed in this world, then this isn't the film for you.
That has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Just because you don't believe in a religion doesn't mean it's useless. There have been hundreds of wars that used religion as an excuse to be started. War helps control population, provides jobs, and culls the weak from the gene pool. Not to mention the tax benefits and community support it provides. Finally, there is the whole "keeps the working class happy so the rich folk can get richer" use.
Saying that religion has no use based on the fact that YOU have no use for it is as ignorant and fucking retarded as the evangelists you hate. So shut the fuck up and keep your stupid fucking opinion to yourself.
Alan Williams I love you to death, but the same goes for you if you really think he "has it", but I think you just hate religion and agreed with him because he hates religion as well; which is still pretty hypocritical.
ps. I'm arguing using your brain NOT the legitimacy of religion.
I'm kind of tired of explaining this point to people #14. The term "atheist" almost always refers to an "agnostic atheist". I can't disprove the existence unicorns, leprechauns, or any other creature or form of matter, because it isn't possible to disprove the existence of something without being omnipotent. To say that we can't disprove God is redundant and unnecessary because ultimately you can't disprove anything other than a theory with concrete parameters.
This is a really tired semantic point that religious people came up with a long time ago so that they could spout the nonsense that atheism takes just as much faith as religion. It's semantics, we all know that no one can disprove the existence of anything, atheists are almost always technically agnostic atheists, meaning you are an atheist, but you acknowledge the fact that god's existence can't be disproved.
It's like saying that people who believe in gravity are doing so based on faith because we can't disprove that god is holding us to the surface of the earth with his hands. You're right, I can't disprove it, but it's a stupid argument that has no purpose other than to try to exploit a logical loophole created by the impossibility of disproving the existence of matter. Unfortunately it's not the job of the skeptic to disprove ludicrous theories for which there is no evidence. It's the claimant's job to prove their claim, until they have done so it is considered false.
the point of the movie wasnt to debate religion. the point was to be funny using religion as the subject. if he didnt step all over and interrupt and insult the people he was interviewing, it wouldnt be as funny. if you dont like bill maher's humor then you obviously wont enjoy the movie as much. not that theres anything wrong with not liking him im just pointing it out.
The point of the movie was obviously to debate religion since he spent the entire movie walking around debating religion with people. I don't see how you can even try to make that argument.
I do like his humour, that has nothing to do with his style of debate though. You can make jokes without subverting your opponent's logic. He can still make all of the stupid joke during his discussion that he wants, you can turn a valid argument into a joke. He was avoiding making valid points by inserting clips of people being gay or doing something stupid and ultimately it just makes him look like an idiot who doesn't really know what he's talking about.
I have no problem with Bill Maher, I think his standup and his old talkshow were very funny, I just think the movie was confused and disorganized and that he changes his own opinion several times. I didn't dislike the movie, it just wasn't nearly as good as it could have been.
#23. It's pretty obvious that the main point of his film was to make fun of religion in general and not to really debate or refute it. If you've ever seen any of his shows it's clear that if and when he wants to make a strong argument, he'll do it. He's a smart guy, do you really think that he doesn't know how to hold a legitimate debate without cutting away to videos of gay people dancing?
Regarding the whole "makes him look like an idiot who doesn't really know what he's talking about" part: From what I gathered after watching the movie, Maher wasn't trying to prove that he knew the answers, he was trying to show that the people he talked to that claimed to know the answers don't.
From a monetary and entertainment aspect, he probably made the right type of film. Everyone's heard both sides of this argument already, watching a film that contains the same sort of stuff you wrote in post #20 would just be plain boring. For an atheist such as yourself (I'm assuming), you probably have good reason to be a bit disappointed with the movie but for somebody that just doesn't care all that much about religion in general, it was pretty entertaining.
Submit Comments
Registered Users Only
In order to post comments, you must be a registered member. If you have not registered, it's free and easy!
Religulous
I have no problem with crude humour, or the idea of adding a humorous element to a serious subject, I just think it becomes a problem when you are actually substituting a valid response with a sarcastic comment that intentionally avoids the other person's arguments instead of refuting them.
He also seemed to kind of flipflop a little bit as to whether he's agnostic or atheist. Initially he's saying "I don't know" and then he's saying "Religion is a fairy tale" halfway into it.
It was worth watching, there were good portions and funny bits, but overall I think he really did a poor job of presenting his arguments. I'd much rather watch Richard Dawkins.
Also, the dude who played Jesus at the theme park was really smart. That guy owned Bill in their discussion IMO. Just goes to show that arguing isn't about right or wrong, it's just about who can be more persuasive and linguistically appealing. His holy trinity analogy really was g0ddamn brilliant.
ninjavideo.net also has it
If that one doesn't work, click the "alternate link" above the video window to launch a flash version.
-=YOU MUST HAVE THE NINJAVIDEO HELPER RUNNING TO PLAY THE VIDEO.=-
^^for anyone who hasn't used it. There's a link at the top of the page to launch the applet.
I don't mind countering non-valid points with sarcasm. People misinterpreting or not knowing their religious faith. I disagree with treating those invalid beliefs with respect. Hopefully, biological darwinism eventually occurs and wipes out those genetic lines.
He also tended to resort to jokes and sarcasm instead of actually debating. I was hoping for much more discussion, and far more convincing wins in the debate instead of what we got.
#12 has it. it's religion and ridiculous put together to show you people how absurd it all is.
and aether, one can claim/practice atheism, but in theory we must ALL be agnostic since we can't prove or disprove anything, just look at the evidence.
I think he picked dumb people to defend certain point of views and did not give them the right to reply, well he did but edited it off from the movie.
As for the humour well it is more of a mockumentary than a documentary so I'm not against it.
I think I liked it mostly because I agree with most of his views.
PS. Yes Jesus did own him but then again he is Jesus, whatelse do you expect from the son of god?
The first segment was nice, though -- in the backwoods-ass mini-church. I liked that.
I don't think he knew what he wanted to do with this movie. The whole "I'm preaching uncertainty" thing sounds like a cop-out. I don't know about the afterlife or creation any more than the next person, but I'm confident enough that it doesn't begin and end with Jesus Christ. He knows that, too, but he doesn't always follow his own advise that he offers at the end about atheists, agnostics and antitheists coming out of the ideological closet. Whatevs.
That has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Just because you don't believe in a religion doesn't mean it's useless. There have been hundreds of wars that used religion as an excuse to be started. War helps control population, provides jobs, and culls the weak from the gene pool. Not to mention the tax benefits and community support it provides. Finally, there is the whole "keeps the working class happy so the rich folk can get richer" use.
Saying that religion has no use based on the fact that YOU have no use for it is as ignorant and fucking retarded as the evangelists you hate. So shut the fuck up and keep your stupid fucking opinion to yourself.
Alan Williams I love you to death, but the same goes for you if you really think he "has it", but I think you just hate religion and agreed with him because he hates religion as well; which is still pretty hypocritical.
ps. I'm arguing using your brain NOT the legitimacy of religion.
This is a really tired semantic point that religious people came up with a long time ago so that they could spout the nonsense that atheism takes just as much faith as religion. It's semantics, we all know that no one can disprove the existence of anything, atheists are almost always technically agnostic atheists, meaning you are an atheist, but you acknowledge the fact that god's existence can't be disproved.
It's like saying that people who believe in gravity are doing so based on faith because we can't disprove that god is holding us to the surface of the earth with his hands. You're right, I can't disprove it, but it's a stupid argument that has no purpose other than to try to exploit a logical loophole created by the impossibility of disproving the existence of matter. Unfortunately it's not the job of the skeptic to disprove ludicrous theories for which there is no evidence. It's the claimant's job to prove their claim, until they have done so it is considered false.
I do like his humour, that has nothing to do with his style of debate though. You can make jokes without subverting your opponent's logic. He can still make all of the stupid joke during his discussion that he wants, you can turn a valid argument into a joke. He was avoiding making valid points by inserting clips of people being gay or doing something stupid and ultimately it just makes him look like an idiot who doesn't really know what he's talking about.
I have no problem with Bill Maher, I think his standup and his old talkshow were very funny, I just think the movie was confused and disorganized and that he changes his own opinion several times. I didn't dislike the movie, it just wasn't nearly as good as it could have been.
Regarding the whole "makes him look like an idiot who doesn't really know what he's talking about" part:
From what I gathered after watching the movie, Maher wasn't trying to prove that he knew the answers, he was trying to show that the people he talked to that claimed to know the answers don't.
From a monetary and entertainment aspect, he probably made the right type of film. Everyone's heard both sides of this argument already, watching a film that contains the same sort of stuff you wrote in post #20 would just be plain boring. For an atheist such as yourself (I'm assuming), you probably have good reason to be a bit disappointed with the movie but for somebody that just doesn't care all that much about religion in general, it was pretty entertaining.
Submit Comments
Registered Users Only
In order to post comments, you must be a registered member. If you have not registered, it's free and easy!