As a non practicing atheist, I got invited to see this Bill Maher's recent work on his favorite pet topic.
Oddly from the directors of Borat, it runs just like Borat. If you are a fan of Bill, go see it, if not there is really not much new here. He asks the same standard questions that most atheist ask, while setting his targets off guard with humorous jabs that are often met with stilted reactions.
The only real issue I had was several logic errors he kept kicking around about homosexuality, the nature of man, the meaning and drive of religion.
I think it didn't hurt the atheist community, it would entertain them but it didn't seem even close to coming off as something genuine that you might even want to show someone who is religious or on the fence.

The priest outside the Vatican made it worth its money though, he steals the show.

Other then that I was wondering if anyone else seen it and their thoughts.

I'm probably going to see this, too. Does he give equal time to bashing the 5 major religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism)?

Nope, he doesn't touch the Hindi or Buddhist. Maybe those are still too popular in Hollywood...

Was thinking of seeing this.
Can you say a little more about the "several logical errors he kept kicking around"?

Lame. If your gonna bash one, bash em all. No Scientology?

buddhism is harder to bash since they don't believe in a supernatural being in the sky... just the self

hinduism on the other hand...

That's lame.

I just think if you're gonna discuss one, discuss 'em all even if you're just mentioning it and it's faults. Otherwise what's the point? All the major religions have their ups and downs and, sadly, some people in power twist them a lot to get control of others. But there are still HUGE sects of each of them who are just normal people who don't wish death or hell or whatever on others who don't agree with them and are cool to go on living believing in whatever and working and taking care of their family without forcing it on others.

I mean, I guess it's cool that the BIG 3 were split up and worked on in the movie vs. just one of them, but still.

I also, realistically, know that they'd leave Scientology alone. I'm sure Bill doesn't want to be hunted down and "audited" to death, though I wish something would be made/released in the mainstream showing the darker side of it. I think too many people think "oh they just believe in aliens they're whacky, why hate?" But the people up top in it do/have done so much worse and I feel it's important that everyone should know. I'll say no more, I don't want to be hunted down and "audited" to death either.

i dont think he does leave scientology alone. i saw a clip on the daily show of him dressed like a homeless man in london yelling different scientology beliefs in a park. people thought he was insane apparently

They do hit on Scientology actually, but its a sound bite for maybe 2-3 minutes with a couple shots of Tom Cruise and John Travolta sprinkled throughout

Ah, see I'd say that it is the easiest to dismiss, cause if I'm gonna worship myself, why have a religion? Let's just call it masturbation!

Buddhists believe in supernatural phenomena like karma and reincarnation, and have their own divinely selected leaders like the Dalai Lama. That should have made them a target for mockery by the film but I'm sure Bill Maher was wary of pissing off his Hollywood buddies.

You really should qualify statements like this with "Some Buddhists believe..."

Also, I would think that Buddhists make up an EXTREMELY small percentage of "hollywood buddies" compared to the other major religions in America. Just as Buddhists make up a small percentage of the general populace of America.

If someone doesn't believe in those things, then I don't know whether or not they're really a Buddhist. I know people who call themselves Catholics and don't believe in the concept or sin or the resurrection of Christ. But I'm an atheist, so I'll leave that analysis to the Buddhists and Catholics. ;p

If the intent of the movie was to criticize religion's role in civilization, and my understanding is that he traveled all over the world to make this film, then it's a little disappointing to me that he would have glossed over the Western ones. I'll reserve final judgement until I see it.

Regarding his Hollywood buddies, I don't think it would be so much a matter of pissing off the ones who are actually practicing Buddhists (probably a small group), rather the ones who support things like freeing Tibet and supporting the Dalai Lama (probably a much larger group), which, as far as I can tell, seem pretty keen on re-establishing a theocracy.

Then you are wrong.

Personal belief is going to vary with individuals as to how much of any particular religion they are going to subscribe to. To suggest that you must believe all or nothing to be of a certain faith is a gross overgeneralization of all people and their ability to determine for themselves what they believe in.

He travels all over the world to make fun of believers. Try getting anything serious on the debates or questions you will be wasting your money. He baits some people with fallacies for laughs. And it is often funny, but don't really look for substance.

Loco, let's spare everybody the back-and-forth you and I seem to go through every week and get to your desired outcome:

I, Roger, kneel before thee, Locomoco, and humbly accept thy criticism of my posts, and shalt always defer to thy greater wisdom, even when it's a nitpick about the addition or absence of one word. Your judgement is infallible, and my lowly thought processes shall be mired in eternal ignorance, so shall it be throughout eternity. Amen.

We now return to the discussion of Religulous.

There you go overreacting again, Roger.

All I suggested was that you should not state that people count themselves within any faith MUST believe in ALL aspects or that they are not of that faith. I don't think that's asking too much.



I just find it odd that one of the main points of the film is to point out that religion should not be taken as completely black and white, and your reaction was surprising.

I'll make a deal with you, you stop using that word "gross" to describe one-word edits I should have made in my posts and I'll stop pretending to overreact. ;p

I wouldn't say that people of Faith X must believe in all of the things that the particular faith's user manuals describe, but I think that they need to believe in most of those things, or at least the core things that the religion considers important.

Look at it this way: no system of government adheres purely to any single system, but if you analyze a given government you can make that determination yourself based on a set of criteria. Do the citizens get to choose their leaders and laws? If so, it's a democracy. If not, then it's not a democracy. Is the country controlled by one person who installed themselves via non-democratic means? Then it's a monarchy, or a dictatorship.

The way I see it, it's the same with religion. Does this person believe in the story of Jesus Christ and the concept of sin as laid out in the Bible? If so, then I'd call them a Christian. If not, and they go to church every Sunday anyway, I don't think they qualify. And I think a lot of people they go to church (and those who don't) with would probably agree.

That's why I said what I said about Buddhists. The Buddhists I know (and admittedly there are only a couple) believe in those things and it matches what I've read about Buddhism. Because if you strip away all of the supernatural earmarks, you don't have much of a religion, do you? And the people I've talked to are pretty clear about it being an actual religion and not just a philosophical framework.

At the end of the day, of course people can determine what they want to believe in (or not), but I think that there are certain measures that can be applied to them to say, "This person's a Christian, this person's an atheist, this person's a Buddhist," etc., even if the one applying the label doesn't belong to that particular faith.Again, I haven't seen the film, but I have heard a radio appearance by Larry Charles and seen two TV appearances by Bill Maher, and they seem to be pretty unanimous and resolute in presenting the concept that all religions are just bad ideas.

An hour and a half of ripping christianity and 32 minutes covering Islam, Judiasm, Mormonism, and Scientology.

All I want to know is which TV preacher ripped him off?

Ike

Oh I forgot smoking weed with the cannabis priest.

Religion without righteousness would truly be awesome. To believe in nothing is mind boggling. I believe in the mutiverse, possibilities, and an endless array of the unseen and unknown. I follow and worship nothing. I emulate what I wish to. I try to pass no judgement though I seem to despise rudeness, selfishness, and greed.

I'll see the flick on video. I like Bill but not for 10bucks. I imagine trying to get all the religions would take to much time and confuse some people of lesser knowledge. I also imagine he goes after the religions that he has had more contact with and knowledge of and its not about his buddies. Seems from his hbo show he has some buddies on the far right that he often goes after and then probably shares a hooker with after the show. Besides, hollywood will self mock when it comes to more cash flow.

And Karma = Action and Consequence. Don't think any of us can deny action and consequence.

If everything worked that way, it would be a convenient explanation, but bad things happen to good people, and good things happen to bad people, every day.

I agree Roger. But thats more a factor of possibility then karma. Karma is more about making a choice in an infinate array of choices that will lead to the best outcome and growth. None the less shit still happens. No one should deny the randomeness of existence or the fact that we all get caught under the swing of the pendulum.

This movie was frustrating. About a half hour into it I remembered that I really don't like Bill Maher's humor, and the "Dream On" editing didn't help.

The film really fails, though, because Maher opens with a compelling thesis statement (telling us that he believes the world is going to end as a result of religion), and then spends the middle of the film simply making fun of people. Then in the last five minutes, he quickly comes back to this idea of the human race screwing itself and closes the book on things.

And we, the audience, just have to take what he says at face value without him presenting any proof.

Sounds a lot like religion, now that I think about it.

Anyway, thumbs down. Even if you're an atheist like me this film will probably piss you off, and chances are you're not going to learn anything new.