Coming Soon.. Bill Maher: The Movie

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.

Galvasean

I checked out http://www.billmaher.com/
but could not find anything relating to a release date over here.

sink

Just watched this and it doesn't cover new ground nor is it particularly intellegent but it is pretty funny. If your not looking for a complex debate but just want to be entertained I would recommend seeing it if you have the chance.

condra

sink wrote: »

Just watched this and it doesn't cover new ground nor is it particularly intellegent but it is pretty funny. If your not looking for a complex debate but just want to be entertained I would recommend seeing it if you have the chance.

So it has a dumbed down atheist message?
Brilliant! It will be extra effective in America.

REJOICE ALL ATHEIST BRETHERN
Our mission is almost coming to fruition guys.

Never forget the 3 objectives:
1 - Eradicate religion from the world
2 - We are the lizard people! The true Kwisatz Haderach!
3 - Don't tell Jimi Time

Fighting Irish

womoma wrote: »

So it has a dumbed down atheist message?
Brilliant! It will be extra effective in America.

REJOICE ALL ATHEIST BRETHERN
Our mission is almost coming to fruition guys.

Never forget the 3 objectives:
1 - Eradicate religion from the world
2 - We are the lizard people! The true Kwisatz Haderach!
3 - Don't tell Jimi Time

I watched it last night, its not really "dumbed down" its well put together and fairly amusing

Húrin

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 the world; as part of that, facts are open to correction and no fact is held as inerrant.

Actually I find that religious people tend to have more doubt in their beliefs than atheists, who do indeed often hold the scientific method to be inerrant. Even more ridiculous, they often think that science can answer every question. They expect more from science than it can offer. Creationists are the opposite, in that they expect more from religion than it can offer.

pinksoir wrote: »

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?

SO WRONG!

If there was evidence to disprove God, then I and most Christians would change our minds. I have talked about such a notion with plenty of people.

We don't quite base our beliefs on nothing as you would like to think. Nor can we claim to base our beliefs on facts that prove them almost for certain. Rather, I see aspects of the universe and of humanity that make me believe that God is more likely to exist than not. This is a form of evidence.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

'oh look out, your hair's on fire'

rofl

Fighting Irish

SO WRONG!

If there was evidence to disprove God, then I and most Christians would change our minds. I have talked about such a notion with plenty of people.

We don't quite base our beliefs on nothing as you would like to think. Nor can we claim to base our beliefs on facts that prove them almost for certain. Rather, I see aspects of the universe and of humanity that make me believe that God is more likely to exist than not. This is a form of evidence.

haha

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

Actually I find that religious people tend to have more doubt in their beliefs than atheists

Not in the christianity forum, they certainly don't. I can't recall a single instance -- though I'm sure there must have been a couple -- where a regular poster said that they were genuinely unsure as to whether their own religion was true.

Húrin wrote: »

[...] who do indeed often hold the scientific method to be inerrant.

...can you suggest what might be wrong with updating one's opinion if it's inaccurate? Is the common religious attitude of personal inerrancy and unchangeable opinions really a wiser stance than one of provisional conclusions, based upon provisional evidence?

Húrin wrote: »

Even more ridiculous, they often think that science can answer every question.

Huh? Who on earth said that?

Fighting Irish

womoma wrote: »

So it has a dumbed down atheist message?
Brilliant! It will be extra effective in America.

REJOICE ALL ATHEIST BRETHERN
Our mission is almost coming to fruition guys.

Never forget the 3 objectives:
1 - Eradicate religion from the world
2 - We are the lizard people! The true Kwisatz Haderach!
3 - Don't tell Jimi Time

You do realise how many dumb people we have here in Ireland right?
Its not just America :eek:

sink

Húrin wrote: »

Actually I find that religious people tend to have more doubt in their beliefs than atheists, who do indeed often hold the scientific method to be inerrant.

Define inerrant? If by inerrant you mean that scientific method will give the correct answer 100% of the time I would like to you to find one person who believes that. The beauty of science is that it is self correcting continually advancing. Eventually if there is an error it will be found and corrected. It might take several centuries just as Newtons theory of gravity was replaced by Einstein's General Relativity 230 years later. If you mean the method itself is flawed then I would ask you to show me a better one. The scientific method is not perfect but it is open to change if any improvements can be found.

Húrin wrote: »

Even more ridiculous, they often think that science can answer every question.

Natural Science cannot answer every question like questions of the intangible such as art and god but it has the potential to answer every question about the tangible natural world. But then objectivity and absolute truth only exists in the tangible for the intangible is completely subjective and what can be true for one person can be false for another and therefore absolute truth of the intangible does not exist.