Religulous
- Thread starter LJ4ptplay
- Start date
LMAO! That post was very funny.
OGKnickfan
Enlightened
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.
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:
Dogmatic? I believe in a personal relationship, not a religion. Get your stuff straight.
OGKnickfan
Enlightened
checkmate
I posted more than just one or two statements. You take one thing, the mention of dogma, reply to it, though not even with an ounce of truth. Still, let me address it. Paul, you are dogmatic, which means you follow
doctrines and beliefs, as set down by some sort of authority, particularly religious ones. You believe in sexual abstinence and the rapture, and other forms of dogma, as laid down by Church authorities. Even your statement, about a "personal relationship," is the result of dogma.
DOGMA:
I posted more than just one or two statements. You take one thing, the mention of dogma, reply to it, though not even with an ounce of truth. Still, let me address it. Paul, you are dogmatic, which means you follow
doctrines and beliefs, as set down by some sort of authority, particularly religious ones. You believe in sexual abstinence and the rapture, and other forms of dogma, as laid down by Church authorities. Even your statement, about a "personal relationship," is the result of dogma.
DOGMA:
- A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
- An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See synonyms at doctrine.
- A principle or belief or a group of them: ?The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present? (Abraham Lincoln).
Knicks4lyfe
Starter
So basically, it comes down to one big guesstimate. So none of what you say could have actually taken place? Let me get this right. Mankind lives on avg 70-80 years. They are far from perfect, even their professed scientific methods have issues. Yet you trust it to trace back 3.5 billion years, long before man or science existed?
How do you know this? Knowing something for certain would be based on facts. You're life revolves around theories tested over and over again to make them appear as facts. Facts and Theories are totally different.
This is nuts. You really think that humans can really know how old the universe is based on their readings? WORDDDD? You should know better.
Looking... at the time scale? SMH... How can beings that come after the universe know exactly when it was made? There is no textbook on the universe out there to study from.
Does the earth have specific measurements? Measuring line? Socketts and such that it is privy too by law? I think somewhere I read that such is true. But what I wanna know is.. How could Job know this 3500 years ago?
Job 38:
1 And Jehovah proceeded to answer Job out of the windstorm and say:
2 ?Who is this that is obscuring counsel
By words without knowledge?
3 Gird up your loins, please, like an able-bodied man,
And let me question you, and you inform me.
4 Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth?
Tell [me], if you do know understanding.
5 Who set its measurements, in case you know,
Or who stretched out upon it the measuring line?
6 Into what have its socket pedestals been sunk down,
Or who laid its cornerstone,
I guess you'll tell me now that this verse was written just recently, or that Job saw the shadow of the earth on the floor and yadda yadda...
TunerAddict
Starter
I think LJ got a little out of hand. His "i know for a fact" thing wasn't a wise statement.
Truth is I believe what I beleive, you believe what you believe. We both have evidence. However, neither of us can prove anything.
Its just our choice to believe what we want. Benefits and cons...
Pro my view:
1) Feeling of accomplishment "knowing" I know the truth.
Con:
1)Fear of death, thinking that this is all i have, a meaningless existence.
2)Possibility of being wrong
Your view pros:
1)Same as mine
2)Hope for an afterlife, an aligning purpose. Belief in the good of man.
Cons:
2) The possibility of being wrong.
I mean, this is just a breif analysis, i'm sure there are MANY more for each. Just what I'm saying is that you WILL not change our views. We WONT change yours. This debate is pointless. We cannot prove a thing. This is just two sided bickering that has no middle and no movement will be made.
So lets do what is intended for this thread and talk about the movie!
OGKnickfan
Enlightened
I'm the only dude on this thread that talked about the film, tuner, and I did so in a balanced manner.
And Lyfe,the same things you say about LJ4pointplay can be said about you. No one can say, with all confidence, exactly what happened to bring mankind into being, but that doesn't mean that intelligent conclusions cannot be arrived at, based on the scientific study of the limited knowledge we have.
Evolution is not a theory, by the way, it's a fact, proven by studying such things as natural selection, adaptation, heredity, etc. Even with humans, you have people who are very fair-skinned, as well as those who are very dark, all the result of evolutionary adaptations, not Abraham giving birth to people of different colors.
You also talk about humans being related to monkeys, as if it's ridiculous. Well, humans are related to practically everything, I'd guess, because we share fundamental functions and abilities, all of which allow us to survive on Earth. Mice and humans, after all, both are mammals, grow hair, have periods of gestation and give birth to live animals, not eggs. Also, we're able to smell, hear and see, often in similar ways.
If you look at chimps, our closest relative, they have ears similar to ours, with lobes and cartilage in, relatively speaking, the same area. They also have hands that are similar to ours, with similar finger nails; their faces are also organized in a similar fashion, with a chin, nose mouth and eyes set in similar parts of the skull. Chimps also have a hairless face, much like we do.
So, lyfe, it's not a theory, it's a fact. The words and ideas used to describe the fact that animals and plants evolve and are related, to differing degrees, can be called a theory, but the facts behind the theories are just that.
And Lyfe,the same things you say about LJ4pointplay can be said about you. No one can say, with all confidence, exactly what happened to bring mankind into being, but that doesn't mean that intelligent conclusions cannot be arrived at, based on the scientific study of the limited knowledge we have.
Evolution is not a theory, by the way, it's a fact, proven by studying such things as natural selection, adaptation, heredity, etc. Even with humans, you have people who are very fair-skinned, as well as those who are very dark, all the result of evolutionary adaptations, not Abraham giving birth to people of different colors.
You also talk about humans being related to monkeys, as if it's ridiculous. Well, humans are related to practically everything, I'd guess, because we share fundamental functions and abilities, all of which allow us to survive on Earth. Mice and humans, after all, both are mammals, grow hair, have periods of gestation and give birth to live animals, not eggs. Also, we're able to smell, hear and see, often in similar ways.
If you look at chimps, our closest relative, they have ears similar to ours, with lobes and cartilage in, relatively speaking, the same area. They also have hands that are similar to ours, with similar finger nails; their faces are also organized in a similar fashion, with a chin, nose mouth and eyes set in similar parts of the skull. Chimps also have a hairless face, much like we do.
So, lyfe, it's not a theory, it's a fact. The words and ideas used to describe the fact that animals and plants evolve and are related, to differing degrees, can be called a theory, but the facts behind the theories are just that.
Knicks4lyfe
Starter
Best post of the thread.
Knicks4lyfe
Starter
Then how can you say evolution is a fact with such conviction?
I choose to believe exactly what the bible says, not because I'm dogmatic, or brainwashed, but because it is the only book on earth to deal with some scientific facts, historical events that can be proven to have happened in before times and now. There is just no way Job could have knowledge of the earth having measuring lines and sockets etc 3500 years ago unless someone with intricate knowledge of the situation informed him. There is no way I can shove math 24:3-14 off as nonsense when I can look around at the world today and see everything it describes happening. And being that all of the things described there needed to take place during one specific time frame, that makes it even more credible because I live in that time frame. I SEE IT. It is not a fairy tale. I see it.
So even things that are not explained thoroughly will not deter my belief that there is a God and his word is the Bible.
You just said this " No one can say, with all confidence, exactly what happened to bring mankind into being ".
But now I have you saying it is evolution for a FACT that is responsible for bringing mankind into being. Which is it?
Question: If you have a brand new Mercedes Benz, and you chop it up, put the pieces in a compressor for 15 billions years and come back, Whats the chances of you seeing a brand new Mercedes Benz, rather than chopped up pieces of what was a brand new Mercedes? I ask this because this is basically what the big bang theory is. All the elements just somehow appeared and made just the exact, intricate, formula to start the universe on it's own. No help at all. By sheer chance the wonderful, vast universe is here. Word?
I say it's ridiculous because we cannot procreate with anything else but humans. And the same for monkey's, mice, etc. Just because we are similar to other kinds of species, does not mean that we evolved from them, or at all. It's just one big scientific guess.
I say it's ridiculous because every species that they ever thought was the tweener between monkey and man, is in fact just a species of mankind that no longer exists.
When I ask to see the half monkey, half man fossil, I'm being unrealistic in my view of what evolution should be. That's ridiculous.
If the species that they find are either ape, or human, why is it ridiculous to just agree with Genesis 1:24 which says.
And God went on to say: ?Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.? And it came to be so.
Really?
KnicksFourLyfe
Rookie
Wow... I couldn?t log into my Knicks4Lyfe account because it?s been so long, I forgot how to get into that email... but man what 11 years will do as far as belief and experience lol
KnicksFourLyfe
Rookie
Totally agree with this now... crazy
Let me know if you want me to help you get access to your original account! Welcome back!
