“I’d like it out right around the time people are celebrating the space man flying up to heaven.”

Yeah, because that's exactly what Christians celebrate at Easter... Ignorant fool. I look forward to more of his learned commentary on religion.

One of these days someone will make a documentary on the social aspects of religion as a systemic effect in human society.

Heh, yeah... I won't be rushing out to see this one.

Vic

I hate Bill Maher...hes a smug fuck and he needs to shut up

and I'm not even religious...i just hate him as a human...

Vic,

I know you're conservative (we had that conversation), but why wouldn't you want to review this movie?

I'm telling you right now if an extreme rightist like Bill O'Rielly, Ann C or Rush L made a documentary I would be firstin the line for the screening hours early ready for some fun :P Those are the best reviews to write.

"I think I’ve insulted everybody!”

Way to do something positive with your life Bill.
Sheesh, what a jerk.

"One of these days someone will make a documentary on the social aspects of religion as a systemic effect in human society."

You could look at "The Power of Myth". Bill Moyers interviews Joseph Campbell and it speake to this.

This, to me, sounds like something that will generate a lot of heat, but no light. I can only base that on listening to Bill Maher on other ocassions when the subject of religion came up since I have little information on this documentary.

My guess, however, is that it will prove that some people use religion for various purposes and while that says a lot about people, it doesn't necessarily say much about a particular religion.

Peter,

What Zach said. :-)

I don't think I could stand to sit through it, to tell you the truth.

Vic

Don't worry you guys. I'll make up for your non-attendance by going myself, probably more than once, and taking friends with me. I can't wait to see it.

Until the believers of the world produce some evidence that can be tested and verified, maybe they should be the ones to shut the hell up. Those of you slamming Bill Maher for daring to question religion are the problem, not the solution, and you're holding back the forward progress of humanity with your childish fantasies.

You want to believe in sky gods? Fine. Can't take the critical examination of your irrationality? *You* shut the hell up, until you produce evidence to back it up.

I swear this board is one of the worst I've seen whenever the subject of religion comes up. People grandstand their defence of religion and as usual, have no proof whatsoever, and no good arguments. Just slam the guy that dares question your chosen deity. Nice.

Chris: your points are valid, I think, in the sense that you do showcase one of the problems: people can automatically dismiss something that talks about religion, whether pro or con. But, as I said, it's often heat, no light. Look at your own response. It's hardly a defense of Bill Maher or a well-reasoned statement against religious belief. Heat, not light.

The basis of Maher's work, incidentally, is not usually the basis of evidence for holding a religious worldview. Rather, it's the evidence accrued for how people who claim to be religious act and then comparing that against what their religion says is the way to act. That is a very different point than talking about the "truth" of religion. It is on these points where I very much agree with Bill Maher.

The problem is often that responses end up sounding like yours (with phrases like "sky gods" and "*You* shut the hell up" and "your irrationality"). This is not a way for discussion to happen, but rather for people to just sling words at each other. Heat, not light.

Personally, I agree with much of what Bill Maher says. That said, I'm a criticial thinker and thus I don't necessarily agree with *everything* Bill Maher says. Personally, I am interested in his documentary to an extent. That said, I've read hundreds of books on the nature of religion (both pro and con) so I highly doubt his documentary will really do much to add to my knowledge on the subject. If people want a true understanding about the nature of religion and the nature of religious beliefs (and certainly if they want to study the various evidentiary bases for and against) I would recommened reading books on both sides of the debate by people who have devoted years of their lives to this study.

Then you get light, not just heat, and that holds true for whatever side of the issue you fall on.

Mahr is IMO an obnoxious prick regardless of the subject he's discussing.

Vic

Vic: I agree that Mahr, like many people, can be obnoxious. (People like Keith Olberman, Paul Begala, Chris Matthews, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Don Wade, and various others sometimes come across as a bit obnoxious to me, depending on how they present things.) However, regardless of whether or not Mahr is an "obnoxious prick," it's important to separate what someone says (the content) from the person. Someone who is obnoxious can still have a point. And sometimes the most articulate and pleasant individual can have no point at all.

Of course, *how* people present themselves can make a difference to whether their content is heard and that was sort of the point I was going for here. If this documentary does nothing more than generate a lot of invective, on both sides of the issues it purports to showcase, then it really becomes of questionable value (at least to me). I think other such recent "documentaries" fall into that same category.

I can definitely see a critic wanting to see this movie to give their opinion. However, a polarizing movie like this (as it will probably be) will really serve no one. I say that because those who believe similarly to Maher will probably continue to do so. Those who do not believe similarly to Maher will probably still disagree with him. So what's the net result? Everything stays exactly the same: almost as if the documentary had never been made in the first place.

That's largely my reason for being relatively unconcerned with seeing this film. It's not because of Bill Maher and whether or not I agree or disagree with him. It's simply because (at least right now) I don't see how there will be any real substantive content to this, except of the polarizing sort. And certainly nothing that I could not have already determined by reading much more learned scholars of religion (again, both for and against).

(Caveat: since I know so little about this documentary, in terms of its actual content, I'm leaving myself open to being swayed to seeing it based on updated information.)

The article says Mahar's view is agnostic, it doesn't say he's an atheist.

Jeff Dixon:

Regardless, the term "agonostic" is often seen as a cop-out. To a theist, if you don't believe, you are without belief (which is what the word atheism means). To an atheist, if you don't believe (even if you just claim you don't know), then you're not a theist. The problem is that the root words of "atheism" and "theism" are on belief; the root word of "agnostic" is on knowledge.

I tend to agree with that "cop-out" viewpoint since you now find terms like "agnostic theist" and "agnostic atheist" which, to me, start blurring a lot of distinctions rather than clarifying them. For example, some say that "weak agnosticism" is just that we don't currently have the knowledge of whether a supernatural realm exists. Thus "strong agnosticism" is that we *cannot* ever have such knowledge. (You also have "model agnosticism" and "ignosticism" now.)

Maher once said (on Larry King) that he was an agnostic who was still open to the idea that God exists. Well, to me, that's an atheist. You don't currently believe: therefore you are without belief. Therefore you are an atheist. I myself am an atheist but I've been studying religion and belief systems for many years and I consider myself at least open to the possibilities that one of these may have an accurate picture. But, still, I'm an atheist.

I've always been surprised that Maher, given his temperment, would hide behind a word like agnostic. Then again, even though he said he is open to the idea of the existence of a supernatural concept, he said people believe in such things have neurological disorders and he referred to "insanity by consensus" -- so I'm not sure how open Maher truly is to the supernatural so, again, I'm not sure why he avoids the term atheist. Barring any evidence to the contrary, my guess is he wants to avoid what is really "strong atheism" -- the positive assertion that there is no supernatural realm, as opposed to "weak atheism" which simply asserts a lack of belief in such a realm. (The distinction being obvious: a positive assertion has the onus of proof statements and evidentiary value.)

The discoverer of the "law of gravity," Sir Isaac Newton, was another who was deeply impressed by the evidence of God's invisible qualities that are to be seen in His creation. The following account relates how Newton testified to his belief in Almighty God:

Newton once had a skilled mechanic make for him a model of the solar system. Balls representing the planets were geared together so as to move realistically in orbit. One day an atheist friend visited Newton. On seeing the model, he operated it, and exclaimed in admiration, "Who made it?" Newton answered, "Nobody!" The atheist replied, "You must think I am a fool! Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius." Newton then said to his friend, "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker!"

Newton's friend came to acknowledge that the great Designer and Maker of all things is God. Surely we, too, as we look on the marvels of creation about us, in the heavens and on earth, must acknowledge that an all-wise Creator made it all! How thankful we should be that this mighty Creator lovingly placed man here on this earth and that he is deeply interested in us!

Did this loving creator forget about the kids in Darfur? Or is he just deeply interested in them as an experiment?

Intelligent Design is garbage propoganda.

Actually, Jon, "Intelligent Design" doesn't say anything about a "loving" creator necessarily. (Nor is what Marilyn was actually talking about; hers was an argument from design although a false one; that story she quotes is apocryphal.) Anyway, "intelligent design" just speaks to the notion of a creator. The motives of this creator, or the personality traits (for lack of a better term), are not covered by the hypothetical constructs of this idea.

Interestingly enough, beyond "design arguments," if you look at the history of the Judahist faith (which was the forerunner to Judaism and Christianity) the notion of God (Yahweh) promoted was not always that of one who was "all good." Rather, it was just that Yahweh was the toughest deity on the block compared to the other gods. The notion of God being "all good" only came about later as the religion became a bit more institutionalized and theodicies started to be constructed. Granted, it started to happen before this such as you can see with authors (such as the one who wrote the Book of Enoch) who started to wrestle with the so-called "Problem of Evil."

What does this have to do with Maher's film? Probably nothing but I figured I'd throw this all out there since you sort of brought it up, apparently in response to Marilyn. But, in a way, it does bring up a good point: will Maher's documentary rely on non sequiter statements of religion which (if you'll forgive me), your statement was? (Just as Marilyn's was a simplistic example that would never work in terms of persuading someone who didn't believe.) Or will Maher's documentary actually be based on something more grounded in logic?

I'm not sure but I think that even if it is grounded in logic (and in the way people deal with religion, rather than religion itself), people will be people. Look at the responses just in this forum to see what is likely to be the level of "discussion" such a film will engender.

Jeff,

Appreciate the response - well put. I was responding to two different parts of the post.

1) That the universe is so complex that a creator must have been behind it. That's the intelligent design 'argument' that drives me insane. Claiming that because we don't understand something that it must be an act of god ignores the fact that we've expanded on our knowledge throughout human history. We used to think the sun was a god. We thought illness was wrath of god. Those ideas seem ridiculous now, and as we learn more and more I think examples of "god's work" will continue to be reduced to abstract notions rather than explainable events.

2) That we were placed on the earth by a loving creator who is very interested in us as individuals. This is why I brought up Darfur. I know it's a tired argument, but it's well worn out for a reason.

I think Maher's movie will appeal to those who like affirmation of their beliefs, or lack thereof. I'm not sure he will win any converts, just like Hitchens probably didn't even though his book is doing quite well.

Maher prefers to belittle religious people and point out atrocities performed in the name of god. I usually like to go along for the ride (it's a guilty pleasure).

Darfur is explained by man's sin, not by God being an insensitive jerk. Man brought sin into the world, not God.

Regarding intelligent design, I personally think it's insane to think that the universe is the equivalent of throwing the thousands of individual parts that make up a Corvette into a giant box, shaking it up for a billion years and assume that when you open the box you'll have a cherry, fully assembled Corvette in there.

Vic

Jon:

Yeah, the "argument from design" never really worked for me either. Where "Intelligent Design" tries to be a bit different is that it claims that aspects of design (as opposed to chance and circumstance) can be ferreted out via empirical and testable means. (This is not the case -- usually -- with pure arguments from design, which don't place emphasis on testability.) I have read a lot on this and I have yet to be convinced by any of the arguments but I will at least give them credit for trying to provide testable claims.

Bringing this to Maher's movie, and switching focus, that's one of my concerns. Will his claims be testable? For example, people who are religious or believe in a supernatural realm have a "neurological disorder" -- according to Maher. Okay, is this a testable statement? If not, Maher is making the same mistake that "design arguments" make: not providing something that is falsfiable and/or testable.

Further, if something is testable -- fine: then is it indicative? We see this come up all the time in debates about violent video games and whether a testable idea (heightened aggression in kids when playing violent video games) is indicative (trends show more actual violence from these kids). As you probably know, the evidence here is very murky and doesn't tend to support the claim that violent video games lead to violent kids. I'm guessing that Maher's movie will not support the idea that religious people have a "neurological disorder" for the same general reasons.

Vic:

You say "Man brought sin into the world, not God." That's a valid viewpoint, certainly. If that's the case, Maher's argument, one way or the other, really doesn't matter because then it could be argued that humans (whether religious or not) have a "neurological disorder." You could make this belief-neutral by saying that, instead of sin, the human race has a propensity to territorialism and violence.

You also say: "I personally think it’s insane to think that the universe is ... [undesigned; snipping the text]."

You may feel feel that. You may be right. But the problem is that feeling it doesn't mean you *are* right. This is a mistake that Maher makes on the opposite side. He feels that people who are religious are "insane" (using your term as well) and have a "disorder." But feeling it doesn't make it a fact.

The problem from a design perspective, is that we only have the human race to go on. We only have what we know (we build things) and assume that must be how it works all over the universe: meaning, something must have built it. It's the height of hubris to assume that because things work one way for us in our limited experience, that they work that way for everything. In the same way that it's the height of hubris for Maher to claim that everyone who believes in a supernatural realm has a disorder.

I guess my point here is the challenge is not to think like the person you disagree with, otherwise you fall into the same evidentiary and logical traps. That's what I think Maher's film will basically do: confirm what a "jerk" he is for the people who already think so; confirm how right he is for the people who already think so.

Jeff,

It's a pleasure to have a discussion on a topic like this with someone like you, who is able to talk about things in a rational manner and without the typical "people who believe such and such are idiots" that's so common to these conversations. :-)

Vic

Thanks for the response Nyman, I still see differences though. I understand the points, but I think the distinctions matter. When speaking about something as important and complicated as religion/spirituality/world view/ or whatever you want to call it, there is room to subdefine beliefs. Sort of like how I find atheism to be a belief, not a fact, and religion a belief, not a fact. At least not as far as we can prove it. But I'm splitting hairs here (plus I'm at work and must be brief).

Cheers

Jeff Dixon: I suppose tend to agree with you in the main. A large part of my career is predicated on making operational distinctions. That said, a key point of such distinctions is that you only use one word when two are not necessary. BUT -- going to your point -- you do use two when one word just won't do.

It often boils down to this: would I act differently towards a given concept or term if it was named something else?

If I would, then I should use a different term. If I would not, then I probably should not. So my argument above was more from the theist/atheist side. To a theist, if you do not believe (if you cannot say that you believe), then you are without (a-) belief (theism). To an atheist, even if you believe in a god but say you are uncertain, then you are still with belief (theism). My main surprise was really that Maher, given his outspoken nature along with his categorical condemnation, did not classify himself an atheist.

Keeping in mind here: an atheist (by definition, anyway) does not say "There is no God." An atheist (again, by definition) says that "I do not believe there is a God." Very different things, particularly when you get into who the onus of proof falls on.

That said, others can try to use a "middle ground" and claim to be agnostic and I probably came off as being more dismissive of this than I really am. I still do feel it is a bit of a "cop-out" and I say that because, to me, use of the term has never really clarified matters. What I want to know is whether or not someone categorically believes. Whether they claim to "know" or "have knowledge" is often of relatively little import to me, because that knowledge often does not translate to the belief statement.

Of course, one problem is that belief often gets conflated with knowledge (and not just in religion). So, by that logic, you'd think I would like a term like "agnostic" to make certain that the two are distinguished. And I do: if they are defined operationally. Keep in mind here that I'm not saying I don't want to know upon what basis people believe or disbelieve. Some of that will be knowledge they claim to have. But "agnostic" as used in religious debate just means "I lack knowledge of whether or not to believe." So it's not a statement of knowledge -- it's a statement of lack of knowledge. That's the difference for me.

(Yes, I probably could be a bit more confusing on this, but it's hard to see how, huh?)

Another good example of this (and I'm sorry if I'm getting way off topic here, as I know I am): consider the terms "Jewish" and "Christian." People often use those terms even when discussing the far past when, in fact, those terms did not exist back then and, in fact, cloud the issue if treated in such a fashion. (Here "back then" refers to a time prior to, roughly, 200-300 CE.) So here is an example where I think it matters -- when discussing the nature of beliefs -- to operationally define terms and use more terms to clarify. My experience with "agnostic" is that this often muddies the waters rather than clears them and allows people to go off on two many side-tangents without getting to the meat of their differences.

And --- hmmmm --- I was going to try hear to bring this around and keep it on topic with Maher's film but, at this point, I think I have strayed WAY too far. Except perhaps to say that I hope Maher's film can engender discussion like we've all shared here. If that's the case, I welcome such a film -- and that's the case whether I agree with everything it says or disagree with everything it says.

Wow. A lot of well articulated, drivel.

Bill Maher is popular because he's entertaining... not because he's atheist (or agnostic---which is a cop out BTW) He's a comedian. This doesn't mean he doesn't have a lot of valid points... but you should not take his word as (ahem) Gospel. :)

However,
It has never been a popular thing to be the voice of reason. Its usually too difficult in our hectic, ego-centric lives to step outside our perceptions to see the world in an unbiased manner. Its takes too much energy. Its too hard. We have jobs, family, LIVES to live. It is so much easier just to believe what you think the other people in your life believe. That's why a person in New Dehli is a Hindu, someone in Abu Dhabi is a Muslim, and someone in Carson Texas is a Christian. Our parents told us this is the way... so we behave that way. And so when someone says the opposite of what you've been taught... its easier to just lash out.

When someone does take the time to stop and think, objectively and with an accurate knowledge of other cultures and philosophies, they will naturally re-evaluate their local beliefs.
Do you remember the old saying "a Billion Chinamen can't be wrong"? if that statement were true than we'd all better start reading up on the lives of Buddha and Confuscious.

Someone in this thread said read books about religion. That's fine. I agree. But add some books on socialogy, and examinations of other cultures. And for the love of all that's good TRAVEL!! There's nothing more enlightening than experiencing other cultures first hand. It never fails... the bastions of religion are always the poorest, most uneducated, most isolated regions of the world. Whether its a village in the Punjabi district or some back-woods revival in georgia.

My apologies for my rambling thread... but this IS a big subject. Thank you for letting me "speak"

marilyn, since you think Isaac Newton was such a genius in religious matters, you'll be pleased to know that he thought The Trinity was a heresy invented by the church, and that you can therefore be sure of your path to salvation by joining, say, the Jehovah's Witnesses

and btw, the story about newton and the atheist is complete bollocks made up by christians, who apparently never tire of inventing wacky stories to support their case.

I look forward to seeing this masterpiece. Bill is a great commentator on today's society and is most of the times, correct.

Hey @%$^&*_,

(I would call you the actual name but no "Hate speech" allowed) who think Bill is stupid are just that. He is the obviosly far more intelligent then you. And his take on religion and the rest of our stupid society is extreamly refreshing. "hes a smug fuck"? yep you are definetly a republican you're language makes you sound across between the girl just elected miss teen USA and President Bush.You guys make me want to barf but you're girlfreind just looked at you and she already did.

I on the other smarter hand will be waiting to see this no doubt wonderful funny movie.

Hayley

It is really difficult to comment on something none of us have seen yet, even if we know what its general outlines are going to be.

However, I sense that from an American perspective, this type of film will be useful in that it will add to the thousand other little steps courageous people are taking to lift the veil of deceit that organized religion has placed over Middle-America's gullible eyes.

Clearly, since it appears to only be slated for initial release in NY and LA, one would think the film's distributors feel for the sensitive and devout souls in the middle, who shouldn't be submitted to such potent self-examination of their systems of belief.

Many days, one of the first thing I do when I wake up is ask myself why is it that all candidates for the US presidency HAVE TO go to church every week?

Such faith is dangerous, as for when something goes truly wrong, -and rather than personally claiming responsibility for making mistakes- they can always say it was an 'Act Of God' (as in insurance company papers).

Since we do not even admit we made the mistake, how could we ever go on about the business of correcting and bettering ourselves?

The path to human sentience is a tricky one, with many obstacles along the way, not the least the ones places by those who most benefit from us staying ignorant and scared: organized religion.

Thanks Bill Maher for tackling such a hot-button issue, it's time that we finally took matters in our own hands, rather than staying under the nefarious influence of those who peddle fear and guilt as a way to explain how things are around us.

sg

I will watch this movie, unlike many of you fine individuals, I will make my decision after seeing the movie, only religious people would be offended by a movie they haven't seen yet.
If I remember right the "Freedom of Speech" allows Bill Maher to say his opinion on religion and why is BS.
We none religious folks have to deal with your constant propaganda about the invisible man and how we need to be saved, I hear this crap daily on the radio and even do I change the channel I still hear it on another channel.lol

It sounds like just one of those movies aimed at angering and offending a lot of people while hinding behind free speech, I mean I you don't see christians making fun of athiests and offending them through these movies. In my experience religious methods are ussually persuasive through positive intentions and methods that don't involve isulting other peoples beliefs. I believe this movie will be nothing more than ad-hominous attacks on so called religious people. I still don't understand why people are so afraid of religion I mean some I can understand but american protestant christianity doesn't seem radical it seems like these athiests and non believers are so insecure about their own beliefs that they have to bring other peoples beliefs down in order for their own to seem more legitimate. If anything as a christian myself I don't fear such a video but rather pitty its poor reprisentation that it will give to athiests and agnostics.

Hi Chris:

I wanted to comment on your point about proof. There is a bit of a problem with proof. Take the Big Bang theory for instance. People say the expanding universe is proof of a big bang but there really isnt any proof that that was the cause of the expanding universe. They can't say "what" banged; they cant say what "caused" the bang; they can't say "when" the laws of physics, that governed the bang, were created.

I'd suggest there is something better than theories and "proof" of this kind. I would suggest that actual experiences are better because no one can talk you out of what you've experienced. If, for example, you go to Disneyland and have a great time; no one will be able to convince you that it's a lousy place and that you didn't have a great time.

I think the problem most people have with finding out about God is that we don't really want to find out that there might be a God that won't let us get away with the things we want to get away with. If God showed up at our door, would that be enough to convince us? Maybe, if he didn't make us change our behavior. But if he showed up and told us we needed to change the way we live, we might not be as receptive.

There is a way, in a short amount of time, to actually try to experience God for ourselves. We can experience God in such a direct way that we won't need any fancy theories or "proof" that comes out of people's mouths. We'll have our own direct experience that no one can ever talk us out of.

Of course, this only works if we *really* want to find out the truth about God and don't just want to shop for a god that fits our lifestyle. If we want to find out the truth and then deal with the ramifications of that truth; then there is definately a way to find out.

Let me know if you're interested and I can talk you through it. It's pretty wild.


JesusForSinners.com