Results 1 to 15 of 70

Thread: Religulous

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Veteran LJ4ptplay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    2,950
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Religulous

    Hilarious movie. I would suggest everyone see it, believers and non-believers. He pokes fun at all religions. And as a non-believer myself, I find all religions to be hysterical.



  2. #2
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,464
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    It does look funny. Sad that as crazy as some religions seem, and as funny as they seem, so many Wars have occurred because of it. Too many. I'll probably watch this video though when it comes out. I really dont like Bill Maher but this looks good. This will definetly be watched by Atheist everywhere lol.

  3. #3
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    I find all religions to be hysterical.
    What about the religion that says all things came from a single cell organism that just happened to appear magically, and that modern men come from monkeys?

    That is pretty hysterical too. That is probably THE most hysterical. Did this movie address that faith?

  4. #4
    Veteran LJ4ptplay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    2,950
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    What about the religion that says all things came from a single cell organism that just happened to appear magically, and that modern men come from monkeys?

    That is pretty hysterical too. That is probably THE most hysterical. Did this movie address that faith?
    No. Because science is based on facts and evidence. Now go along and keep believing in talking snakes and invisible people.

  5. #5
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    No. Because science is based on facts and evidence. Now go along and keep believing in talking snakes and invisible people.
    So theory is science now? When has science ever proven that something comes from nothing? Where is the evidence for that?

    I'll surely take the bible over monkey ancestors. Growing that tail yet? lol...

  6. #6
    Veteran TunerAddict's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,183
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    So theory is science now? When has science ever proven that something comes from nothing? Where is the evidence for that?

    I'll surely take the bible over monkey ancestors. Growing that tail yet? lol...

    Bible is equally valid. Where did God come from? That isn't explained. So god came from nothing aswell. How could that be?

    Truth is we will never know. EVER.

    The movie isn't about disproving religons, its about asking questions. Questioning all the beliefs, asking what if. Its about finding faith for yourself, pushing yourself to find what is most logical to yourself.

    Bill Mahr isn't an athiest either. He says "I just don't know." Atheism is believing that there is/are no god/gods. Thus, he isn't an athiest.

    This started as a discussion of a movie and you turned it into a religous debate that wasn't even mentioned before hand...

    ****, if you wanna just start involving non relevant stuff, I can always bring out the large trend between child molestation and Jehovah's Witnesses.

  7. #7
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Originally Posted by TunerAddict
    Bible is equally valid. Where did God come from? That isn't explained. So god came from nothing aswell. How could that be?
    Actually, God does not come from anything, he's just always been. Whatever that means.

    Originally Posted by TunerAddict
    Truth is we will never know. EVER.
    Not true. Truth is the bible is God's word. No other way to explain how it can be valid from one stream of time to the next. Sorry, there is a such thing as reality. The Matrix is a movie. Make believe.



    Originally Posted by TunerAddict
    The movie isn't about disproving religons, its about asking questions. Questioning all the beliefs, asking what if. Its about finding faith for yourself, pushing yourself to find what is most logical to yourself.
    If the movie was about pushing you to find what's most logical to yourself, then it would not have been made in the first place. Clearly people who believe in religious faiths have a logical reason for it. So basically, this movie is to poke fun at people who have found what is logical to them religiously, because religion is not logical to him. That is of course, if I am going by what you take the movie to be about.



    Originally Posted by TunerAddict
    Bill Mahr isn't an athiest either. He says "I just don't know." Atheism is believing that there is/are no god/gods. Thus, he isn't an athiest.
    Who cares?




    Originally Posted by TunerAddict
    This started as a discussion of a movie and you turned it into a religous debate that wasn't even mentioned before hand...

    ****, if you wanna just start involving non relevant stuff, I can always bring out the large trend between child molestation and Jehovah's Witnesses.
    Is the movie not about religions? You make it seem like I tried to turn it's something about Mary into a religious debate silly man. Wake up Neo. Stop following the white rabbit, and wake up.

    And you can bring up whatever you wish about molestation and Jehovah's witnesses. Not near a Jehovah's witness in the world today, or at any time were perfect, except Jesus. So you bringing that up would be for what purpose? To expose the obvious? That people, even those who try and serve God make mistakes? Sometimes really bad ones? So because a person does something really bad means they can't change? Should they be forgiven if they do change? Or is that inhumane?

    Or is this even real? Morpheus asked Neo once "What is real"? Let you tell it, we'll never know.

  8. #8
    Member KnicksFan4Realz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Phoenix,AZ
    Posts
    406
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    So theory is science now? When has science ever proven that something comes from nothing? Where is the evidence for that?

    I'll surely take the bible over monkey ancestors. Growing that tail yet? lol...
    Your attention span must be really limited...I could've sworn not to long ago I answered this myself in 2 separate threads...over 20 pages long each just about....not to mention others as well explaining the word "THEORY" to you.

  9. #9
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    Your attention span must be really limited...I could've sworn not to long ago I answered this myself in 2 separate threads...over 20 pages long each just about....not to mention others as well explaining the word "THEORY" to you.
    You are the guy who thinks it's ok for people of any age to have sex so long as they are being responsible by using condoms. Even kids.

    Nothing you say has had any relevance to me since. Take care.

  10. #10
    KnicksonLIN.com
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,073
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    No. Because science is based on facts and evidence. Now go along and keep believing in talking snakes and invisible people.
    LMAO! That post was very funny.

  11. #11
    Enlightened OGKnickfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    944
    Rep Power
    6

    Default Checkmate

    I saw this movie, on Friday night. First of all, so that you know where I'm coming from, I consider myself spiritual, though not an adherent of any religious group or dogma. I find spiritual value, in a way that many "followers" do not, in the messages, analogies, actions and symbolism, among other meaningful vehicles for spiritual communion, found in a wide range of religious texts, beliefs, etc. A couple of examples would be Jesus' willingness to sacrifice himself for something greater. Another would be the Buddha's willpower, to fast and give up wealth, for the sake of truth/enlightenment.

    Now, when it comes to the movie, it's valuable, in my opinion, as a piece of comedy. When it comes to its value as a documentary on the issue of religion, sure, there are inconsistencies and fairy tales within many religious texts. However, the movie edited its interviews with people (most of what the film was about, other than Mahr's rants) in a very dishonest, unfair way. A person would be speaking, for example, and Bill Mahr would be shown asking them a question meant to trip them up, after which the movie would cut, without showing the person's response, to a scene of the person staring blankly into space, as if they were stumped and unable to answer. This was done with several of the people who Mahr interviewed, and I think it's unfair, unethical and dishonest. Clearly, religious, dogmatic people, Paul and Knicks4lyfe being examples of them, have opinions and can answer questions.

    At the end, I just walked away feeling like if I had just watched a funny, entertaining film, though one that should be marketed as comedy, not a documentary on religion or its effects. The film was not smart enough to fulfill the criteria of a documentary, not even by the very low standards of a Michael Moore film, for example. The film endeavors to challenge religion, as a cancer that causes all human problems, but Mahr doesn't actually prove this, which is painfuly obvious, at the end, when watching his collages, which are heavily edited and combine film clips of nukes being dropped with those of people in church/temple, so as to make you associate one with the other.

    My personal opinion is that religion is divisive, it tells us who is on the ins and who is on the outs; it tells us that we're chosen, thus implying who is not; it contains beautiful ideals and examples of sacrifice and ethical fortitude, but those in control of it ask us to look at these in very simple, superficial ways. There are, however, redeeming qualities contained in most of the religious faiths, especially in their teachings, which, in my opinion, have been twisted and manipulated by almost every organized religion. The term organized religion, in it of itself, reeks of manipulation, groups based on gathering the weak and easily-led, telling them how to see, hear, think and worship, usually at the whim of a few leaders.

    I think viewers would have been better served by an honest film, one that looks at religion's failings, as well as its redeeming qualities, and at how, so very often, they're ignored or misapplied. I also think Bill misses the point, by attacking religion, when culture, as the source of religion, is the real slave master. You have people of West African and European ancestry following a Middle Eastern god, and we wonder why they're confused and full of fairy tales?

    Bottom line, Bill Mahr wants to be provocative, but it's all been heard, and done, before, with much more intelligence and depth, in most cases. The film Zeitgeist would be an excellent example of how.
    Last edited by OGKnickfan; Nov 09, 2008 at 05:02.

  12. #12
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,464
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally Posted by OGKnickfan
    I saw this movie, on Friday night. First of all, so that you know where I'm coming from, I consider myself spiritual, though not an adherent of any religious group or dogma. I find spiritual value, in a way that many "followers" do not, in the messages, analogies, actions and symbolism, among other meaningful vehicles for spiritual communion, found in a wide range of religious texts, beliefs, etc. A couple of examples would be Jesus' willingness to sacrifice himself for something greater. Another would be the Buddha's willpower, to fast and give up wealth, for the sake of truth/enlightenment.

    Now, when it comes to the movie, it's valuable, in my opinion, as a piece of comedy. When it comes to its value as a documentary on the issue of religion, sure, there are inconsistencies and fairy tales within many religious texts. However, the movie edited its interviews with people (most of what the film was about, other than Mahr's rants) in a very dishonest, unfair way. A person would be speaking, for example, and Bill Mahr would be shown asking them a question meant to trip them up, after which the movie would cut, without showing the person's response, to a scene of the person staring blankly into space, as if they were stumped and unable to answer. This was done with several of the people who Mahr interviewed, and I think it's unfair, unethical and dishonest. Clearly, religious, dogmatic people, Paul and Knicks4lyfe being examples of them, have opinions and can answer questions.

    At the end, I just walked away feeling like if I had just watched a funny, entertaining film, though one that should be marketed as comedy, not a documentary on religion or its effects. The film was not smart enough to fulfill the criteria of a documentary, not even by the very low standards of a Michael Moore film, for example. The film endeavors to challenge religion, as a cancer that causes all human problems, but Mahr doesn't actually prove this, which is painfuly obvious, at the end, when watching his collages, which are heavily edited and combine film clips of nukes being dropped with those of people in church/temple, so as to make you associate one with the other.

    My personal opinion is that religion is divisive, it tells us who is on the ins and who is on the outs; it tells us that we're chosen, thus implying who is not; it contains beautiful ideals and examples of sacrifice and ethical fortitude, but those in control of it ask us to look at these in very simple, superficial ways. There are, however, redeeming qualities contained in most of the religious faiths, especially in their teachings, which, in my opinion, have been twisted and manipulated by almost every organized religion. The term organized religion, in it of itself, reeks of manipulation, groups based on gathering the weak and easily-led, telling them how to see, hear, think and worship, usually at the whim of a few leaders.

    I think viewers would have been better served by an honest film, one that looks at religion's failings, as well as its redeeming qualities, and at how, so very often, they're ignored or misapplied. I also think Bill misses the point, by attacking religion, when culture, as the source of religion, is the real slave master. You have people of West African and European ancestry following a Middle Eastern god, and we wonder why they're confused and full of fairy tales?

    Bottom line, Bill Mahr wants to be provocative, but it's all been heard, and done, before, with much more intelligence and depth, in most cases. The film Zeitgeist would be an excellent example of how.
    Dogmatic? I believe in a personal relationship, not a religion. Get your stuff straight.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •