Religulous - stupid

[cleverendeavouR]

I haven't seen the movie, but I find it slightly offensive.

Just because someone believes something different then you do, by no means give you the right to make fun of them for it.

We're all entitled to our own opinions but it's quite immature to name call and make fun of someone because they disagree with you. How incredibly arrogant and self-righteous.

 

[Pesmerga]

I have all the right in the world to make fun of everything you believe in.

 

[Polaris]

I've seen only the trailer and find it quite boring Moore-like documentary...maybe it's better.
Of course, every belief in the world can be ridiculed, freedom of speech ffs!
Yes, I'm one of those militant atheists...

 

[MJ12]

Just watched this with a friend.
It's an entertaining Documentary, and Maher is a lovable guy, but you most likely won't learn anything new.
If you are Religious, you'll be annoyed and offended. If you're Agnostic or an Atheist, you'll probably think it's amusing but not gain a new incite because chances are you've already criticized/thought in the same way he has.

The only people that will actually "gain" something from the film are people who are between weak religious/spiritual beliefs and agnosticism.

 

[B_MAN]

I haven't seen the movie, but I find it slightly offensive.

Just because someone believes something different then you do, by no means give you the right to make fun of them for it.

We're all entitled to our own opinions but it's quite immature to name call and make fun of someone because they disagree with you. How incredibly arrogant and self-righteous.

watch it and then make your accusations
it's not about making fun of certain religious beliefs, it's about exposing people to the lies and corruption that envelope every major religion in the world
and sure, there are humorous parts but it's hard not to laugh in disbelief at how desperate and ignorant some people are

 

[Sheepo]

A couple of you are retards, and when I read the previews for the movie I had the misconception that the point of it was to confront intelligent people with intelligent questions about religion - but I guess a lot of atheists really have no idea what they are doing.

Sorry, still think you are needlessly being a dick.

These are the first asshole comments of the thread. The closest thing you'll find before these are sarcastic "Oh thanks for the update" posts, which you seemed to have no problem with, by the way.

 

[Eejit]

If you're Agnostic or an Atheist, you'll probably think it's amusing but not gain a new incite because chances are you've already criticized/thought in the same way he has.

Insight

 

[Dan]

Monty Python already made fun of religion, and it was entertaining.

 

[Raziaar]

I enjoyed the movie. I love Bill Maher. Can't wait until Real Time comes back on this year.

 

[No Limit]

I just wanted to say that I loved the movie. Oh, and I also pissed on lame-o's hand.

 

[CptStern]

I haven't seen the movie, but I find it slightly offensive.

Just because someone believes something different then you do, by no means give you the right to make fun of them for it.

so if an adult believed in santa claus you wouldnt make fun?

We're all entitled to our own opinions but it's quite immature to name call and make fun of someone because they disagree with you. How incredibly arrogant and self-righteous.

oh come on you religidiot, I KNOW WHAT'S RIGHT GODDAM YOU CHURCHY!

Actually the churchies have been slamming the non believers since the dawn of religion. so "let he who is wiothout sin cast the first stone". I dont get the Religulous, I mean they're the first to preach from the good book but the absolutely last to follow any of it's rules. You should all be meek sheep ready for the slaughter but every single time I walk up to someone religious and slap him in the face they fail to turn the other goddam cheek

 

[theotherguy]

I haven't seen the movie, but I find it slightly offensive.

Just because someone believes something different then you do, by no means give you the right to make fun of them for it.

We're all entitled to our own opinions but it's quite immature to name call and make fun of someone because they disagree with you. How incredibly arrogant and self-righteous.

Religious opinions are like any other opinions, be they political, philosophical, or assumptive. They are not, and should not be, any more immune to criticism and ridicule than any other opinion.

Yes, you are entitled to an opinion, but that doesn't make your opinion right, and it doesn't prevent your opinion from being just plain silly or stupid.

If I see a ridiculous opinion, I will ridicule it. If someone strongly held that invisible elephants were living in his attic, I would call his belief paranoid, delusional, or absurd, and I would almost certainly ridicule it.

The same goes for anyone who strongly holds that an invisible magic man in the sky governs their daily lives. Such an opinion is absurd, delusional and paranoid, and I have every right, and perhaps even the duty to criticize it.

 

[MJ12]

Insight

Nazi.

I haven't seen the movie, but I find it slightly offensive.

Just because someone believes something different then you do, by no means give you the right to make fun of them for it.

We're all entitled to our own opinions but it's quite immature to name call and make fun of someone because they disagree with you. How incredibly arrogant and self-righteous.

Aren't you the guy who likes Tucker Max?

 

[Dan]

The problem I have isn't with incorrect opinions so much as dogmatic internalization of someone else's ideas without critical thought. Most people are sheep that end up with the standpoints of their family & friends. This is why we have a polarization of conservatism versus liberalism on a range of issues that are in no way interconnected: gun control, gay rights, abortion. Why is it that people who agree with one side of these issues tend to agree on all the others? Because of lack of critical thought. It is as prevalent in the atheist group as it is with God believers, maybe even more so.

In other words, you're all morons.

 

[Eejit]

Nazi.

Ja, ist me.

 

[Sulkdodds]

in no way interconnected

I don't think that's really true. whatevs.

 

[Kadayi]

It is as prevalent in the atheist group as it is with God believers, maybe even more so.

This. Despite being an atheist there is in my opinion nothing worse than the uneducated atheist rallying forth about why religion (or let's be honest Christianity 99% of the time) is 'bad' or quote mining parts of the bible with a view to 'it says so there!!' arguments. I actually studied the bible at college from an academic perspective (it was either that or sports....**** sports). Not with a view or an agenda to prove how foolish it all is, but simply to understand it as historical work/narrative and get a decent grade at the end of the day.

The majority of people fall down on one simple thing, and that is fully understanding and acknowledging context, both in terms of historical setting, social situation, peoples belief systems and day to day existence 2000+ years ago. Life then wasn't like now but with crap clothes and shit bandwidth.

If you got ill the odds were you were probably going to die (survival was a miracle back then). If you reached adulthood that was a major achievement and if you lived past 50 you'd be considered a sage. Peoples entire existence was based around their local community, they had little if any perception of what was happening barely 20 miles away from where they lived let alone 200 or 2000. The world was a lot smaller, a lot more brutal and faith was sown into the very fabric of peoples day to day because they never knew where the next meal was coming from half the time. The old testament is a survival guide for that period, it's also point of legal reference (back then the priests were the judiciary) and an allegorical storybook all wrapped up into one.

 

[CptStern]

the problem with the bible isnt so much of what it is but rather what people use it for

 

[Kadayi]

the problem with the bible isnt so much of what it is but rather what people use it for

Indeed, but it actually helps you're argument if you understand it (or any other religious book for that matter ) as a work in context of it's time and use that as a point of discussion rather than say make uneducated statements such as 'Christians are obliged to kill non believers if you read the Bible!!!!' (I still laugh about that one big time...):dozey:

 

[MJ12]

The problem I have isn't with incorrect opinions so much as dogmatic internalization of someone else's ideas without critical thought. Most people are sheep that end up with the standpoints of their family & friends. This is why we have a polarization of conservatism versus liberalism on a range of issues that are in no way interconnected: gun control, gay rights, abortion. Why is it that people who agree with one side of these issues tend to agree on all the others? Because of lack of critical thought. It is as prevalent in the atheist group as it is with God believers, maybe even more so

Well of course, but I don't see how this fits into Religulous, have you seen the movie?

 

[Seppo]

Well, I just came here to say that the whole "pissing on hand" theme that's present throughout this thread was very well crafted and executed. Very simple joke, not even that original, but it was delivered in the exact right amount with the exact irony and goofyness that's necessary for such an obvious joke. It worked because it was used in the correct context: the frst time we were introduced to the stream of urine meeting a hand was totally unexpected in what can be called a serious thread like this, and thus the surprise value gave it a certain extra of comedic value. It seemed so out of place and seemingly made the thread take a u-turn. The joke also kind of became a parody of itself, fully aware of its lack of originality, and this was masterfully implemented into the narration.

I give it a 9 out of 10.

 

[Dalamari]

I watched it, was what I expected.

I guess if you're a fan of someone once again calling religion a load of shit, go for it.

 

[CptStern]

Indeed, but it actually helps you're argument if you understand it (or any other religious book for that matter ) as a work in context of it's time and use that as a point of discussion rather than say make uneducated statements such as 'Christians are obliged to kill non believers if you read the Bible!!!!' (I still laugh about that one big time...):dozey:

that particular one actually holds true IF you take the bible literally as some people claim they do (homosexuals are sinners etc). Most often people cricise christianity using that method it's a response to a christian taking something from the bible literally to justify whatever. Kinda like how they say "well in the bible it says, no penis + penis love to mean hey no same sex martriage. ok if you're going to take one part of it literally why not the whole thing, therefore they shouldnt be eating lobster and they should be beating their wives/children to death if they talk out of turn. The point is that it's either all or nothing. they cant pick and choose which parts of the bible are literal and which are not

 

[Tyguy]

I liked the movie, it was mildly entertaining. Plus, Bill doesn't go around acting like he's the smartest man alive surrounded by idiots, he basically just asks questions and tries to get people to find the logic in his thinking.

 

[Qonfused]

Actually the churchies have been slamming the non believers since the dawn of religion. so "let he who is wiothout sin cast the first stone". I dont get the Religulous, I mean they're the first to preach from the good book but the absolutely last to follow any of it's rules. You should all be meek sheep ready for the slaughter but every single time I walk up to someone religious and slap him in the face they fail to turn the other goddam cheek

This post has so many stereotypes, sweeping generalizations and outright angsty teenager that it made my head explode.

 

[CptStern]

you should thank me, I just improved your IQ

 

[lefty]

Stern is what I aspire to be.

 

[Kadayi]

that particular one actually holds true IF you take the bible literally as some people claim they do (homosexuals are sinners etc). Most often people cricise christianity using that method it's a response to a christian taking something from the bible literally to justify whatever. Kinda like how they say "well in the bible it says, no penis + penis love to mean hey no same sex martriage. ok if you're going to take one part of it literally why not the whole thing, therefore they shouldnt be eating lobster and they should be beating their wives/children to death if they talk out of turn. The point is that it's either all or nothing. they cant pick and choose which parts of the bible are literal and which are not

No it doesn't Stern, not in any way shape or form when put in context (sorry). Feel free to argue otherwise, maybe misquoting the Bible line by line and rabidly and sensationally misinterpreting parts from both the old and new bible, cunning juxtapositioning them to suit your position, and then trying to correlate the activities of the Crusaders as some form of empirical evidence to support the argument, but you'd be heading down the same slippery slope as others (you know who) and you'd end up with egg on your face, and probably have to leave the forum in internet shame (maybe kill yourself as well), basically fulfilling my point about people not actually knowing their subject talking shit. Don't let that whopping post count of yours try and convince you otherwise my friend.

 

[CptStern]

No it doesn't Stern, not in any way shape or form when put in context (sorry). Feel free to argue otherwise, maybe misquoting the Bible line by line and rabidly and sensationally misinterpreting parts from both the old and new bible, cunning juxtapositioning them to suit your position, and then trying to correlate the activities of the Crusaders as some form of empirical evidence to support the argument, but you'd be heading down the same slippery slope as others (you know who) and you'd end up with egg on your face, and probably have to leave the forum in internet shame (maybe kill yourself as well), basically fulfilling my point about people not actually knowing their subject talking shit. Don't let that whopping post count of yours try and convince you otherwise my friend.

spare me your false modesty, if I remember correctly mechagodzilla wiped the floor with you on this particular subject ..repeatedly



and it doesnt matter whatever historical context you drum up all that matters is that to the INDIVIDUAL that relies on his belief that "the bible is the literal word of god". It is to them that one could rightfully point out that they pick and choose which part of their bible they choose to believe literally.

 

[Kadayi]

spare me your false modesty, if I remember correctly mechagodzilla wiped the floor with you on this particular subject ..repeatedly

He didn't prove shit, in fact he pretty much broke every ones of his own rules regarding fallacy in order to try and weedle words and then exited stage left when the sheer absurdity of his position became wholly untenable. Plain truth of the matter is that any such commandments were decreed solely to the Israelites as gods priesthood under the second covenant during their time in the wilderness, and it wasn't a directive aimed at outsiders (non-israelites) but purely to them as the chosen in order to keep them in line. If it was Gods commandment for the Jews to kill all non-believers as purported, then either we'd all be Jews, or the Jews would all be dead (they'd have killed us, or we'd have killed them). As the reality is neither, it's fairly logical to conclude that the radical interpretation that such commandments were ever a call for a 'Jihad' against non believers is a wholly misplaced one. The empirical historical evidence required to support it as a viable assertion simply does not exist. See that, that's science. :dozey:

and it doesnt matter whatever historical context you drum up all that matters is that to the INDIVIDUAL that relies on his belief that "the bible is the literal word
of god". It is to them that one could rightfully point out that they pick and choose which part of their bible they choose to believe literally.

I don't care how Christians groups may choose to interpret things, what I care about is half baked atheists not making fools of themselves (and tarring the rest of us) by rallying forth making daft and ignorant statements about subjects they haven't fully researched and understood properly, and understanding and acknowledging context is absolutely essential to avoiding that I'm afraid.

 

[Cornerstone]

See that, that's science. :dozey:

Science ignoring observer-expectancy bias. Come back when you can give a proper hypothesis.

 

[Kadayi]

Science ignoring observer-expectancy bias. Come back when you can give a proper hypothesis.

There is no expectation. You need to come back when you understand the context. :dozey:

 

[Cornerstone]

Again all you do is copy my response and ignore proving yourself in any manner. You show yourself worthless in debating any point against or putting any time into.

 

[Kadayi]

Again all you do is copy my response and ignore proving yourself in any manner. You show yourself worthless in debating any point against or putting any time into.

The emphasis is not on me to prove anything, the emphasis is on people who assert that argument to prove the validity of their assertions, because history doesn't remotely support their position. What is more likely, that everyone else throughout time has been marching out of step, or that the one little drummer boy has instead? :dozey:

 

[Cornerstone]

That is your basis of a conclusion? Semantics has you right then and there and even without the ignorance of rules of interference you can not prove anything.

 

[Sulkdodds]

The empirical historical evidence required to support it as a viable assertion simply does not exist. See that, that's science. :dozey:

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If there is a 'correct' interpretation of the bible then how people have interpreted it since has little bearing; neither does how history has formed or deformed around the document. Civilisations aren't going to slavishly follow texts where it's not practical to do so. If it's true that the bible commands genocide, it's no particular surprise that its readers, whether they were tribes in the desert or the medieval Church, got a bit lax on that particular front. After all, they got lax on plenty of others.

 

[Kadayi]

That is your basis of a conclusion? Semantics has you right then and there and even without the ignorance of rules of interference you can not prove anything.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If there is a 'correct' interpretation of the bible then how people have interpreted it since has little bearing; neither does how history has formed or deformed around the document. Civilisations aren't going to slavishly follow texts where it's not practical to do so. If it's true that the bible commands genocide, it's no particular surprise that its readers, whether they were tribes in the desert or the medieval Church, got a bit lax on that particular front. After all, they got lax on plenty of others.

I'm not the one making the radical argument, Stern is. If he honestly believes his position is correct then he needs to prove it, because the plain truth of the matter is there is no evidence to support that conclusion, either written or historical (unless you're interpretation starts taking things wholly out of context..my original point). Like it or not, a complete lack of action on the genocide front by innumerable priests and worshippers throughout history, does tend to throw into question the religious interpretation of one internet addict. In context (as I pointed out earlier) the scriptures are actually pretty specific as to whom they are written for and applicable to, and there is nothing that is said later on that devalues or overrules that position. Feel free to waste innumerable hours pouring over the Old Testament to refute that. However might I advise you to join the folding home team (http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=136203) so that something ultimately constructive comes out of all that wasted energy.

 

[CptStern]

I'm not the one making the radical argument, Stern is.

what radical argument? what the hell are you talking about? I clearly said that people who use a literal interpretation of the bible select which parts they'll interpret and ignore the parts that are either too rediculous to follow or that they personally disagree with. You're twisting my words in a completely nonrelated tangent. and mostly for the sake of argument

If he honestly believes his position is correct then he needs to prove it, because the plain truth of the matter is there is no evidence to support that conclusion,

what conclusion? what position? what the hell are you talking about?

either written or historical (unless you're interpretation starts taking things wholly out of context..my original point). Like it or not, a complete lack of action on the genocide front by innumerable priests and worshippers throughout history, does tend to throw into question the religious interpretation of one internet addict.

whom are you referring to? mechagodzilla?

In context (as I pointed out earlier) the scriptures are actually pretty specific as to whom they are written for and applicable to, and there is nothing that is said later on that devalues or overrules that position. Feel free to waste innumerable hours pouring over the Old Testament to refute that. However might I advise you to join the folding home team (http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=136203) so that something ultimately constructive comes out of all that wasted energy.

you're a loon, and you're also full of yourself

 

[Kadayi]

OMG I'm totally owned here..must go to only defence distracting multiquote and play retard dumb as well as just insult the other person

What? Who? When? Where? How? Why? What? Me no speak Engrish? No understand?

Please, you'll have to do better than that old man. :dozey:

Also kettle black at the last comment tbh.

 

[CptStern]

you're an idiot kadayi. really you blow something completely out of porportion, twist my words to mean something I never intended and when I call you out on it you get all pissy, defensive and resort to insults. you're a little pissant with a chip on his shoulder looking for an argument where none exists. ya well you keep pissing on everyone in this community lets see how long you last