Coming Soon.. Bill Maher: The Movie

Sapien

It actually looks rather fun:

Religulous

Of course, there's no way to judge the substance of the thing from a trailer, but I still really want to see it. Maybe rigourous intellectual refutations of religious belief, as per Dawkins, Dennett, Harris et al., are overkill, and feed dignity to something that deserves simple dismissal. Perhaps ridicule is the way to go.

Either way, I'm sure I'll see some of you guys at the big screen when this comes out. I'll be the one in purple velvet.

Jesus Wept

Should be good

PDN

Moved this from Christianity forum to here since it appears to be against all religion, not simply the Christian variety.

Have fun.

PDN

Sapien

PDN wrote: »

Moved this from Christianity forum to here since it appears to be against all religion, not simply the Christian variety.

Have fun.

PDN

Oh yes - sorry. A Freudian slip of sorts, I think.

robindch

Sapien wrote: »

Perhaps ridicule is the way to go.

Having seen the creationists hooting their way to multi-million dollar success, derision does seem increasingly attractive.

It'll be interesting to see how Maher's outing compares in the US with "Expelled", which tanked after a dismal five-week run.

Galvasean

Looks fun. Suffice to say i'll probably enjoy it.

limerick_woody

I think Bill Maher is fantastic - he has killed many a mile of my daiily drives between limerick and cork, courtesy of the podcasts. I doubt that we will get Religulous in the cinema, probably have to wait for dvd, but it should be entertaining if nothing else listening to all the poor offended people.

Jesus Wept

Didn't know he has podcasts, must check them out, I like watching Real Time.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

real time has gotten a bit hit and miss the last season, and i really want to punch bill in the face when he goes off on one of his 'antibiotics are bad' rants but he's good people.

JimiTime

Sapien wrote: »

. Perhaps ridicule is the way to go.
.

robindch wrote:

Having seen the creationists hooting their way to multi-million dollar success, derision does seem increasingly attractive

So ridicule and derision are the way to go. where is it you're going?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

towards a stalinist purge of all religious leaders, we're atheists dontcha'know

Dades

JimiTime wrote: »

So ridicule and derision are the way to go. where is it you're going?

What if something is ridiculous?

limerick_woody

The-Rigger wrote: »

Didn't know he has podcasts, must check them out, I like watching Real Time.

the podcasts are just recordings of the show - though with a few minutes extra. I don't have CBS to watch them so i just listen to them in the car.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

the extra few minutes is real time 'overtime', it's broadcast on hbo.com after the show ends.. they are all on youtube, and I think alot of them are on bill maher's hbo page

JimiTime

Dades wrote: »

What if something is ridiculous?

Fine, but the question still stands. Where is it you're going?

limerick_woody

i said hbo didn't i...

Galvasean

JimiTime wrote: »

Fine, but the question still stands. Where is it you're going?

Here.

Mordances with the proletariat wrote: »

towards a stalinist purge of all religious leaders,

Or failing that we might just have a bit of fun at someone else's expense.

Mordances with the proletariat wrote: »

we're atheists dontcha'know

:pac:

JimiTime

Galvasean wrote: »

Here.



Or failing that we might just have a bit of fun at someone else's expense.

Ok, a few humourous replies, but is there a serious answer to the question? Is there something you're hoping to achieve? A goal you are working towards? Once again, as per sapien and robindch, Where is it you're going?

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

So ridicule and derision are the way to go. where is it you're going?

As Dades says, there are some things which don't merit much more than a few hoots and a thigh-slap. That's not a reflection of where anybody's going (or not going), but of the innate silliness of the original idea.

Where are you going when you watch Police Squad or Basil Fawlty?

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

As Dades says, there are some things which don't merit much more than a few hoots and a thigh-slap. That's not a reflection of where anybody's going (or not going), but of the innate silliness of the original idea.

Just picked up on the language used. 'Maybe dawkins etc give religious belief too much dignity, maybe derision is the way to go'. Certainly indicates a target.

Where are you going when you watch Police Squad or Basil Fawlty?

Merely watching a comedy, to make me laugh. I've no other goal but to be entertained. Poor analogy tbh. There has been process talked about 'Dawkins etc may give religion too much dignity'. Then a suggestion of changing to 'Ridicule is the way to go'. All indicates a process with an objective. None of the language used indicates that you are merely looking to be entertained. So again, where is it you're going?

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

All indicates a process with an objective. None of the language used indicates that you are merely looking to be entertained. So again, where is it you're going?

I won't deny that I'd love to see an world without religion in which people are able to think coherently for themselves and where the common good is the highest aspiration of everybody.

But given that this is not going to happen, there are three options available -- ignore it (difficult), get upset by it (pointless) or find it funny (sadly, seems the only option). There's also the widely-held, but improper, view that public displays of religiosity confer status -- so, finding religion's rituals entertaining rather than serious is as good a way as any of helping the air out of the frightfully over-inflated and their pious pretension.

Or in simpler terms, who here hasn't switched over to satellite telly and wept with laughter at some of the pop-eyed, hyper-ventilating preachers there? That's not "going" anywhere, that's just having a laugh real-life Basil Fawltys.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

I won't deny that I'd love to see an world without religion in which people are able to think coherently for themselves and where the common good is the highest aspiration of everybody.

Well, as you said, that's not going to happen. I can't quite understand the leap you take from our religious world (presumably you mean this is a world where those of faith don't think for themselves and the common good isn't the highest aspiration of everybody) and this post-religious utopian world that you mention. But if you sincerely believe that this utopian society will be the result of a non-religious world, then I can understand why atheists on internet forums are often, to my perception, quite hostile and belittling towards those of faith. This mocumentary is just that.

There is a 4th option that you seem to have overlooked: mature discussion - though I realise such a thing is often rare enough when it comes to such diametrically opposed views.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

would you have a mature discussion with someone who believed they could tell your future with playing cards? or could speak to the dead with a game board?

what about water diviners, psychic surgeons or spoon benders?

sometimes people just need to be laughed at.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There is a 4th option that you seem to have overlooked: mature discussion.

Mature discussion happens when informed people gather together to reach a common consensus on some topic or other. Unfortunately, this isn't possible when one side is unwilling to move from a position where it believes it holds absolute and inerrant truth. It's a dialog of the selectively deaf, as we can see in the creationism thread, for example.

Fanny Cradock

Mordances with the proletariat wrote: »

would you have a mature discussion with someone who believed they could tell your future with playing cards? or could speak to the dead with a game board?

what about water diviners, psychic surgeons or spoon benders?

sometimes people just need to be laughed at.

I would consider it mature discussion if you entered into debate with at least some of the billions of people of there who happen to hold views contrary to yours. Going to church must be like a free comedy show to you.

@ Robin
People on either side of the debate hold fast to what they see as inerrant truths. I've certainly encountered atheists who are as stubborn and definite in their belief that there is no God (or no belief if you will) as some of the more passionate creationists out there.

You must have a horrible opinion of many people out there if you honestly think that derision - not debate - is your best option when interacting with them.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

People on either side of the debate hold fast to what they see as inerrant truths.

Religious people, on the whole, declare their facts and their intellectual processes as inerrant. Irreligious people, on the whole, declare the scientific process, or something similar to it, as being the best possible way of reaching an accurate understanding of the world; as part of that, facts are open to correction and no fact is held as inerrant.

This is a major and fundamental difference between the two sides and you are entirely wrong to imply that there are similar amounts of inerrancy-assertion going on.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You must have a horrible opinion of many people out there if you honestly think that derision - not debate - is your best option when interacting with them.

I've already given the reasons why, in certain circumstances, having a giggle is the best option -- not because I want to laugh at other people with all the callousness that this implies, but because there isn't any reasonable alternative. What about the satellite telly example I mentioned -- when you see these guys doing their thing, do you treat them with total respect, or do you occasionally find it funny?

Likewise, I've also said why discussion is pointless with people who enter a discussion with a sincere conviction that they possess absolute truth and who have no interest in changing their point of view, and much in converting me to theirs. Do you yourself call such discussions "mature" or do you find them irritating or amusing?

It's almost surprising that you misinterpret what I think is a fairly reasonable, and fairly common, position to conclude that my opinions are "horrible", but then again, that's really part of the "I'm right and I'm going to judge you" attitude that many religious people seem to hold, but rarely acknowledge.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

Religious people, on the whole, declare their facts and their intellectual processes as inerrant. Irreligious people, on the whole, declare the scientific process, or something similar to it, as being the best possible way of reaching an accurate understanding of thewrld; as part of that, facts are open to correction and no fact is held as inerrant.

This is a major and fundamental difference between the two sides and you are entirely wrong to imply that there are similar amounts of inerrancy-assertion going on.I've already given the reasons why, in certain circumstances, having a giggle is the best option -- not because I want to laugh at other people with all the callousness that this implies, but because there isn't any reasonable alternative. What about the satellite telly example I mentioned -- when you see these guys doing their thing, do you treat them with total respect, or do you occasionally find it funny?

Likewise, I've also said why discussion is pointless with people who enter a discussion with a sincere conviction that they possess absolute truth and who have no interest in changing their point of view, and much in converting me to theirs. Do you yourself call such discussions "mature" or do you find them irritating or amusing?

It's almost surprising that you misinterpret what I think is a fairly reasonable, and fairly common, position to conclude that my opinions are "horrible", but then again, that's really part of the "I'm right and I'm going to judge you" attitude that many religious people seem to hold, but rarely acknowledge.

A few things to mention.

Firstly, I wasn't talking about the scientific method - something which is hardly the realm of the irreligious. I was talking about the assertion that there is or isn't a God. (Incidentally, this is something science isn't able to expressly comment upon.) This singular belief (however one arrives at it) is often held as an inerrant position, or one underpinned by a '99.999999%' certainty qualifier, which is really just another way of saying 'I'm certain'.

This was a originally a response to your point:

robindch wrote: »

[Mature discussion] 'isn't possible when one side is unwilling to move from a position where it believes it holds absolute and inerrant truth'.

I agree with you, robin. Indeed, I said as much in my first post. Where we differ is that I was trying to highlight the fact that Christians (or the religious) aren't the only ones who take this position. You fail to see that I'm not pointing the finger at one side alone. So in this regard, I put it to you that 'it's almost surprising that you misinterpret what I think is a fairly reasonable [position]'.


Secondly, I never stated that there were 'similar amounts of inerrancy-assertion going on'. To my knowledge there are more people in the world who subscribe to some sort of divinity than there are those who don't. It would seem logical then that there would be more people claiming to be absolutely correct from the religious.


Finally, I have never concluded "that [your] opinions are horrible". You must have misread what I actually typed.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Firstly, I wasn't talking about the scientific method

Fair enough -- you should be clearer then when making general comments!

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I was talking about the assertion that there is or isn't a God. [...] This singular belief (however one arrives at it) is often held as an inerrant position, or one underpinned by a '99.999999%' certainty qualifier, which is really just another way of saying 'I'm certain'.

I must say that I don't know any people who do say that there's no god, in the generic meaning of the word. In the specific sense, yes, there are billions of people who reject the existence of specific gods, and most of these are religions people themselves who rejecting the god of other religions and these certainly outnumber those who go one step further and reject the one remaining deity. For me, I don't believe the christian god exists, simply because (a) he's endowed with contradictory powers (so something's got to give), and (b) I find it impossible to believe that something amazing as the universe would have been created by such an immensely petty being. However, I might be wrong on both of these counts.

So, I'm simply very unclear about where you pick up the idea that the rejection of 'god' is 'often held as an inerrant position' amongst the religion-free.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Secondly, I never stated that there were 'similar amounts of inerrancy-assertion going on'. To my knowledge there are more people in the world who subscribe to some sort of divinity than there are those who don't. It would seem logical then that there would be more people claiming to be absolutely correct from the religious.

Again, fair enough. It simply wasn't clear from your original post that this is what you meant.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Finally, I have never concluded "that [your] opinions are horrible". You must have misread what I actually typed.

I should have made it clear that I was referring to you commenting upon what you believe my opinions of people are ("You must have a horrible opinion of many people out there" was what you said). As this is not what you meant, I stand (or in this case, sit) corrected -- thanks.

Have a good evening

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i don't think a thread about bill maher is an appropriate place for a conversation that would fly over his pretty little blonde head.

pinksoir

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

@ Robin
People on either side of the debate hold fast to what they see as inerrant truths. I've certainly encountered atheists who are as stubborn and definite in their belief that there is no God (or no belief if you will) as some of the more passionate creationists out there.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Firstly, I wasn't talking about the scientific method - something which is hardly the realm of the irreligious. I was talking about the assertion that there is or isn't a God. (Incidentally, this is something science isn't able to expressly comment upon.) This singular belief (however one arrives at it) is often held as an inerrant position, or one underpinned by a '99.999999%' certainty qualifier, which is really just another way of saying 'I'm certain'.

There is a slight but significant difference between the religious and atheists with regard to what you describe as 'belief held as an inerrant position'. The problem is that as an atheist, I know exactly what would make me believe in the existence of god, even the Christian god; evidence. So whilst I do hold fast to my beliefs, I would change them at the drop of a hat were there any good reason to and I certainly do not see them as inerrant truths, but rather as the only possible rational position to hold when the evidence is taken into account.

Since the religious' position is not based on evidence, or lack thereof, but is faith-based, they are generally far less likely to change their views on the matter of a god's existence and indeed often cannot even give an answer as to what would be sufficient to make them change their minds.

Maybe you could answer that Fanny? What would make you change your mind about the existence of God?

Galvasean

All this from 'going' down the path of humor.
Talk about knee jerk reactions. :rolleyes:

Fanny Cradock

Robin wrote:

So, I'm simply very unclear about where you pick up the idea that the rejection of 'god' is 'often held as an inerrant position' amongst the religion-free.

Hi Robin,

My above impression comes from a number of opinions that I have encountered on my internet travels. The authors(s) categorically state that there is no God(s), and the odd time I see such statements appended with the 99.99999% qualifier, which just seems like lip-service to possibility. (As I don't bookmark them, I'm afraind that I cant give any links, but I'm sure if you type 'is there a god?' or some such into google you would unearth these categorical opinions).

My point was - and I'm sorry if I didn't make this clearer - I believe that there are people on either side of the debate who claim to hold fast to their positions with absolute belief. I fully accept your point that religious people often make categorical assertions about God's existence, but I also wanted to highlight that the irreligious state this as well.

pinksoir wrote: »

There is a slight but significant difference between the religious and atheists with regard to what you describe as 'belief held as an inerrant position'. The problem is that as an atheist, I know exactly what would make me believe in the existence of god, even the Christian god; evidence. So whilst I do hold fast to my beliefs, I would change them at the drop of a hat were there any good reason to and I certainly do not see them as inerrant truths, but rather as the only possible rational position to hold when the evidence is taken into account.

Since the religious' position is not based on evidence, or lack thereof, but is faith-based, they are generally far less likely to change their views on the matter of a god's existence and indeed often cannot even give an answer as to what would be sufficient to make them change their minds.

Maybe you could answer that Fanny? What would make you change your mind about the existence of God?

I will pull you up on one thing there and say that faith is partly based on evidence - something covered on a number occasions in various threads I think. Though I fully recognise that what I constitute as evidence for faith would not be accepted by yourself as compelling evidence. I also recognise that this evidence isn't enough by itself.

Your question is a good one, but I'm afraid it's not one that I can really answer without having first lost my faith. To better illustrate my point, you could ask me what it would take to stop me from loving a loved one. Give time I could probably come up with some fictitious situations where this loved one was terribly cruel to me, but I still wouldn't really know if this would result in the loss of love.

But by way of an answer of sorts: if there was some fundamental tenet of Christianity that was revealed to be a lie, then I would find myself amongst the ranks of you heathens :pac: So whatever evidence it would require for you to gain faith, it is evidence (or maybe experience) that would cause me to lose it.


@ Galvasean

No knee jerk reactions, just difference of opinion. But if it makes you feel any better, I'll promise not to do a Father Ted and protest outside any cinemas that show it.



Good night!

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

I won't deny that I'd love to see an world without religion in which people are able to think coherently for themselves and where the common good is the highest aspiration of everybody.

But this is not where you are looking to go? or is this the destination you allude to?

But given that this is not going to happen

I personally wouldn't count on that.

, there are three options available -- ignore it (difficult), get upset by it (pointless) or find it funny (sadly, seems the only option). There's also the widely-held, but improper, view that public displays of religiosity confer status -- so, finding religion's rituals entertaining rather than serious is as good a way as any of helping the air out of the frightfully over-inflated and their pious pretension.

Or in simpler terms, who here hasn't switched over to satellite telly and wept with laughter at some of the pop-eyed, hyper-ventilating preachers there? That's not "going" anywhere, that's just having a laugh real-life Basil Fawltys.

So the goal is to have a coping mechanism, to stop you getting upset.

To summarise: You'd love a world free of religion (the ultimate destination, which you feel will never happen). In the absence of this, you need a mechanism to cope with religion, so derision, reducing it to the butt of the joke is that mechanism.

Got it now.

Galvasean

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

@ Galvasean

No knee jerk reactions, just difference of opinion. But if it makes you feel any better, I'll promise not to do a Father Ted and protest outside any cinemas that show it.

I didn't actually mean you there. Sorry if it looked like I was implying. Your opinions, different as they are, are (as always) very welcome.
I was more so referring to how Jimi managed to get up on his high horse about some sort of atheist conspiracy or agenda when someone said humor was 'the way to go'. Clearly trying to create controversy for the sake of it.

JimiTime

Galvasean wrote: »

I was more so referring to how Jimi managed to get up on his high horse about some sort of atheist conspiracy or agenda when someone said humor was 'the way to go'. Clearly trying to create controversy for the sake of it.

High horse? LOL. Because i asked a question? I didn't cast any judgements, nor express my opinion on any agenda's or conspiracies. I just ask for clarity on a point that was made. When it was answered, I toddled away, and didn't challenge it or ridicule it, i just had an answer to a question.


Geez, with you being so defensive, maybe there is a big atheist conspiracy...........

.............or maybe you just assumed something about the a poster that wasn't true.

(now thats me getting on a high horse in case you are still confused).

(And the line above was too:) )

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

But this is not where you are looking to go? or is this the destination you allude to?

Yep, while the goal I mentioned seems unreachable, it does seem worth aiming for. Wouldn't you agree?

JimiTime wrote: »

you need a mechanism to cope with religion, so derision, reducing it to the butt of the joke is that mechanism.

You're really reading far more into my comments than I intended. Look, it's very simple: like you, I avoid situations where having a fit of giggles or worse is inappropriate. That means that I do not turn up at religious gigs of one kind or another, to sit in the front row and point and laugh at the bishop's funny hat and pink tights.

The line's drawn at people like Ham (and his local customers here on boards), because their point of view is ludicrous, their inability to grasp even the simplest facts or arguments is amazing, and their mindless repetition of somebody else's stock phrases and minutely-choreographed bad thinking is actually quite funny. As three years of posting has shown, reasonable discussion is not an alternative here and lapsing into a mildly humorous appreciation of the divine silliness of it all seems quite reasonable. That's not "reducing religion to the butt of the joke", but simply appreciating humor where it appears.

Out of interest, what do you make of run_to_da_hills' ongoing notions about christianity and chip implants? Funny-weird, funny-ha-ha or a bit of both?

Galvasean

JimiTime wrote: »

High horse? LOL. Because i asked a question? I didn't cast any judgements, nor express my opinion on any agenda's or conspiracies. I just ask for clarity on a point that was made. When it was answered, I toddled away, and didn't challenge it or ridicule it, i just had an answer to a question.

Not quite. You continually challenged the statement, apparently not content with the 'it was a joke' explanation.

JimiTime

Galvasean wrote: »

Not quite. You continually challenged the statement, apparently not content with the 'it was a joke' explanation.

Never was it said that it was a joke. There were humourous replies to the question, but none that said it was a joke. Anyway, moving swiftly on....

Galvasean

JimiTime wrote: »

Never was it said that it was a joke. There were humourous replies to the question, but none that said it was a joke. Anyway, moving swiftly on....

I taught the humorous replies were a certain indicator, but looking back over the thread maybe it wasn't as clear cut as I read it to be.
Yes swiftly on.

I wonder what kind of a release the movie will get over here. It will probably appear in Tower records for about €30 long after the hype has died down.

Charlie3dan

I made a note that this is due out tomorrow.
Is it too much to expect this might be shown in cinemas?

Galvasean

Release dates:


USA 3 October 2008
Belgium 5 November 2008
France 5 November 2008
Germany 6 November 2008
Netherlands 27 November 2008
Iceland 28 November 2008
Portugal 4 December 2008
Italy 5 December 2008


No confirmed date for Ireland yet. Id say if we're very lucky we might get it in a very limited run in Cineworld.

Overheal

so much for free thought eh?

Galvasean

Overheal wrote: »

so much for free thought eh?

More like this movie isn't likely to make all that much money.

Actually keep an eye on the Irish Film Institute. You'd never know.

dbs_sailor

any updates on this one, lads?

Galvasean

Still nothing on the official site re: release dates. Checked imdb too but no sign of an Irish (or UK for that matter) release date.

Dave!

Supposedly it's doing well in the States. Bill says it's being recieved quite well even by religious people. Dunno how true that is though...

Galvasean

Ben Stein said his movie 'No Intelligence Allowed' was incredibly well received both critically and commercially.
Bottom line a filmmaker isn't gonna come out and say, "The critics hate my movie and no one is watching it". Bad for business.

dbs_sailor

Galvasean wrote: »

Ben Stein said his movie 'No Intelligence Allowed' was incredibly well received both critically and commercially.
Bottom line a filmmaker isn't gonna come out and say, "The critics hate my movie and no one is watching it". Bad for business.

I also wanna see Ben Stein's movie for giggles. That guy is stunningly unintelligent and only in America could he both be taken seriously AND get a huge amount of press to promote his movie.

Galvasean

I won't let Stein have my money out of principal, but can't pirate his movie also out of principal. I guess it will go unwatched. Too bad.

Chardee MacDennis

if its wont be released here why would people have a problem downloading it? anyway i am looking forward to seeing this, there was quite a lot of press that Bill Maher got for this film, including a stint on the View where he told a panelist if she is hearing God she needs to check in to Bellview!! Karma for goading Johnny Drama

Tomk1

I really want to see this movie. I want to find out if the Irish cinemas will be showing it.