Watched it tonight and I can honestly say funniest movie of the year as well as the most eye opening. Before this movie I was an atheist, I did not really see anything wrong with faith but now I cannot stand religious people. Human beings are naturally so logical and use reasoning...not the case with religion. I can respect people who have an independent connection with some power and don't try to force their beliefs on others but some cannot admit that they do not know.

I say this is the funniest movie of the year because it is hilarious as well as dehumanizing watching these religious zealots spiel their bullshit. Religion is a plaque and is a huge problem. Every time you turn on the news, you see fucking Muslim jihadists blowing themselves up and taking people with them. I turn on the tv and I see biblical pastors begging for money and preaching believers to hate other races, religions, and lifestyles.

One thing I cannot stand out of all of this is the treatment of gays. I honestly don't see why people give a shit about what people do. If someone is gay, and has an intimate relationship with someone, what business is it of yours. It absolutely blows my mind that idiots will believe a 2000 yr book has relevance in today's society.

Religious people always ignore science and try to dodge fact. It is a miserable battle to argue with someone who is religious, they dodge questions, cite nonsense, and think they are always right. Religion is a mental disorder that quite possibly cannot be cured. Whether it be muslim jihadists or bible belt preachers, I see them all the same. They fail to acknowledge their imperfections as humans and try to fill that void with nonsense.

Have you ever read the bible ? I have, front to back. There are numerous contradictions, false statements, and simpleton beliefs. Why does the model of Jesus present itself through other cultures, thousands of years before ? Why are there such major discrepancies in the bibles ? Why, Why, Why ? I can never find an answer. Any religious person will tell you its simply fact or it was proven otherwise. Idiocy is proven rampant in both human nature and society once again as it has millions of times in history.

The biggest problem I have with religion: social acceptance. You cannot be an elected official until you are married to a woman and accept Jesus as you savior. It truly is bullshit, it really is. Good luck having some neighbors accept you because you do not attend Church. People will speak badly of you, and accuse you of devil worship.

To sum it all up, fuck religion, and fuck the sheeple in society who do not have an independent thought. Maybe it says something about humans, we believe we have come so far but we have not progressed from childlike beliefs that haunted us in the past. Religions preach of bringing people together and to make the world a better place. This, again, is more brainwashing bullshit. Religious organizations exist to feast on people wanting to believe, not being able to think for themselves, gullibility, and pursuit of wealth. Humanity cannot progress, religion being it's hindering factor.

I cant find it online anywhere. It must be true, Bill Maher owns the internet. :P

Silly me, its on demonoid.

xxv7xx, you say fuck the sheeple with no original thoughts. I find it strikingly funny that your own view was shown to you by someone else.

Oh, one more thing: Before you watched this anti-religion propaganda piece, you said you didn't mind people of faith. So much for being able to think for YOUR self.

To quote you: Before this movie I was an atheist, I did not really see anything wrong with faith but now I cannot stand religious people.

Propaganda works as well now as it ever did.

Just watched the movie, its entertaining.

Have the people here talking about propaganda seen the film?

Are the people accusing the OP of not thinking for himself, familiar with the process of him changing his mind?

I imagined it would be entertaining, and maybe it will incite further entertainment from christian fundamentalists too.

Have the people here talking about propaganda seen the film?

Are the people accusing the OP of not thinking for himself, familiar with the process of him changing his mind?

What makes his acceptance of someone else's view any less brainwashing than a religious person's acceptance?

What makes the rhetoric of 'your faith is fucking up this planet' any more valid than 'your faithlessness is leading you to hell'?

I'm not accusing him of anything really; just pointing out that he is doing what he is preaching against.

What makes his acceptance of someone else's view any less brainwashing than a religious person's acceptance?

What makes the rhetoric of 'your faith is fucking up this planet' any more valid than 'your faithlessness is leading you to hell'?

I'm not accusing him of anything really; just pointing out that he is doing what he is preaching against.

The only reasons religious people have are in the class of "I felt the presence of God" or "...and then when I put my hand out the window, it started RAINING!".

He adopted a new viewpoint based on logical reasons.

Re: Religulous, though: I thought the Islam part could have been played better.

I'm not accusing him of anything really; just pointing out that he is doing what he is preaching against.

Please, at least show me the courtesy of no thinking I'm a fucking moron.

"Before you watched this anti-religion propaganda piece, you said you didn't mind people of faith. So much for being able to think for YOUR self."

Unless you are intimately familiar with how he made up his mind, you have no idea whether he thought for himself or not. That's the point.

Please, at least show me the courtesy of no thinking I'm a fucking moron.

"Before you watched this anti-religion propaganda piece, you said you didn't mind people of faith. So much for being able to think for YOUR self."

Unless you are intimately familiar with how he made up his mind, you have no idea whether he thought for himself or not. That's the point.

Maybe it is the point. I don't think it is, though. The point is that nobody is forced to believe anything, nor has there ever been demonstrated a true authenticity to indoctrination. Anybody is capable of rejected the system they are raised with, as anybody is capable of accepting a new system whenever they please. Some cling to beliefs with fervor, others don't. No amount of fear-mongering, repetition, social criticism, or any other force can overcome the individual's decision to believe what they please. This may not be the kind of response the OP was hoping for, but it's what arose in me in response to his post. Further, while the reply is to him, the point expressed is not directed at him. It is to those who believe religion to be a giant brain-washing machine that restricts freedom, etc. We all choose for ourselves whether or not to accept the ideas we learn of: I was simply using an extremely common and completely invalid criticism as a mock critique. Mostly to expose it as a faulted argument.

The only reasons religious people have are in the class of "I felt the presence of God" or "...and then when I put my hand out the window, it started RAINING!".

He adopted a new viewpoint based on logical reasons.

Re: Religulous, though: I thought the Islam part could have been played better.

As much as I have no personal relationship with the OP's thoughts and system of adopting new ideas, neither do you. His reason for adopting this viewpoint could be as irrational and delusion as any man who accepts faith. You don't know why he accepted the new idea, neither do I. Read my post prior to this, and the post by Rust to which it responds.

As to the reasons for religious people, what makes you so sure that their reasons all fall into those classes?

What of the reason that they have personally met with the God? Or seen Angels? What of the seeing of auric fields? Feelings of divine hands? Does that certify them as insane? Maybe in your own walk, it does, but your rejection of their claim has no bearing on its validity, nor does their inability to provide physical evidence of their claim. If it really happened, it really happened...lack of evidence diminishes that to no extent. Mind you, Occam's Razor was meant to help determine the most likely hypothesis regarding a phenomenon that actually produces physical evidence; never was it intended to dismiss attributes and experiences of consciousness that leave no physical evidence. It is a tool of evidence examination; not a tool of dismissal. To disregard countless human experiences as delusion and fantasy with no reason whatsoever to believe it an illness is ridiculous.

poppycock

what an irritating person you are! you're always arguing in religious threads with your pseudo-intellectual babble. the thing you say are so open ended and vague its' truly irritating. you are like M. Night Shyalamalmala's directing style, but in human form. bunch.of.nonsense.

You really enjoy inviting people to just shit on your day, don't you?

As much as I have no personal relationship with the OP's thoughts and system of adopting new ideas, neither do you. His reason for adopting this viewpoint could be as irrational and delusion as any man who accepts faith. You don't know why he accepted the new idea, neither do I. Read my post prior to this, and the post by Rust to which it responds.

Yes, but it is likely because he watched the movie. Occam's razor.

As to the reasons for religious people, what makes you so sure that their reasons all fall into those classes? Common sense. Sorry you don't have any.

What of the reason that they have personally met with the God?
Hallucination or idiocy.
Or seen Angels?
Idiocy or hallucination.
What of the seeing of auric fields?
Probably just idiocy. Feelings of divine hands? Idiocy. Does that certify them as insane? Yes, hallucinations mean you are either high or insane. Maybe in your own walk, it does, but your rejection of their claim has no bearing on its validity, nor does their inability to provide physical evidence of their claim.
No, the fact they have no evidence proves its invalidity. Not my rejection. If it really happened, it really happened...lack of evidence diminishes that to no extent.
Yes it does. Mind you, Occam's Razor was meant to help determine the most likely hypothesis regarding a phenomenon that actually produces physical evidence; never was it intended to dismiss attributes and experiences of consciousness that leave no physical evidence.
Hallucinations and idiocy actually do have physical evidence. It's called religion. It is a tool of evidence examination; not a tool of dismissal.
Yes, after you examine the evidence, if you find it to not exist, you dismiss the claim. To disregard countless human experiences as delusion and fantasy with no reason whatsoever to believe it an illness is ridiculous.
Oh, so if enough people hallucinate it becomes real? I don't think that's true. You probably disagree, since you're an idiot. But go ahead. Get enough people to believe in your tinkerbell. You'll still drop when you try to fly, no matter how happy your thoughts are.

Yes, but it is likely because he watched the movie. Occam's razor.

Sorry, but I watched the movie and I didn't adopt the same view he did. You're improperly using a wonderful tool of science.

Yes, but it is likely because he watched the movie. Occam's razor.

Sorry, but I watched the movie and I didn't adopt the same view he did. You're improperly using a wonderful tool of science.

His case: (nb: these are asynchronous)

He watched the movie.
His opinion changed.
He made a thread about the movie and his opinion changing.


Your case:

You watched the movie.
You had some hallucinations.
You made that post.


In his case, if we are trying to assert why his opinion changed, we could point to the movie as the likely cause. In your case, we can point to the hallucinations (and idiocy) as the likely cause of the opinion not changing.

You are trying to bring something out of nothing by saying "oh his opinion is changing for no reason; he must be just like a religious person!". However, the mostly likely explanation is that he watched the movie, which is well-reasoned and convincing, and then had a change of opinion. You are further missing the point by trying to claim that I asserted that anyone watching the movie would have the same change of opinion. Clearly, being an idiot precludes change in opinion.

I was simply using an extremely common and completely invalid criticism as a mock critique. Mostly to expose it as a faulted argument.


Straws must be a bitch on the hands.

Yes, but it is likely because he watched the movie. Occam's razor.

Occam's razor would have us make as few assumptions as possible. You assume much about him, and about HOW the information in the movie enabled him to come to his increased displeasure with theists.

------------

BTW.........I find it hilarious when religious folks attempt to invoke Occam's razor with a straight face. Simplest answer for life on Earth is an infinitely complex being, completely beyond mortal comprehension?

Sorry, but I watched the movie and I didn't adopt the same view he did. You're improperly using a wonderful tool of science.

Well Hex to be fair he did not have the experience of talking FACE TO FACE with GOD HIMSELF, like you have.

Perhaps God only shows his face to drug addled rapists?

Occam's razor would have us make as few assumptions as possible. You assume much about him, and about HOW the information in the movie enabled him to come to his increased displeasure with theists.

------------

BTW.........I find it hilarious when religious folks attempt to invoke Occam's razor with a straight face. Simplest answer for life on Earth is an infinitely complex being, completely beyond mortal comprehension?


Hex didn't invoke Occam's razor, I did.

Hex didn't invoke Occam's razor, I did.

Hilarity ensues. btw, what is unreasonable about hex basing his opinion on "hallucinations"?

Hex didn't invoke Occam's razor, I did.

My apologies, I should have read it more thoroughly.

what is unreasonable about hex basing his opinion on "hallucinations"?

If they were reasonable, they would cease to be hallucinations.

Hex also invoked, or cited as authority, Occam's razor.

No, he was just quoting prometheum. lol

If they were reasonable, they would cease to be hallucinations.

Who decided they were hallucinations? How are hallucinations unreasonable, anyways?

No, he was just quoting prometheum. lol

My apologies, then.

Who decided they were hallucinations? How are hallucinations unreasonable, anyways?

Every other human being who is unable to detect it in the paradigm of reality we share, that is who decided they are hallucinations.

Hallucinations are unreasonable as a source to base belief off of, b/c they are not grounded in the reason of reality.

Every other human being who is unable to detect it in the paradigm of reality we share, that is who decided they are hallucinations.

So then, you think prometheum was around hex when hex experienced his so-called "hallucinations", and did not experience them himself?

I don't think so. I think prometheum is assuming they aren't real.

Also, why should something be considered unreal because only one person is experiencing it?

Hallucinations are unreasonable as a source to base belief off of, b/c they are not grounded in the reason of reality.

What is this "reason of reality"? Are you claiming reality is reasonable?

How do you know his experiences are not grounded in the "reason of reality"?

Also, why should something be considered unreal because only one person is experiencing it?

What your suggesting here seems a bit baiting.

For example I could see a response like "I never X in front of another human being, are you going to tell me it is unreal, b/c only I experienced it?"

So to be clear.....It is unreal b/c there exists no evidence in any way, shape or form, for those in our shared paradigm to deem it real.

That is just the nature of our paradigm called reality.

What is this "reason of reality"

The ability to think, understand and draw conclusions, based upon the state of things as they actually exist.

How do you know his experiences are not grounded in the "reason of reality"?

There is no evidence for what he claims, that can be studied in any way, which is required if we are to understand and draw conclusions based upon the state of things as they actually exist.

So if he wishes to venture off into suggesting his hallucination is real, he taking a quick vacation from our shared reality and all reason therein.

It is unreal b/c there exists no evidence in any way, shape or form, for those in our shared paradigm to deem it real.

That is just the nature of our paradigm called reality.

Why should another's experiences hold any weight on what is and what is not real? Just because nobody experiences what hex did, or experiences evidence of what he did, or evidence that his experience is real, doesn't mean he did not.

It also wouldn't mean his conclusions are any more unreasonable then the other persons.

The ability to think, understand and draw conclusions, based upon the state of things as they actually exist.

So you meant "the ability to reason", not the "reason of reality", right?

How are hexes conclusions not based on his own reasoning?

There is no evidence for what he claims, that can be studied in any way, which is required if we are to understand and draw conclusions based upon the state of things as they actually exist.

So if he wishes to venture off into suggesting his hallucination is real, he taking a quick vacation from our shared reality and all reason therein.

He experienced God. He can study his experiences. He can draw his conclusions, based upon the state of things as they actually exist. See, his experiences exist to him.

How is he taking a vacation from reasoning in any way?

No, he was just quoting prometheum. lol

No, actually he invoked it afterwards, in his next long post.


Who decided they were hallucinations? How are hallucinations unreasonable, anyways?

This is the most idiotic statement I have ever read.

This is the most idiotic statement I have ever read.

Who needs to explain themselves, when they can just assert whatever they want?

Right?

They were questions. Not statements. How did you conclude hex was "hallucinating"?

Why should another's experiences hold any weight on what is and what is not real??

Shared experience hold weight on what is real and what is not real in reality.

For example, you wishing or believing it another way, doesn't change the way it is.

It also wouldn't mean his conclusions are any more unreasonable then the other persons.

His reasoning is based off of hallucination. It may seem reasonable that since you hear your dog speak, it can talk. It may even seem reasonable that you have to shoot six people dead, b/c you believe your dog is possessed by a demon and ordered you to do so.

The hallucination hampers his ability to think and understand, where reality is concerned. Since he did not reason inside of reality, David Berkowitz was convicted of six murders, by 12 men and women.

Clearly one type of reasoning holds more value for a person.

So you meant "the ability to reason", not the "reason of reality", right?

No, I meant exactly what I said:

The ability to think, understand and draw conclusions, (this ALONE is the ability to reason.)

....based upon the state of things as they actually exist (this is reality).

This is the reason of reality I had stated. So you might want to go back to the intial question, in which I used reason of reality as a response, rather than try to tell me what I said, and further attempt to deconstruct my argument.

How are hexes conclusions not based on his own reasoning?

They are based on his own reasoning, and I have not suggested otherwise.

I said: Hallucinations are unreasonable as a source to base belief off of, b/c they are not grounded in the reason of reality.

He experienced God. He can study his experiences. He can draw his conclusions, based upon the state of things as they actually exist. See, his experiences exist to him.

He experienced hallucination. He can study his hallucination. He can draw his conclusions, based upon the state of things as they APPEAR to exist.

Therefore his reasoning is not based on reality.

How is he taking a vacation from reasoning in any way?

I said vacation from reality, and all reason therein......

There is a difference. The main difference is what my argument is, and the strawman you have erected here.

Shared experience hold weight on what is real and what is not real in reality.

But individual experiences do not? Why does something have to be shared to be real?

His reasoning is based off of hallucination.

How do you know this? Can you prove his experience was not a real one?

Just because you cannot, doesn't automatically make it a real one, no. But I don't understand how you've come to the conclusion that Hex was just "hallucinating".

It may seem reasonable that since you hear your dog speak, it can talk. It may even seem reasonable that you have to shoot six people dead, b/c you believe your dog is possessed by a demon and ordered you to do so.

The hallucination hampers his ability to think and understand, where reality is concerned. Since he did not reason inside of reality, David Berkowitz was convicted of six murders, by 12 men and women.

Clearly one type of reasoning holds more value for a person.

How was his reasoning outside of reality at all? How was the voice he heard inside his head ordering him to do things any less real then the pictures inside my head when I think about things?

He did something a lot of other people perceived as wrong. How does that make his "hallucinations" less real, or less reasonable?

Clearly which type of reasoning holds more value depends on the values of the person doing the reasoning.

No, I meant exactly what I said:

The ability to think, understand and draw conclusions, (this ALONE is the ability to reason.)

....based upon the state of things as they actually exist (this is reality).

This is the reason of reality I had stated. So you might want to go back to the intial question, in which I used reason of reality as a response, rather than try to tell me what I said, and further attempt to deconstruct my argument.

How are Hexes experiences not based upon things which actually exist? He experienced God. How have you determined this experience didn't actually exist?

They are based on his own reasoning, and I have not suggested otherwise.

How is there a difference between his reasoning, and the "reason of reality"?

He experienced hallucination. He can study his hallucination. He can draw his conclusions, based upon the state of things as they APPEAR to exist.

Therefore his reasoning is not based on reality.

According to that logic, wouldn't all reasoning not be "based on reality", since you may not ever know if you're dealing with false appearances or true reality?

Again, how have you concluded he was hallucinating?

I said vacation from reality, and all reason therein......

How is he taking a vacation from reality in any way? You have yet to explain how you have determined Hex was "hallucinating".

Okay, I just watched the movie, and have always had these thoughts: Religion=Dogma= Plain out idiotic.
I always liked the saying "There is no religion above Truth."
What I would like to see is Bill try to take on Taoism and Buddhism, problem with that, he couldn't... ;)

Ethnographic Bias- check
Multi quote - check
Way off fucking topic- check

Okay, I just watched the movie, and have always had these thoughts: Religion=Dogma= Plain out idiotic.
I always liked the saying "There is no religion above Truth."
What I would like to see is Bill try to take on Taoism and Buddhism, problem with that, he couldn't... ;)

How often do Taoists go to war?

I dl'd the movie and watched it after reading this thread. It was a pretty entertaining movie, and Bill was fairly courteous throughout most of his interviews. However, in the last 10 minutes of the movie the tone radically shifts. I thought it was kind of funny actually. It seemed like all of a sudden he went from "doubt is good to "omg we have to stop religion!"

All in all it was a pretty good film, but I don't see it as something that impacted my views at all. He's providing pretty basic knowledge of stuff that anyone could find out with a little bit of googling. I guess the sad thing is that most people are too lazy to do their own research, or if they're religious perhaps they don't want to question their viewpoints. He's providing a way for lazy people to get some info without doing the legwork. Anyone willing to believe stuff they see in a movie/on tv/on the internet without looking at sources and doing more research on it might find the film useful, but if you spend time looking stuff up on your own then most of what he presents isn't very surprising.

I actually liked The God Who Wasn't There more then Religulous. Bill Maher's film is funnier, but TGWWT is more of a documentary with lots of interviews with biblical scholars and whatnot. It's definitely worth the download. Oh, and the neural scientist guy that Bill Maher interviews gives an extensive interview in TGWWT. I found it funny that Bill Maher used him as a source too.

Just saw the movie.

I thought it was pretty well done, and funny, though I wish the interviews were not edited so much. I understand that this editing made things funnier, but I think those interviewed would rather have had their entire responses and such, completely portrayed.

Not that it would have made a difference as far as the argument goes, considering Bill's argument is "You cannot KNOW".

Which they cannot, and do not, b/c as he points out, they don't have any special sensory ability that he does not posses. Until they PROVE otherwise, this is obvious fact.

****Obbe, I checked out of our argument awhile ago, did not even read your last post, have no interest in doing so, as I am sure it will be more of the classic Obbe run around. That is to say, you haven't had any interesting, original ideas on here for some two years, and I don't think you are starting with that post.

Get pissy, cry, call me a meany if you like, b/c I refuse to validate your pretentious nonsense any longer, with any further discussion of it, even though it would further illustrate what a fucking moron you are to any new comers, I remain convinced they will discover this for themselves. Basically, you don't need me arguing with you to show to the world what a moron you are, you do well enough on your own.

An exercise in getting stupid people to say stupid things. I think it could appeal to some less educated moderate religious people so I won't say it's entirely pointless, but I do think it comes across, in a similar way to a lot of recent American documetries, as slightly dishonest. The argument doesn't need to rely on cutting to pictures of explosions and war and some of the interviews seem quite heavily edited.

I don't think the end of the discussion is "we don't know" and I'd like to see him advocate logic and reasoned argument more than just using the techniques you'd expect from a pro religious film. It almost seems like he thinks we should stop asking the big questions. But Bill Maher is an entertainer first and maybe I was expecting to see more of a serious discussion. I hope it works on it's target audience and I enjoyed his closing argument.

For an actual documentry I recommend "The root of all evil?" by Dawkins.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9002284641446868316&hl=en

Hex didn't invoke Occam's razor, I did.

Invoke it?

hahahaha oh man

that's beautiful

****Obbe, I checked out of our argument awhile ago, did not even read your last post, have no interest in doing so

That's fine, you won't be able to confirm your assertion that Hex was experiencing hallucination anyways.

I do not think anyone is able to know.

Before this movie I was an atheist, I did not really see anything wrong with faith but now I cannot stand religious people.


Oh, isn't that wonderful?

Oh, isn't that wonderful?

It is.

^ The mooooooooore we hate each other, the happier we'll beeeeeee? :confused: