Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Dos Equis on August 22, 2008, 11:01:06 AM
-
Another one of those atheists who can't stop talking about something he doesn't believe in. ::)
Bill Maher's Anti-Religion Movie
Friday, August 22, 2008
By Roger Friedman
AP
Bill Maher's Anti-Religion Movie
“Religion is detrimental to the progress of society.” That’s my favorite quote from Bill Maher’s often brilliant, but often unfocused “documentary,” called “Religulous.” It opens in early October right after its debut at the Toronto Film Festival.
The articulate, quick-witted comedian sets out in this film — which was supposed to have been released last Easter — to prove that line is true. Directed by Larry Charles, the man who put "Borat" together so skillfully, "Religulous" is blatant about Maher’s feelings: religion is bad. All religions are bad. They are ruining everything.
If you go for that, then "Religulous" is for you. Unlike Michael Moore, whose controversial films at least allow stories to be told, Maher is not interested in other viewpoints. Rather, "Religulous" is a long Maher spiel that pauses only to underscore his own points.
At first the film is very funny as Maher gently mocks one organized religion after another. He questions just about everything in Catholicism, even though he was raised Catholic. (His mother is Jewish, but threw it all over for the father.) Everything from the Immaculate Conception to crucifixion re-enactments are covered. By the time “Religulous” is over, the faith-seekers in the audience will have scratched Catholic off their possibilities.
Not that the other major religious groups don’t come in for razzing, either. Maher is brutal to Orthodox Jews and just as nasty to Muslims. (He interviews gay Muslims in Amsterdam, a city where he also smokes a lot of pot and finds many easy laughs.) Mormons get it, and so do Scientologists, whom Maher mocks in London’s Hyde Park.
Maher sends up everything outrageous and unusual in religion, cherry-picking the fringe elements wherever he can find them. There’s no question that he’s serious in his endeavors, and for a while following him feels like it’s going to lead somewhere.
Alas, it doesn’t. Unlike "Borat," or even a Moore film, “Religulous” is a dead end. In the last quarter, the laughs peter out as we realize the exploration is pointless. The film concludes with a long, very not funny, tedious speech by Maher — in which he rails against religion — that should clear theaters before the credits start rolling.
Right now you can see a trailer for "Religulous" on LionsGate’s Web site. Interestingly, it’s linked another site called disbelief.net. Obviously, a parody site designed just for the film, disbelief.net is registered to an unknown group in the Cayman Islands. It features the quotes of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, videos from the Church of Scientology Web site and a link to a Christian yoga video collection starring (whatever happened to) ‘Northern Exposure” star Janine Turner.
“Religulous” is a tough call. Will audiences flock to theatres to see it? That depends on just how many atheists there are at the popcorn stand. Maher’s point, that the world would be a better place without any religions, that wars would be eliminated and there would be universal understanding, comes across simultaneously as utopian and cynical.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,408782,00.html
-
Another one of those atheists who can't stop talking about something he doesn't believe in. ::)
[
Psalm 14:1
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
-
Again, to what are these folks trying to "progress"? What grandiose goal or achievement do they have that they absolutely, positively CANNOT ACHIEVE, without the destruction of religion?
Psalm 14:1
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
You took the words right out of my mouth!!! ;D
-
Psalm 14:1
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
If it's in the Bible it must be true. ::)
-
Again, to what are these folks trying to "progress"? What grandiose goal or achievement do they have that they absolutely, positively CANNOT ACHIEVE, without the destruction of religion?
You took the words right out of my mouth!!! ;D
There is nothing new with this atheism argument. People throughout the history of time have argued against the existence of God.
With all the technological advances humans have made in relation to science within the past 100 years or so, atheist today feel they have a more superior mind than societies in past and they use the “scientific technology” argument as their basis that they’ve “proven” there is no God.
If it's in the Bible it must be true. ::)
fool
-
lol
-
Another one of those atheists who can't stop talking about something he doesn't believe in. ::)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,408782,00.html
Well, to a great extent it's an industry and both sides flourish because of it. Dawkins writes a book, then the religious scholars debate him and people lap it up like kittens 'n cream. Then the religious scholars write books and because of the debate publicity everyone makes money. Sometimes you have someone like Rabbi Schmuley-kopf get into the fray and he sells more books too. People like to imagine and discuss where they came from. It's normal.
If Getbig represents a microcosm of real life, you can see it only gets interesting when there is discussion and debate. Sometimes it's a little rude, but that's Getbig too. Otherwise, mostly everyone can just go to their favorite websites and read what they like. No sense in preaching to the choir.
Atheists do have some investment in what Christians do in the US because it affects political policies, and that affects all taxpayers. Almost no one can get elected without professing some faith. George W. said God told him to fight the war in the middle east. There are also world issues that require some knowledge of religion if you're going to follow the news. Sharia law in the UK for instance. Sunni-shiite problems. Bosnia... blah, blah, blah.
-
Well, to a great extent it's an industry and both sides flourish because of it. Dawkins writes a book, then the religious scholars debate him and people lap it up like kittens 'n cream. Then the religious scholars write books and because of the debate publicity everyone makes money. Sometimes you have someone like Rabbi Schmuley-kopf get into the fray and he sells more books too. People like to imagine and discuss where they came from. It's normal.
If Getbig represents a microcosm of real life, you can see it only gets interesting when there is discussion and debate. Sometimes it's a little rude, but that's Getbig too. Otherwise, mostly everyone can just go to their favorite websites and read what they like. No sense in preaching to the choir.
Atheists do have some investment in what Christians do in the US because it affects political policies, and that affects all taxpayers. Almost no one can get elected without professing some faith. George W. said God told him to fight the war in the middle east. There are also world issues that require some knowledge of religion if you're going to follow the news. Sharia law in the UK for instance. Sunni-shiite problems. Bosnia... blah, blah, blah.
That brings me back to my earlier question. What is this supreme goal these atheists are trying to reach and WHY do they feel they CANNOT get the job done, without people en masse abandoning their faith?
-
That brings me back to my earlier question. What is this supreme goal these atheists are trying to reach and WHY do they feel they CANNOT get the job done, without people en masse abandoning their faith?
Well, who are ALL these people? Most really don't care that much to tell you the truth other than how it affects their wallets and voting power. As I said, people enjoy having philosophical discussions, but I hardly think most atheists care what faith people wish to follow, as long as no one bothers them. Islam happens to be in the news a lot for obvious reasons, so there is a reason to care there. Otherwise, I just don't think so. And MCWAY it isn't the atheists going door to door on Saturday mornings, annoying people at ungodly early hours with their literature. :)
-
Well, who are ALL these people? Most really don't care that much to tell you the truth other than how it affects their wallets and voting power. As I said, people enjoy having philosophical discussions, but I hardly think most atheists care what faith people wish to follow, as long as no one bothers them. Islam happens to be in the news a lot for obvious reasons, so there is a reason to care there. Otherwise, I just don't think so. And MCWAY it isn't the atheists going door to door on Saturday mornings, annoying people at ungodly early hours with their literature. :)
These would be the people like Maher, who claim that man can't "progress" or "move forward", as long as people believe in a supernatural being and hold to their religious beliefs.
-
These would be the people like Maher, who claim that man can't "progress" or "move forward", as long as people believe in a supernatural being and hold to their religious beliefs.
I would say Maher falls into the category of people who make a living from that sort of thing. Lots of comedians poke fun at religion, at least some of the more extreme behavior, and people laugh, even some more liberal minded Christians laugh at themselves. Jewish comedians poke fun at their own religion, or the culture of it, like crazy, even if they're believers.
I've said it before, Christians ALSO make films and preach about the godless and there are even less reasons to do so since you're the vast majority. You said it's because Christians are called to spread the word, so if anything, it's Christians who are intruding on the lives of others.
-
Well, to a great extent it's an industry and both sides flourish because of it. Dawkins writes a book, then the religious scholars debate him and people lap it up like kittens 'n cream. Then the religious scholars write books and because of the debate publicity everyone makes money. Sometimes you have someone like Rabbi Schmuley-kopf get into the fray and he sells more books too. People like to imagine and discuss where they came from. It's normal.
If Getbig represents a microcosm of real life, you can see it only gets interesting when there is discussion and debate. Sometimes it's a little rude, but that's Getbig too. Otherwise, mostly everyone can just go to their favorite websites and read what they like. No sense in preaching to the choir.
Atheists do have some investment in what Christians do in the US because it affects political policies, and that affects all taxpayers. Almost no one can get elected without professing some faith. George W. said God told him to fight the war in the middle east. There are also world issues that require some knowledge of religion if you're going to follow the news. Sharia law in the UK for instance. Sunni-shiite problems. Bosnia... blah, blah, blah.
Are you sure you don't want to marry me? I'll even move back to the USA for you.... ;)
-
Are you sure you don't want to marry me? I'll even move back to the USA for you.... ;)
Deicide wants to get married? Who says there are no such things as miracles? ;D
-
I would say Maher falls into the category of people who make a living from that sort of thing. Lots of comedians poke fun at religion, at least some of the more extreme behavior, and people laugh, even some more liberal minded Christians laugh at themselves. Jewish comedians poke fun at their own religion, or the culture of it, like crazy, even if they're believers.
I've said it before, Christians ALSO make films and preach about the godless and there are even less reasons to do so since you're the vast majority. You said it's because Christians are called to spread the word, so if anything, it's Christians who are intruding on the lives of others.
Notwithstanding the disagreement about the "intruding" part, Christians KNOW what their objectives are.
What we DON'T know is this grand objective is that folks like Maher have, and why they can’t achieve it, unless religion and belief in God are gone.
I sensed no humor in Maher’s words, when he made that statement about man progressing or being able to “move forward”.
-
Are you sure you don't want to marry me? I'll even move back to the USA for you.... ;)
I get it now! You confoosed me yesterday.
My heart is already enslaved to my beloved, though... :)
I thought you were going through an Asian phase. :D
-
Notwithstanding the disagreement about the "intruding" part, Christians KNOW what their objectives are.
What we DON'T know is this grand objective is that folks like Maher have, and why they can’t achieve it, unless religion and belief in God are gone.
I sensed no humor in Maher’s words, when he made that statement about man progressing or being able to “move forward”.
From what I get, Maher isn't an atheist... believes in a higher being, but dislikes organized religion. Haven't seen the flick but apparently the last part is his warning that extreme Christianity and Islam will eventually cause harm to humanity. Guess that's his objective. To criticize, with some humor. What were Jesus's and Martin Luther's objectives when they criticized the existing status quo?
You make too much of it. Like I said, Atheists care from a political point of view, since the religious right has enormous voting power, and (as illustrated in another thread) seem to care a great deal about a candidate's religion and will vote a certain way based solely on religious issues like abortion, homosexuality and right to pollute. Atheists care when world leaders claim that God visits them with political advice.
Aside from that, atheists couldn't care less what people believe or how they worship.
-
From what I get, Maher isn't an atheist... believes in a higher being, but dislikes organized religion. Haven't seen the flick but apparently the last part is his warning that extreme Christianity and Islam will eventually cause harm to humanity. Guess that's his objective. To criticize, with some humor. What were Jesus's and Martin Luther's objectives when they criticized the existing status quo?
You make too much of it. Like I said, Atheists care from a political point of view, since the religious right has enormous voting power, and (as illustrated in another thread) seem to care a great deal about a candidate's religion and will vote a certain way based solely on religious issues like abortion, homosexuality and right to pollute. Atheists care when world leaders claim that God visits them with political advice.
Aside from that, atheists couldn't care less what people believe or how they worship.
Right to pollute? Where in the world did you get that? Just because the "religious right" doesn't get spun up over global warming and put exotic, spotted dodo birds, ahead of people, doesn't mean they want a "right to pollute".
Again, this goes way beyond politics. It's a factor; but, it's far from the primary reason why folks like Maher do what they do. As for the objective, I'm not talking about this film. Maher has held these views long before he ever thought about producing this flick. There is some universal objective that he (and others like him have) that they apparently can't be accomplished, without wiping out religion. I'd like to know what that is.
-
That brings me back to my earlier question. What is this supreme goal these atheists are trying to reach and WHY do they feel they CANNOT get the job done, without people en masse abandoning their faith?
I think one would want to drive religion out of the public sphere b/c anyone not ascribing to the belief system/way of life of the religion in question is automatically of lesser standing. Why? B/c if the religion in question is the true way of God, then anyone not walking that path is not acting in the interests of God. And by extension those people are either utter fools, evil or some combination of the two.
-
Interesting topic for a movie. Haven't seen it yet so can't really have an opinion though.
-
Interesting topic for a movie. Haven't seen it yet so can't really have an opinion though.
Where the fuck have you been?
Jihadist training facilities in Pakistan or something I assume?
-
first off..this deedee chick has her stuff together you go girl.if i didn't believe that marriage was just another tool to get people to conform and OBEY i would marry u to.
-
second Mcway your mcnuts.
-
I think one would want to drive religion out of the public sphere b/c anyone not ascribing to the belief system/way of life of the religion in question is automatically of lesser standing. Why? B/c if the religion in question is the true way of God, then anyone not walking that path is not acting in the interests of God. And by extension those people are either utter fools, evil or some combination of the two.
.....and that's exactly how certain atheists feel about religious people. And, Maher echoes that sentiment in no uncertain terms.
Again, I ask what is this lofty goal that folks like Maher want to achieve and why do they feel they CANNOT get it done, unless religion/belief in God is gone.
-
.....and that's exactly how certain atheists feel about religious people. And, Maher echoes that sentiment in no uncertain terms.
Again, I ask what is this lofty goal that folks like Maher want to achieve and why do they feel they CANNOT get it done, unless religion/belief in God is gone.
Mccrazy
-
That brings me back to my earlier question. What is this supreme goal these atheists are trying to reach and WHY do they feel they CANNOT get the job done, without people en masse abandoning their faith?
I don't believe Athiest have a supreme goal (or even a cohesive group that compares in any way to any organized religion).
From my perspective, the recent increase in movies/books like the kind from Maher and Dawkins is necessary response to the infiltration of radical religious agenda in our society and government. The Bush administration is filled with people who filter their regligious beliefs into social policy. An example is the massive amount of tax payer $$$ spent of faith based initiatives such as the patently worthless abstinence programs or pushing to teach a Christian creation myth as if it's the "other side of the coin" to the theory of evolution. If we're going to teach a creation myth in school then it should be taught in a class about mythology and it should be taught alongside the creation stories of other religions. This would be a more of a 200 sided die rather than a 2 sided coin.
Bottom line - I'm for freedom of all religious thought and that includes the freedom to reject all religious doctrine and keep all religious doctrine out of the running of our government.
-
Another one of those atheists who can't stop talking about something he doesn't believe in. ::)
Bill Maher's Anti-Religion Movie
Friday, August 22, 2008
By Roger Friedman
AP
Bill Maher's Anti-Religion Movie
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,408782,00.html
Another fundie who can't stop talking about something that he doesn't believe in (and posting it on GB too) and also not getting the irony of your own statement
-
I don't believe Athiest have a supreme goal (or even a cohesive group that compares in any way to any organized religion).
From my perspective, the recent increase in movies/books like the kind from Maher and Dawkins is necessary response to the infiltration of radical religious agenda in our society and government. The Bush administration is filled with people who filter their regligious beliefs into social policy. An example is the massive amount of tax payer $$$ spent of faith based initiatives such as the patently worthless abstinence programs or pushing to teach a Christian creation myth as if it's the "other side of the coin" to the theory of evolution. If we're going to teach a creation myth in school then it should be taught in a class about mythology and it should be taught alongside the creation stories of other religions. This would be a more of a 200 sided die rather than a 2 sided coin.
Bottom line - I'm for freedom of all religious thought and that includes the freedom to reject all religious doctrine and keep all religious doctrine out of the running of our government.
well said
-
Another fundie who can't stop talking about something that he doesn't believe in (and posting it on GB too) and also not getting the irony of your own statement
This is really funny. The paranoid anti-religious extremist who doesn't understand irony talking about an alleged inability of another to understand irony.
sorry, sometimes I have a hard time picking up on irony in written form (seriously), and especially late at night.
-
Maher is an idiot.
Maher Mocks Palin's Down Syndrome Child
Friday, September 5, 2008 1:44 PM
By: Jim Meyers
Comedian Bill Maher cracked a tasteless “joke” involving Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s Down syndrome child — and referred to the Alaska governor as a “stewardess.”
In the monologue of his most recent HBO show, Maher noted that Palin has five children including an infant “that has Down syndrome. She had it when she was 43 years old. And it looks a lot like John Edwards.”
He also said: “McCain has been running this campaign based on ‘we’re at war. I, John McCain, am the only one standing between the bloodthirsty al-Qaidas and you. But if I die, the stewardess can handle it.’”
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/maher_mocks_palin/2008/09/05/128099.html
-
This is really funny. The paranoid anti-religious extremist who doesn't understand irony talking about an alleged inability of another to understand irony.
I'm neither paranoid nor anti-religious (I'm pro-freedom of belief)
so you're saying your comment about Maher was meant to be ironic?
Another one of those atheists who can't stop talking about something he doesn't believe in. ::)
if not irony - then you're suggesting that if Maher is not a "believer" then he can't comment on religion? That's pretty convenient
-
I don't believe Athiest have a supreme goal (or even a cohesive group that compares in any way to any organized religion).
It appears that they do. Maher spoke about moving forward. Again, to what are he and others like him trying to move? There's something he wants to accomplish, and for some strange reason, he can't get it done without religion being gone.
According to atheists.org, "Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.
Is this the lofty goal which Maher wants to reach?
An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.
Is it this?
An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow mancan he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.
Or it is that?
From my perspective, the recent increase in movies/books like the kind from Maher and Dawkins is necessary response to the infiltration of radical religious agenda in our society and government. The Bush administration is filled with people who filter their regligious beliefs into social policy. An example is the massive amount of tax payer $$$ spent of faith based initiatives such as the patently worthless abstinence programs or pushing to teach a Christian creation myth as if it's the "other side of the coin" to the theory of evolution. If we're going to teach a creation myth in school then it should be taught in a class about mythology and it should be taught alongside the creation stories of other religions. This would be a more of a 200 sided die rather than a 2 sided coin.
First of all, faith-based initiatives are PRIMARILY of a humanitarian nature. There's no need to build shelters or food banks in a community if several of those already exist with local churches.
Second, exactly what's so "worthless" about abstinence education? People have been yapping about condoms for ages, yet STDs among teens have gone UP. That makes the point of, regardless of which type of sex education is touted, these kids aren't using it. They ain't abstaing; they ain't using rubbers. But, I suppose since too many teens aren't using contraception and condoms, we should scrap sex education altogether, by your logic.
Thirdly, with regards to your comments, if these other folks have the scientific data to support their claims (as Creationists do), then let them have at it. Of course, that isn't the issue here.
It is rather strange, though, that despite the virtual monopoly evolutionists have had, with regards to science classes, they still struggle to get their message across, which frustrate a number of "enlightened" folks to no end.
Bottom line - I'm for freedom of all religious thought and that includes the freedom to reject all religious doctrine and keep all religious doctrine out of the running of our government.
Does that include the "religious doctrine" of humanism/atheism, or is that some sort of exemption?
People's beliefs shape how they form policy. So, no matter how you slice it, you will have religious doctrine (to some degree) running the government.
-
It appears that they do. Maher spoke about moving forward. Again, to what are he and others like him trying to move? There's something he wants to accomplish, and for some strange reason, he can't get it done without religion being gone.
According to atheists.org, "Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.
Is this the lofty goal which Maher wants to reach?
An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.
Is it this?
An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow mancan he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.
Or it is that?
First of all, faith-based initiatives are PRIMARILY of a humanitarian nature. There's no need to build shelters or food banks in a community if several of those already exist with local churches.
Second, exactly what's so "worthless" about abstinence education? People have been yapping about condoms for ages, yet STDs among teens have gone UP. That makes the point of, regardless of which type of sex education is touted, these kids aren't using it. They ain't abstaing; they ain't using rubbers. But, I suppose since too many teens aren't using contraception and condoms, we should scrap sex education altogether, by your logic.
Thirdly, with regards to your comments, if these other folks have the scientific data to support their claims (as Creationists do), then let them have at it. Of course, that isn't the issue here.
It is rather strange, though, that despite the virtual monopoly evolutionists have had, with regards to science classes, they still struggle to get their message across, which frustrate a number of "enlightened" folks to no end.
Does that include the "religious doctrine" of humanism/atheism, or is that some sort of exemption?
People's beliefs shape how they form policy. So, no matter how you slice it, you will have religious doctrine (to some degree) running the government.
you want there to be a goal.and even if there is some goal (which i doubt) why r u so worried about it.if you believe in the bible then its all good 4 u god fearing folks.
-
you want there to be a goal.and even if there is some goal (which i doubt) why r u so worried about it.if you believe in the bible then its all good 4 u god fearing folks.
My wanting there to be a goal has no bearing on the matter. Maher claims that religion must be gone in order to "move forward". Where is he (and others like him) trying to go? What are they trying to do?
-
.....and that's exactly how certain atheists feel about religious people. And, Maher echoes that sentiment in no uncertain terms.
Again, I ask what is this lofty goal that folks like Maher want to achieve and why do they feel they CANNOT get it done, unless religion/belief in God is gone.
The lofty goal appears to be living a very difficult existence without the dogmatic nonsense of righteous religious folks mucking up the way. Life's tough enough without throwing in non-existent data like God, the Devil, angels, demons or the afterlife to interfere with very real and profound issues. Fear of death is a strong fear and religion is there to fill the void.
"Work like a dog, live the way we think you should live and after you are dead, you will get your reward!"
What a sweet deal.
-
The lofty goal appears to be living a very difficult existence without the dogmatic nonsense of righteous religious folks mucking up the way. Life's tough enough without throwing in non-existent data like God, the Devil, angels, demons or the afterlife to interfere with very real and profound issues. Fear of death is a strong fear and religion is there to fill the void.
"Work like a dog, live the way we think you should live and after you are dead, you will get your reward!"
What a sweet deal.
If life is so tough and fear of death isn't an issue, why aren't more atheists blowing their brains out? Furthermore, religion (Christianity, at least) has hardly interfered with "real and profound issues". More often than not, it has addressed those issues.
-
If life is so tough and fear of death isn't an issue, why aren't more atheists blowing their brains out? Furthermore, religion (Christianity, at least) has hardly interfered with "real and profound issues". More often than not, it has addressed those issues.
Only the confused or cowardly kill themselves. We are born to die. That's an absurdity of life. Things fall apart. But life is an extraordinary experience. The myriad of wonders are matched only by the many horrors and those that are made of the right stuff know that.
Christianity at its base is decadent. It decays the here and now of this wonderful/terrible life b/c the afterlife is what counts. Heaven and hell are forever and this world is only a transitory step.
I say, "no this life is it and its many splendors/terrors are worth the price of admission" (birth). Heaven and Hell are for starry-eyed dreamers.
-
Only the confused or cowardly kill themselves. We are born to die. That's an absurdity of life. Things fall apart. But life is an extraordinary experience. The myriad of wonders are matched only by the many horrors and those that are made of the right stuff know that.
Christianity at its base is decadent. It decays the here and now of this wonderful/terrible life b/c the afterlife is what counts. Heaven and hell are forever and this world is only a transitory step.
I say, "no this life is it and its many splendors/terrors are worth the price of admission" (birth). Heaven and Hell are for starry-eyed dreamers.
You are a truly eloquent exponent of secular values Decker; it's an honour to be on board with you. :)
-
My wanting there to be a goal has no bearing on the matter. Maher claims that religion must be gone in order to "move forward". Where is he (and others like him) trying to go? What are they trying to do?
Kneel before the Lord of Lightning, Zeus!
-
Christianity at its base is decadent. It decays the here and now of this wonderful/terrible life b/c the afterlife is what counts. Heaven and hell are forever and this world is only a transitory step.
This only applies to a perverted version of Christianity.
The here and now in God is all that matters in real Christianity.
-
This only applies to a perverted version of Christianity.
The here and now in God is all that matters in real Christianity.
Real Christianity doesn't exist...there are only a million different versions.
-
It appears that they do. Maher spoke about moving forward. Again, to what are he and others like him trying to move? There's something he wants to accomplish, and for some strange reason, he can't get it done without religion being gone.
According to atheists.org, "Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.
Is this the lofty goal which Maher wants to reach?
An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.
Is it this?
An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow mancan he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.
Or it is that?
First of all, faith-based initiatives are PRIMARILY of a humanitarian nature. There's no need to build shelters or food banks in a community if several of those already exist with local churches.
Second, exactly what's so "worthless" about abstinence education? People have been yapping about condoms for ages, yet STDs among teens have gone UP. That makes the point of, regardless of which type of sex education is touted, these kids aren't using it. They ain't abstaing; they ain't using rubbers. But, I suppose since too many teens aren't using contraception and condoms, we should scrap sex education altogether, by your logic.
Thirdly, with regards to your comments, if these other folks have the scientific data to support their claims (as Creationists do), then let them have at it. Of course, that isn't the issue here.
It is rather strange, though, that despite the virtual monopoly evolutionists have had, with regards to science classes, they still struggle to get their message across, which frustrate a number of "enlightened" folks to no end.
Does that include the "religious doctrine" of humanism/atheism, or is that some sort of exemption?
People's beliefs shape how they form policy. So, no matter how you slice it, you will have religious doctrine (to some degree) running the government.
I'm have no problem with comprehensive sex education (I already told you this on another thred) so don't assign your flawed logic to me. The problem with abstinence trainging is that it's usually "abstinence only" and nothing else
Regarding the actual topic I would like to see the right of no belief given the exact same respect that we're supposed to give to religious belief. So if you want to define athiests as humanism then the answer to your questions is yes. Put it right along side Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. and give it equal respect.
-
Only the confused or cowardly kill themselves. We are born to die. That's an absurdity of life. Things fall apart. But life is an extraordinary experience. The myriad of wonders are matched only by the many horrors and those that are made of the right stuff know that.
Christianity at its base is decadent. It decays the here and now of this wonderful/terrible life b/c the afterlife is what counts. Heaven and hell are forever and this world is only a transitory step.
Who says that Christianity decays the here and now, especially when Christ's words talk of His followers having life and having it more abundantly?
John states to his fellow believers that he wish that they prosper and be in good health, even as their souls prosper (3 John 2).
That's hardly decaying the here and now.
I say, "no this life is it and its many splendors/terrors are worth the price of admission" (birth). Heaven and Hell are for starry-eyed dreamers.
Scripture says "This is the day that the Lord hath made. We will rejoice and be glad in it." (Psalm 118:24).
-
I'm have no problem with comprehensive sex education (I already told you this on another thred) so don't assign your flawed logic to me. The problem with abstinence trainging is that it's usually "abstinence only" and nothing else
That's because I was under the silly notion that parents want (or should want) the best for their children. The best way for teens not to get pregnant is for them to avoid that activity that makes babies, that being sexual intercourse.
Humping around and later getting upset, because the reproductive process actually does what it's supposed to so is rather foolish.
Regarding the actual topic I would like to see the right of no belief given the exact same respect that we're supposed to give to religious belief. So if you want to define athiests as humanism then the answer to your questions is yes. Put it right along side Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. and give it equal respect.
The atheists define themselves in such matter, whether I want to do so or not. My question remains about this goal, this moving forward, this so-called progress.
What is it, and why can't such be achieved WITHOUT the presence of religion?
-
That's because I was under the silly notion that parents want (or should want) the best for their children. The best way for teens not to get pregnant is for them to avoid that activity that makes babies, that being sexual intercourse.
Humping around and later getting upset, because the reproductive process actually does what it's supposed to so is rather foolish.
WTF are you even talking about. Yeah - the best way to avoied getting pregant is to avoid sex.....but just in case willpower doesn't work how about a back up plan. What's the problem?
The atheists define themselves in such matter, whether I want to do so or not. My question remains about this goal, this moving forward, this so-called progress.
What is it, and why can't such be achieved WITHOUT the presence of religion?
You sound paranoid.
-
You are a truly eloquent exponent of secular values Decker; it's an honour to be on board with you. :)
Thanks.
-
This only applies to a perverted version of Christianity.
The here and now in God is all that matters in real Christianity.
Could you please elaborate on the one true form of Christianity for me. I think I captured some its essence with my 'other-worldly' characterization...or is God, heaven and hell just not that important to Christianity?
-
Who says that Christianity decays the here and now, especially when Christ's words talk of His followers having life and having it more abundantly?
John states to his fellow believers that he wish that they prosper and be in good health, even as their souls prosper (3 John 2).
That's hardly decaying the here and now.
Scripture says "This is the day that the Lord hath made. We will rejoice and be glad in it." (Psalm 118:24).
Now you are going to force me to use the "N" word--nihilism. Christianity repudiates nature....especially human nature. If your eye offends you then pluck it out. Paul was an expert in denying the carnal callings of his flesh. Soren Kierkegaard turned away from marriage b/c of the demands of his christianity. The body is a source of sin that must be subdued. What's one way of doing that? Fasting. What's another? conditioning through prayer.
Look at the 7 most "deadly" sins: pride, envy, greed, gluttony, sloth, lust and anger...these are expressions of natural instincts in their most ugly form. Instead of dealing with them in some sort of way that lends itself to control or sublimation, Christianity wants them obliterated. We are at combat with and attempt to destroy our most fundamental instincts.
Of course you cannot destroy your instincts without destroying yourself. This leads to self hatred or loathing b/c that which could be our greatest strength--the natural state and performance of our bodies--is the source of our spiritual foibles.
Once you buy that line of reasoning, then along comes the church to help 'fix' you. The Christian Church offers to set things right in the supernatural world of heaven for you.
Now that I've condemned, I'll praise as well. Christianity does foster an inner conflict that can lead to progress. Christianity's emphasis on honesty in evaluation is something to be lauded.
It's a very complex topic but on the whole it is nihilistic b/c Heaven and God are more important than this real life.
And don't insult me with facile quotes chosen to prove your point. The John quote says nothing to me.
-
Could you please elaborate on the one true form of Christianity for me. I think I captured some its essence with my 'other-worldly' characterization...or is God, heaven and hell just not that important to Christianity?
Maybe I should have said "pure form". Words can always only be a bad translation of spiritual truth. All they can do is act as pointers to the truth, the devine can never be captured directly. Furthermore, the words can be perverted into ideologies, which in the worst cases can lead to violence and murder in the name of God. We have seen it all in christianity and other religions. Today's methods of the ideologists are more subtle of course, at least in the more civilized parts of the world. Still their egos are mislead by their false interpretation of scripture. Your criticism is valid of course if applied to those false ideologies.
-
Now you are going to force me to use the "N" word--nihilism. Christianity repudiates nature....especially human nature. If your eye offends you then pluck it out. Paul was an expert in denying the carnal callings of his flesh. Soren Kierkegaard turned away from marriage b/c of the demands of his christianity. The body is a source of sin that must be subdued. What's one way of doing that? Fasting. What's another? conditioning through prayer.
Paul denied the carnal callings of his flesh for one reason: He knew it would 1) be a hindrance to his service to the Lord; and 2) the pleasures of sin for a season would be nullified by the negative consequences therein.
Soren Kierkegarrd turned away from marriage......so what? Billy Graham has preached the Gospel to the ends of the earth and he's been married for over 50 years.
Look at the 7 most "deadly" sins: pride, envy, greed, gluttony, sloth, lust and anger...these are expressions of natural instincts in their most ugly form. Instead of dealing with them in some sort of way that lends itself to control or sublimation, Christianity wants them obliterated. We are at combat with and attempt to destroy our most fundamental instincts.
Of course you cannot destroy your instincts without destroying yourself. This leads to self hatred or loathing b/c that which could be our greatest strength--the natural state and performance of our bodies--is the source of our spiritual foibles.
Survival? On the contrary, such has led more to man's DOWNFALL than anything else, especially pride, greed, lust, and anger.
Once you buy that line of reasoning, then along comes the church to help 'fix' you. The Christian Church offers to set things right in the supernatural world of heaven for you.
The Church doesn't "fix" anybody. In fact, it is subject to those very same things.
Now that I've condemned, I'll praise as well. Christianity does foster an inner conflict that can lead to progress. Christianity's emphasis on honesty in evaluation is something to be lauded.
It's a very complex topic but on the whole it is nihilistic b/c Heaven and God are more important than this real life.
And don't insult me with facile quotes chosen to prove your point. The John quote says nothing to me.
Your feeling insulted is no fault of mine. The simple fact is your claim that Christianity "decays the here and now" is utterly false. It's simply a matter of priority. The kingdom of God comes FIRST; the earthly stuff (which, as Jesus said, the moth can corrupt, rust can corrode, thieves can steal, etc.) comes second. But, both are important and an abundant life is to be had in the "here and now" and (as the hymn goes) "in the sweet by and by". ;D
There's no "either/or" for a believer in Christ.
-
WTF are you even talking about. Yeah - the best way to avoied getting pregant is to avoid sex.....but just in case willpower doesn't work how about a back up plan. What's the problem?
The problem is that teenagers have no business having sex. They aren't ready for the responsibility of caring for a baby; nor are they ready to handle an STD.
You sound paranoid.
You need Q-tips.
-
Maybe I should have said "pure form". Words can always only be a bad translation of spiritual truth. All they can do is act as pointers to the truth, the devine can never be captured directly. Furthermore, the words can be perverted into ideologies, which in the worst cases can lead to violence and murder in the name of God. We have seen it all in christianity and other religions. Today's methods of the ideologists are more subtle of course, at least in the more civilized parts of the world. Still their egos are mislead by their false interpretation of scripture. Your criticism is valid of course if applied to those false ideologies.
If you think about, thought distorts everything. Language distorts thought. It's amazing that we can communicate at all.
-
Paul denied the carnal callings of his flesh for one reason: He knew it would 1) be a hindrance to his service to the Lord; and 2) the pleasures of sin for a season would be nullified by the negative consequences therein.
Soren Kierkegarrd turned away from marriage......so what? Billy Graham has preached the Gospel to the ends of the earth and he's been married for over 50 years.
Hindrance to a non-existent datum. God, Hell, Heaven do not exist. They are articles of faith. They are not centered on the here and now. They are supernatural and otherworldly and as such, they are decadent to this life. Why did Paul deny his carnal feelings? He was impotent? He was gay? No, he destroyed his carnal capacity for the cause of some supernatural non-existent datum.
Survival? On the contrary, such has led more to man's DOWNFALL than anything else, especially pride, greed, lust, and anger.
That's b/c the author of the 7 deadly sins cast them in the most egregious light possible instead of trying to think through them and understand the different grades and nuances of each impulse. It's a turning away from knowledge of those concepts in favor of willful ignorance.
The Church doesn't "fix" anybody. In fact, it is subject to those very same things.
I'm sorry but the promise of the Church is to put lost people on the path to God. Divine grace in Christianity is not earnable though. It is a gift....another complexity. Walk the walk and talk the talk and you still might not have grace thrust upon you.
Your feeling insulted is no fault of mine. The simple fact is your claim that Christianity "decays the here and now" is utterly false. It's simply a matter of priority. The kingdom of God comes FIRST; the earthly stuff (which, as Jesus said, the moth can corrupt, rust can corrode, thieves can steal, etc.) comes second. But, both are important and an abundant life is to be had in the "here and now" and (as the hymn goes) "in the sweet by and by". ;D
There's no "either/or" for a believer in Christ.
You think the Bible is Holy Scripture. I don't. I need arguments that are well supported....not cherrypicked verse. By your own admission, the non-existent kingdom of god comes first and all else comes second. I'm missing your point. You are putting supernatural fantasy ahead of the concrete reality of life.
Christianity is predicated on "either/or"....either you are a believer or you are not a believer. There is no middle ground. Unlike Classical antiquity which offers the 'golden mean' where you have a thesis countered by and antithtesis merging (sometimes) into a synthesis. Choice is inherent in dialectical reasoning.
-
If you think about, thought distorts everything. Language distorts thought. It's amazing that we can communicate at all.
There's always the truth behind the words. Even if uttered through distortion of thought and language, it sometimes shines through. True revelation happens when the truth transported by the words manages to get through to the truth we already carry within us.
-
Well, they say misery loves company I guess thats why atheist like Maher insist on making themselves heard? Since they are cut from the same stone I lump atheist in with the ultra liberal left wing queers, besides they all tend to vote the same. Bill Maher claims to be a comedian but I have yet to hear anything remotely funny from him. One one the best "Politically Inncorrect" shows he hosted was when Ted Nugent embarrassed him on the topic of gun control. Little wonder his show was canned.
-
Hindrance to a non-existent datum. God, Hell, Heaven do not exist. They are articles of faith. They are not centered on the here and now. They are supernatural and otherworldly and as such, they are decadent to this life. Why did Paul deny his carnal feelings? He was impotent? He was gay? No, he destroyed his carnal capacity for the cause of some supernatural non-existent datum.
Your claim of "non-existent datum" is spurious at best. They are plenty of carnal capacities: stealing, lying, murdering, commiting adultery, etc., all of them have can have dire consequences both in the "here and now" and beyond.
And you think Paul suppressed whatever it was, merely because of "supernatural non-existent datum"? I don't think so.
Quite frankly, you (and I) would be in a world of hurt, if everyone took your advice and yielded to their carnal feelings. For example, I don't think you'd want your wife to do that, were she to have such feelings for another man.
That's b/c the author of the 7 deadly sins cast them in the most egregious light possible instead of trying to think through them and understand the different grades and nuances of each impulse. It's a turning away from knowledge of those concepts in favor of willful ignorance.
PLEASE!!! The people who try to "think through them" succumb to them, resulting in damage and devastation to themselves and (even worse) to others.
I'm sorry but the promise of the Church is to put lost people on the path to God. Divine grace in Christianity is not earnable though. It is a gift....another complexity. Walk the walk and talk the talk and you still might not have grace thrust upon you.
Incorrect, the walking the walk is (or at least, should be) an example and the result of the grace given by Jesus Christ. And, there's nothing complex about it. Love and grace is something that is GIVEN, not earned.
As the saying goes, "An apple tree isn't an apple tree, because it produces apples. An apple tree produces apples, because it's an apple tree." In other words, for the true Christian, the outward deeds are the RESULT of the Christ-like nature inside. The faith drives the works (the "walk"), not the other way around.
You think the Bible is Holy Scripture. I don't. I need arguments that are well supported....not cherrypicked verse. By your own admission, the non-existent kingdom of god comes first and all else comes second. I'm missing your point. You are putting supernatural fantasy ahead of the concrete reality of life.
Try that again. It's putting the kingdom of God ABOVE the kingdom of this world. Of, if you prefer, the supernatural reality above the natural reality. Your claim is that such DECAYS the "here and now" of things on earth. That is categorically FALSE!!
Putting your treasure (or heart) into the things of this world, that can easily be destroyed in the blink of an eye, is rather foolish. Why else do you think that so many depressed people aren't necessarily the ones who don't reach their earthly goals but are the one that actually DO reach them?
In short, they got what they wanted but didn't want what they got.
Christianity is predicated on "either/or"....either you are a believer or you are not a believer. There is no middle ground. Unlike Classical antiquity which offers the 'golden mean' where you have a thesis countered by and antithtesis merging (sometimes) into a synthesis. Choice is inherent in dialectical reasoning.
Try a little context please. The "either/or" reference was a response to your claim that focusing on a spiritual and Christian life means that the "here and now" (earthly life) is one of decay.
Again, such is categorically FALSE!! Many Christians I've known are happy and blessed people. And they exude such demeanor, REGARDLESS of their earthly circumstances. Rich or poor, well-fed or hungry, healthy or sick, with family or alone, they possess that.
-
Hmmm. So why does he support Obama? Obama is busy trying to convince people that he is a Christian and not a Muslim.
-
hey Mcnutjob...you keep quoting scripture to prove your points.this is like using the national enquirer to prove your points on current events.
-
hey Mcnutjob...you keep quoting scripture to prove your points.this is like using the national enquirer to prove your points on current events.
Settle down gimmick
-
Settle down gimmick
go pray fag
-
hey Mcnutjob...you keep quoting scripture to prove your points.this is like using the national enquirer to prove your points on current events.
That’s because Decker and I are talking about Christianity, genius. This may come as surprise to you, but when people discuss the subject, they usually reference the Bible.
Come back when you get a clue and your common sense bulb switched.
-
go pray fag
hahaha ok Big L Dawg- gayer than a bean sprout salad.
-
Disagree if you'd like, but there is no need to get ugly and resort to attacks and insults. MCWAY is one of the best Getbig forum posters we have, whether he's discussing religion, politics or nutrition and supplements. I always enjoy reading MCWAY's posts on any board.
-
Your claim of "non-existent datum" is spurious at best. They are plenty of carnal capacities: stealing, lying, murdering, commiting adultery, etc., all of them have can have dire consequences both in the "here and now" and beyond.
I wasn't referring to the deadly sins as non-existent. I was referring to God, Devil, heaven and hell as non-existent.
And you think Paul suppressed whatever it was, merely because of "supernatural non-existent datum"? I don't think so.
You just told me that Paul denied the pleasures of the flesh b/c it was a hindrance to his service to the Lord. The lord does not exist in reality other than the imagination of Paul. Paul saw christianity. He developed an understanding of it. That understanding includes an idea of a god. Is that idea of god the same as an existing being or such? No.
Quite frankly, you (and I) would be in a world of hurt, if everyone took your advice and yielded to their carnal feelings. For example, I don't think you'd want your wife to do that, were she to have such feelings for another man.
I'm not advocating the grotesque characerization of human impulses and instincts as the author of the seven deadly sins did. I love having lust in my marriage. It works for me. But the impulse underlying the concept of 'lust' is not a deadly sin in and of itself. Application means a lot. Where you see infidelity, I see an opportunity to jump out of the bathroom and attack my wife on the bed before she knows what's going on.
PLEASE!!! The people who try to "think through them" succumb to them, resulting in damage and devastation to themselves and (even worse) to others.
You only understand these impulses/instincts as evil. And as I've shown you in the above example, they are not.
Incorrect, the walking the walk is (or at least, should be) an example and the result of the grace given by Jesus Christ. And, there's nothing complex about it. Love and grace is something that is GIVEN, not earned.
Who's disagreeing with you?
As the saying goes, "An apple tree isn't an apple tree, because it produces apples. An apple tree produces apples, because it's an apple tree." In other words, for the true Christian, the outward deeds are the RESULT of the Christ-like nature inside. The faith drives the works (the "walk"), not the other way around.
Who's disagreeing with you?
Try that again. It's putting the kingdom of God ABOVE the kingdom of this world. Of, if you prefer, the supernatural reality above the natural reality. Your claim is that such DECAYS the "here and now" of things on earth. That is categorically FALSE!!
Putting your treasure (or heart) into the things of this world, that can easily be destroyed in the blink of an eye, is rather foolish. Why else do you think that so many depressed people aren't necessarily the ones who don't reach their earthly goals but are the one that actually DO reach them?
If you are living your life in this world according to principles that serve this imaginary afterlife and imaginary god, then this world's life suffers b/c of that distraction. That's not really debatable is it?
In short, they got what they wanted but didn't want what they got.
In any setting excessive egotism is bad. I don't need to manufacture a god, a heaven and a hell to tell me that.
Try a little context please. The "either/or" reference was a response to your claim that focusing on a spiritual and Christian life means that the "here and now" (earthly life) is one of decay.
Again, such is categorically FALSE!! Many Christians I've known are happy and blessed people. And they exude such demeanor, REGARDLESS of their earthly circumstances. Rich or poor, well-fed or hungry, healthy or sick, with family or alone, they possess that.
Either you are a believer or you're not. Either you're saved or you're not.
Are you saying that putting Heaven and God first in your life, i.e., modifying your behavior and thinking to coordinate with christian values, does not diminish the natural impulses/instincts in your person?
-
hahaha ok Big L Dawg- gayer than a bean sprout salad.
pray your gay away.
-
That’s because Decker and I are talking about Christianity, genius. This may come as surprise to you, but when people discuss the subject, they usually reference the Bible.
Come back when you get a clue and your common sense bulb switched.
the name of the thread is anti religion (movie) this means ALL religion not just yours. So if i start a debate with you and keep quoting stuff by L Ron Hubbard and scientology R u going to take it serious.no you wont.and why would you its not what you believe.Right?well its the same way when you spout your plasms this and that its your gospel.not mine.
-
pray your gay away.
Sorry "big dawg" your gayness is beyond help.
-
the name of the thread is anti religion (movie) this means ALL religion not just yours. So if i start a debate with you and keep quoting stuff by L Ron Hubbard and scientology R u going to take it serious.no you wont.and why would you its not what you believe.Right?well its the same way when you spout your plasms this and that its your gospel.not mine.
Decker SPECIFICALLY brought up Christianity, in our conversation. Therefore, when speaking with him about Christianity, referencing the Bible (especially when he makes the claims that Christianity decays the "here and now"), is quite logical when making the case against his statement.
-
I wasn't referring to the deadly sins as non-existent. I was referring to God, Devil, heaven and hell as non-existent.
I know that. And it was that with which I disagree with you.
You just told me that Paul denied the pleasures of the flesh b/c it was a hindrance to his service to the Lord. The lord does not exist in reality other than the imagination of Paul. Paul saw christianity. He developed an understanding of it. That understanding includes an idea of a god. Is that idea of god the same as an existing being or such? No.
I beg to differ, especially since Paul once persecuted the very group of Christians that he now calls his brothers. He didn’t just make this up, especially given his explanation for his conversion. Furthermore, he spent time with believers in Christ, including two of Jesus’ disciples (Peter and John) and Jesus’ earthly brother, James.
I'm not advocating the grotesque characerization of human impulses and instincts as the author of the seven deadly sins did. I love having lust in my marriage. It works for me. But the impulse underlying the concept of 'lust' is not a deadly sin in and of itself. Application means a lot. Where you see infidelity, I see an opportunity to jump out of the bathroom and attack my wife on the bed before she knows what's going on.
You only understand these impulses/instincts as evil. And as I've shown you in the above example, they are not.
You don't see another guy humping your wife (and, if you're married, I hope that NEVER happens to you) as infidelity?
If you are living your life in this world according to principles that serve this imaginary afterlife and imaginary god, then this world's life suffers b/c of that distraction. That's not really debatable is it?
And, this allegedly suffering occurs in what form?
In any setting excessive egotism is bad. I don't need to manufacture a god, a heaven and a hell to tell me that.
Who said anything about being excessive? I didn't.
Are you saying that putting Heaven and God first in your life, i.e., modifying your behavior and thinking to coordinate with christian values, does not diminish the natural impulses/instincts in your person?
If you mean by "diminish", keeping them in check, the answer is "Yes". However, you see that as a bad thing; whereas I do not. As is mentioned in Scripture, there's pleasure in sin for a season. There are many times in life where acting on "natural impulses/instincts" results in short-term pleasure but long-term PAIN and heartache.
-
I know that. And it was that with which I disagree with you.
I admired this man greatly: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/world/europe/03macquarrie.html?fta=y
If you can read his works, I'd recommend it.
The God in which Dr. Macquarrie believed was Being itself, a definition that to him made it meaningless to suggest that God was dead or did not exist.
I like that thought. However for something to exist, it stands out, it is. Where is God and where is Heaven and Hell? They are nowhere b/c they do not exist. They occupy the same plane as unicorns and liberal republicans.
I beg to differ, especially since Paul once persecuted the very group of Christians that he now calls his brothers. He didn’t just make this up, especially given his explanation for his conversion. Furthermore, he spent time with believers in Christ, including two of Jesus’ disciples (Peter and John) and Jesus’ earthly brother, James.
They are believers. Why? B/c they have to be since god, heaven and the like do not exist. Does one have to believe in the Statue of Liberty to verify its existence?
You don't see another guy humping your wife (and, if you're married, I hope that NEVER happens to you) as infidelity?
Is there no sublimation in your universe? Why should I have another guy humping my wife when I'm perfectly able to express the finer points of my lust for her by blind-siding her in the bedroom and having my way?
And, this allegedly suffering occurs in what form?
A denigration of this life. If you modify your behavior to accomodate the demands of a non-existent god to avoid a non-existent hell in order to enter a non-existent heaven, then you are not living according to the demands and rigors of this life. You are denying yourself in favor of the non-existent stuff.
Who said anything about being excessive? I didn't.
I thought your quote was tapping into the psychological underpinning of religion itself: kill the ego and be reborn.
If you mean by "diminish", keeping them in check, the answer is "Yes". However, you see that as a bad thing; whereas I do not. As is mentioned in Scripture, there's pleasure in sin for a season. There are many times in life where acting on "natural impulses/instincts" results in short-term pleasure but long-term PAIN and heartache.
It's not just acting on the natural impulses, it's understanding them and working with them.
-
Usually I feel one should mind their own buisness and let others do as they wish. In this case however, I feel hostility towards Organized religon is justified. It has way too much influence on policy making and simply interferes in issues it has no right to.
-
This thread has been a great read. :)
Over the years, I have seen a consistent pattern of the arguments and issues that both agnostics and atheists take up with Christianity. The arguments and issues are NEVER truly about God and/or a personal relationship with Him. Instead, time and time again, the beef is always with the religion or the practice of Christianity. This is a legitimate argument, because when you look at the the actions of the everyday Christian (myself included) vs. what God's will is for our lives there's plenty of hard evidence to show the hypocrisy and reason for distrust. But even the most scholarly of agnostics and atheists consistently miss is this:
The practice of Christianity IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT of who God is or what God is about. Christianity in it's truest sense only means that a person who believes Jesus Christ to be who he claims to be - God Himself acknowledges human imperfections and submits his own will to that of Christ. This is where the personal relationship with God (Father, Son, & Holy Spirit) is the crux of Christianity and NOT the actions of those who believe. Atheists and agnostics only look at the actions of the Christian, which makes total sense when you follow their thought process that there is either no God at all (atheist) or not sure exactly what the "higher power" is all about (agnostic).
-
This thread has been a great read. :)
Over the years, I have seen a consistent pattern of the arguments and issues that both agnostics and atheists take up with Christianity. The arguments and issues are NEVER truly about God and/or a personal relationship with Him. Instead, time and time again, the beef is always with the religion or the practice of Christianity. This is a legitimate argument, because when you look at the the actions of the everyday Christian (myself included) vs. what God's will is for our lives there's plenty of hard evidence to show the hypocrisy and reason for distrust. But even the most scholarly of agnostics and atheists consistently miss is this:
The practice of Christianity IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT of who God is or what God is about. Christianity in it's truest sense only means that a person who believes Jesus Christ to be who he claims to be - God Himself acknowledges human imperfections and submits his own will to that of Christ. This is where the personal relationship with God (Father, Son, & Holy Spirit) is the crux of Christianity and NOT the actions of those who believe. Atheists and agnostics only look at the actions of the Christian, which makes total sense when you follow their thought process that there is either no God at all (atheist) or not sure exactly what the "higher power" is all about (agnostic).
Are you dumb or insane or both?
There is no evidence for your fictional deity; that is the problem. The 'practice' of Christianity is irrelevant; the fact that its core belief system is entirely fallacious is not.
-
Are you dumb or insane or both?
There is no evidence for your fictional deity; that is the problem. The 'practice' of Christianity is irrelevant; the fact that its core belief system is entirely fallacious is not.
Come on, Colossus contributes things to the board in earnest. There's no need to call him names. He's not flaming you.
The psychology of christianity calls for a psychological suicide of the self. The Way of christianity, of Christ's way, takes over naturally after that 'death.'
-
This is easy......."If you don't like it, don't go to it"!!! "If there is a movie, or a TV show at home you don't like, you turn the channel"....!!! :-X Freedom of speech remember???!!!
Another one of those atheists who can't stop talking about something he doesn't believe in. ::)
Bill Maher's Anti-Religion Movie
Friday, August 22, 2008
By Roger Friedman
AP
Bill Maher's Anti-Religion Movie
“Religion is detrimental to the progress of society.” That’s my favorite quote from Bill Maher’s often brilliant, but often unfocused “documentary,” called “Religulous.” It opens in early October right after its debut at the Toronto Film Festival.
The articulate, quick-witted comedian sets out in this film — which was supposed to have been released last Easter — to prove that line is true. Directed by Larry Charles, the man who put "Borat" together so skillfully, "Religulous" is blatant about Maher’s feelings: religion is bad. All religions are bad. They are ruining everything.
If you go for that, then "Religulous" is for you. Unlike Michael Moore, whose controversial films at least allow stories to be told, Maher is not interested in other viewpoints. Rather, "Religulous" is a long Maher spiel that pauses only to underscore his own points.
At first the film is very funny as Maher gently mocks one organized religion after another. He questions just about everything in Catholicism, even though he was raised Catholic. (His mother is Jewish, but threw it all over for the father.) Everything from the Immaculate Conception to crucifixion re-enactments are covered. By the time “Religulous” is over, the faith-seekers in the audience will have scratched Catholic off their possibilities.
Not that the other major religious groups don’t come in for razzing, either. Maher is brutal to Orthodox Jews and just as nasty to Muslims. (He interviews gay Muslims in Amsterdam, a city where he also smokes a lot of pot and finds many easy laughs.) Mormons get it, and so do Scientologists, whom Maher mocks in London’s Hyde Park.
Maher sends up everything outrageous and unusual in religion, cherry-picking the fringe elements wherever he can find them. There’s no question that he’s serious in his endeavors, and for a while following him feels like it’s going to lead somewhere.
Alas, it doesn’t. Unlike "Borat," or even a Moore film, “Religulous” is a dead end. In the last quarter, the laughs peter out as we realize the exploration is pointless. The film concludes with a long, very not funny, tedious speech by Maher — in which he rails against religion — that should clear theaters before the credits start rolling.
Right now you can see a trailer for "Religulous" on LionsGate’s Web site. Interestingly, it’s linked another site called disbelief.net. Obviously, a parody site designed just for the film, disbelief.net is registered to an unknown group in the Cayman Islands. It features the quotes of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, videos from the Church of Scientology Web site and a link to a Christian yoga video collection starring (whatever happened to) ‘Northern Exposure” star Janine Turner.
“Religulous” is a tough call. Will audiences flock to theatres to see it? That depends on just how many atheists there are at the popcorn stand. Maher’s point, that the world would be a better place without any religions, that wars would be eliminated and there would be universal understanding, comes across simultaneously as utopian and cynical.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,408782,00.html
-
This is easy......."If you don't like it, don't go to it"!!! "If there is a movie, or a TV show at home you don't like, you turn the channel"....!!! :-X Freedom of speech remember???!!!
Freedom of speech allows Maher to make a dumb movie and allows me to call his movie a dumb movie. I probably will not watch it. I prefer to be entertained when watching movies and avoid political movies (whatever their slant).
-
Freedom of speech allows Maher to make a dumb movie and allows me to call his movie a dumb movie. I probably will not watch it. I prefer to be entertained when watching movies and avoid political movies (whatever their slant).
most bible beaters will avoid the movie.majority of them iv met actually get offended by others views that differ from there own.
-
most bible beaters will avoid the movie.majority of them iv met actually get offended by others views that differ from there own.
If by "bible beaters" you mean Christians, I have to say your experience is very different from mine. I know lots of Christians and they don't get offended by a contrary viewpoint. In fact, most if not all of the Christians who post on this board don't get offended by different views.
-
With the exception of my grandparents, believers in that shit are idiots.
-
most bible beaters will avoid the movie.majority of them iv met actually get offended by others views that differ from there own.
And, most of the "me-hate-religion" crowd will avoid "Fireproof". What's your point?
-
And, most of the "me-hate-religion" crowd will avoid "Fireproof". What's your point?
actually I plan on seeing it even though it looks like a low budget B movie...like them left behind movies Iv watched as well.you would think that all the money the church takes in they could make a huge blockbuster like the batman or titanic movie.
-
-
-
how come when I put mine up it doesnt show the screen like your?what am I doing wrong
-
I didn't read true the thread. Religions are only created to be a system that keeps the "elite" in control, and the masses, the people, dumb, and living in fear. All religions are falls believes. If you could travel 2000 years in the past to Bethlehem and Jerusalem, you will not find Jesus Christ, because he didn't exist. His story is for example copied from the story of Horus, the Egyptian sun-God. The story of Abraham is also copied from another ancient myth. It's all mythology. Quite entertaining, don't you think?
The fact that I despise religion, doesn't make me an atheist. When the body dies, spirit lives. Consciousness doesn't end there, and it never will.
The Christian believe-system, for example, is very backwards. Is there really a God who will send you to hell, to burn and suffer in all eternity, because you do not love him, and believe in him, but yet he loves you? How sane is that?
People should learn to think for themselves, instead of believing in a repressing religion, "explained" by priests, ministers, imams and so on. Religion will not change this world for the better, because it is a repressing believe-system that keep the masses dumb, and living in fear.
-
I didn't read true the thread. Religions are only created to be a system that keeps the "elite" in control, and the masses, the people, dumb, and living in fear. All religions are falls believes. If you could travel 2000 years in the past to Bethlehem and Jerusalem, you will not find Jesus Christ, because he didn't exist. His story is for example copied from the story of Horus, the Egyptian sun-God. The story of Abraham is also copied from another ancient myth. It's all mythology. Quite entertaining, don't you think?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070907194328AAd6rQc
-
Maher accused of trickery
Bill Maher is accused of tricking people into participating in his documentary "Religulous." Brooke Anderson reports.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/showbiz/2008/10/13/anderson.religulous.cnn
-
Maher accused of trickery
Bill Maher is accused of tricking people into participating in his documentary "Religulous." Brooke Anderson reports.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/showbiz/2008/10/13/anderson.religulous.cnn
Lol, priests, preacher's, imam, etc. trick people everyday into believing religion. ;)
-
Lol, priests, preacher's, imam, etc. trick people everyday into believing religion. ;)
Anyone who deceives people is wrong, whether theist, agnostic or atheist. Bill Maher and the director admitted to being deceptive and admitted to being liars. So much for the so called atheist morality and ethics they brag about all the time.
-
Anyone who deceives people is wrong, whether theist, agnostic or atheist. Bill Maher and the director admitted to being deceptive and admitted to being liars. So much for the so called atheist morality and ethics they brag about all the time.
Lol, televangilists and faith healers scam people all the time, but don't admit it. At least Maher admitted it. And they all knew who Bill Maher is so to be naive that he wouldn't bash or edit their testimonies, well not so smart then huh?
-
Lol, televangilists and faith healers scam people all the time, but don't admit it. At least Maher admitted it. And they all knew who Bill Maher is so to be naive that he wouldn't bash or edit their testimonies, well not so smart then huh?
Yes, those televangelists and faith healers are scammers, thieves and liars too. So because they do it, then it's okay for Maher to do it too?
At least Maher admitted it? Oh, and that makes it okay to you.
-
Yes, those televangelists and faith healers are scammers, thieves and liars too. So because they do it, then it's okay for Maher to do it too?
At least Maher admitted it? Oh, and that makes it okay to you.
Hey he was getting real answers and not "politically correct" answers. Now if that's what's truly in their hearts, then it shouldn't matter.
-
Hey he was getting real answers and not "politically correct" answers. Now if that's what's truly in their hearts, then it shouldn't matter.
Did you watch the CNN interviews that I posted above? Did you hear what those people had to say about Maher's deception, to which he admitted?
You insist on defending deception for financial gain and for fame. I guess to you the end justifies the means.
-
Did you watch the CNN interviews that I posted above? Did you hear what those people had to say about Maher's deception, to which he admitted?
You insist on defending deception for financial gain and for fame. I guess to you the end justifies the means.
You Christians followers are hilarious! People of religion are so deceived it's hilarious. Ironic. Christians think Muslims are wrong and vice versa. Same with any other religion. So who's decieved, you, the Muslims, Buddist's? What's your answer to that loco?
-
You Christians followers are hilarious! People of religion are so deceived it's hilarious. Ironic. Christians think Muslims are wrong and vice versa. Same with any other religion. So who's decieved, you, the Muslims, Buddist's? What's your answer to that loco?
Why do you ask me questions that you already know the answer to? What does this have to do with my post? You insist on defending deception for financial gain and for fame.
-
Why do you ask me questions that you already know the answer to? What does this have to do with my post? You insist on defending deception for financial gain and for fame.
Well, more so I am defending what Maher did because religion is doing the same to people today. It's okay for religion because it's "happy feel good" deception, but Maher was maybe to blunt and that's not a "happy, feel, good" deception.
I have many religious friends and family even though they know I'm an atheist. They're just as bad as I am about sexual jokes, hating murdering criminals, vulgarity, oogling naked women and watching porn, but I don't bring that up with them because I want to keep them as friends even if they break the rules of the faith they avow to.
-
Beach Bum, Why don't you watch the movie yourself and then write your OWN personal criticism or review of the movie?
-
Beach Bum, Why don't you watch the movie yourself and then write your OWN personal criticism or review of the movie?
As I said earlier in the thread:
I probably will not watch it. I prefer to be entertained when watching movies and avoid political movies (whatever their slant).
Not interested. I prefer to highlight what a moron Bill Maher is. And what is worse, he's a moron with a microphone. He's as bad as some of our not-too-bright athletes who are given microphones and a national audience.
-
As I said earlier in the thread:
Not interested. I prefer to highlight what a moron Bill Maher is. And what is worse, he's a moron with a microphone. He's as bad as some of our not-too-bright athletes who are given microphones and a national audience.
I find Maher's stuff very entertaining. The problem you have with him is that he says things that you don't agree with. You want to criticize the movie without ever even watching it.
-
I find Maher's stuff very entertaining. The problem you have with him is that he says things that you don't agree with. You want to criticize the movie without ever even watching it.
Bump for the truth.
-
-
I find Maher's stuff very entertaining. The problem you have with him is that he says things that you don't agree with. You want to criticize the movie without ever even watching it.
How do I say this. There is a word I'm looking for. I think it's "duh." :)
It is true I don't like him because I disagree with his comments. I didn't like the fact he called the 911 terrorists courageous. I didn't like the fact he made fun of Palin's Down Syndrome baby. The guy is an idiot.
And yes I'll criticize the movie without watching it. I don't need to watch it. Just like I don't need to watch chick flicks to know I don't like them.
But just to keep things in perspective, he's a standup comic.
-
How do I say this. There is a word I'm looking for. I think it's "duh." :)
It is true I don't like him because I disagree with his comments. I didn't like the fact he called the 911 terrorists courageous. I didn't like the fact he made fun of Palin's Down Syndrome baby. The guy is an idiot.
And yes I'll criticize the movie without watching it. I don't need to watch it. Just like I don't need to watch chick flicks to know I don't like them.
But just to keep things in perspective, he's a standup comic.
so......how often do you criticize things you know nothing about?half the time?all the time?
-
so......how often do you criticize things you know nothing about?half the time?all the time?
Whenever I feel like it. :)
-
-
Where the fuck have you been?
Jihadist training facilities in Pakistan or something I assume?
Are you planning a Muslim takeover in the UK or something? ;D
-
Another one of those atheists who can't stop talking about something he doesn't believe in. ::)
Bill Maher's Anti-Religion Movie
Friday, August 22, 2008
By Roger Friedman
AP
Bill Maher's Anti-Religion Movie
“Religion is detrimental to the progress of society.” That’s my favorite quote from Bill Maher’s often brilliant, but often unfocused “documentary,” called “Religulous.” It opens in early October right after its debut at the Toronto Film Festival.
The articulate, quick-witted comedian sets out in this film — which was supposed to have been released last Easter — to prove that line is true. Directed by Larry Charles, the man who put "Borat" together so skillfully, "Religulous" is blatant about Maher’s feelings: religion is bad. All religions are bad. They are ruining everything.
If you go for that, then "Religulous" is for you. Unlike Michael Moore, whose controversial films at least allow stories to be told, Maher is not interested in other viewpoints. Rather, "Religulous" is a long Maher spiel that pauses only to underscore his own points.
At first the film is very funny as Maher gently mocks one organized religion after another. He questions just about everything in Catholicism, even though he was raised Catholic. (His mother is Jewish, but threw it all over for the father.) Everything from the Immaculate Conception to crucifixion re-enactments are covered. By the time “Religulous” is over, the faith-seekers in the audience will have scratched Catholic off their possibilities.
Not that the other major religious groups don’t come in for razzing, either. Maher is brutal to Orthodox Jews and just as nasty to Muslims. (He interviews gay Muslims in Amsterdam, a city where he also smokes a lot of pot and finds many easy laughs.) Mormons get it, and so do Scientologists, whom Maher mocks in London’s Hyde Park.
Maher sends up everything outrageous and unusual in religion, cherry-picking the fringe elements wherever he can find them. There’s no question that he’s serious in his endeavors, and for a while following him feels like it’s going to lead somewhere.
Alas, it doesn’t. Unlike "Borat," or even a Moore film, “Religulous” is a dead end. In the last quarter, the laughs peter out as we realize the exploration is pointless. The film concludes with a long, very not funny, tedious speech by Maher — in which he rails against religion — that should clear theaters before the credits start rolling.
Right now you can see a trailer for "Religulous" on LionsGate’s Web site. Interestingly, it’s linked another site called disbelief.net. Obviously, a parody site designed just for the film, disbelief.net is registered to an unknown group in the Cayman Islands. It features the quotes of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, videos from the Church of Scientology Web site and a link to a Christian yoga video collection starring (whatever happened to) ‘Northern Exposure” star Janine Turner.
“Religulous” is a tough call. Will audiences flock to theatres to see it? That depends on just how many atheists there are at the popcorn stand. Maher’s point, that the world would be a better place without any religions, that wars would be eliminated and there would be universal understanding, comes across simultaneously as utopian and cynical.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,408782,00.html
-
Religulous -- Deceiving Its Way into the Creation Museum
Thursday October 9, 2008
(http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/imgs/Bill%20comming%20in.jpg)
The official synopsis for Religulous says that Bill Maher "applies his characteristic honesty" to the subject of faith. Apparently, he has a somewhat selective definition of honesty. I've noted the sleights of hand used with Francis Collins and John Adams.
Consider, too, what they did to the Creation Museum near Cincinnati.
Now, in a documentary on religion, I think it's fair game to probe creationism and the role of "young earth" theology in public policy making. So I can understand why Maher was dying to get his crew inside the Museum and interview the leaders of the Museum. But he faced a problem. As a well known critic of religion, there's no way the Museum would give him free run of the museum. They'd turned down request to appear on Maher's TV show, figuring that they would simply become an object of ridicule.
So, Maher and company tricked them.
First, they secured cooperation by completely concealing Bill Maher's role in the movie. According to representatives of the Museum, on January 30, 2007, they got an email from someone named Bethany Davis. She gushed that "photos of the museum on your website are awe inspiring and we feel that showcasing this amazing museum to a broad audience would add to spreading the word of Answers In Genesis."The "documentary" would "explore the cultural landscape of the United States through highlighting religious centers, historical sites and key religious experts." They noted that the "producers involved have worked on various projects for CBS news, ABC news, Discovery Channel, FX and MSNBC to name a few." (Full email below the fold)
There was no mention of Bill Maher.
According to Ken Ham, the president of the Museum, here's what happened next. On the day of the interview, the crew (but not Maher) showed up at the main entrance, as planned, to interview Ham. He spoke to them about the Museum and gave a tour. Again, no mention of Maher.
After a while, the crew requested to interview Ham in his office. Maher snuck in a side door of the museum (picture, from a security camera, above) and went to Ham's office. Ham says he doesn't get HBO and didn't remember who Maher was. He assumed he was another reporter from the crew. He gave an interview which became the grist for a brutal segment in Religulous.
Ham saw the movie recently and claims, not surprisingly, that Maher left out parts where he was best defending his position. "Their agenda was to mock people," Ham said. "They don't believe in ethics."
Asked to comment on the idea that they tricked the Creation Museum into cooperating, the director, Larry Charles, sent me this statement via email:
"Ken Ham is a media whore. He has cultivated all sorts of media outlets to promote his agenda. Why should he be allowed to get off the hook? Why shouldn't he be asked some tough questions? He has built this quasi-museum to quasi-science, isn't there a journalistic obligation to scrutinize this?
He has gotten a free ride from the media. He is a dangerous man. We don't even know where the money comes from to build that $30 million museum. If Mike Wallace had grilled him for '60 Minutes', we wouldn't be having this conversation. Just because someone doesn't want to talk to us, doesn't mean they shouldn't be talked to."
The ends, in other words, justify the means. Now, as I said at the outset, I think Creation Science is certainly a fair topic for a movie like this. But for a movie that draws blood by accusing religious figures of dishonesty and hypocrisy, it's more than a little ironic that deception was such a central part of their modus operandi.
It would be one thing if Bill Maher marketed this only as a prank-filled comedy. But Religulous claims to be a "documentary" that raises profound questions of life and death. How can we take it seriously as a documentary if it relied so heavily on deceit?
The full email:
Dear Mr. Ken Ham,
My name is Bethany Davis and I am currently working on a documentary for First Word Productions, an independent production company.
Our documentary seeks to explore the cultural landscape of the United States through highlighting religious centers, historical sites and key religious experts. The producers involved have worked on various projects for CBS news, ABC news, Discovery Channel, FX and MSNBC to name a few.
After seeing one of your speaking engagements, and then further researching Answers In Genesis and The Creationist Museum we think you could be an invaluable inclusion in our exploration. Reading through some of your online material, we believe that you and your museum can illustrate Creationism in an insightful and engaging way that will appeal to our audience. We would be especially thrilled to be able to include a guided tour of the Creationist Museum with you. The photos of the museum on your website are awe inspiring and we feel that showcasing this amazing museum to a broad audience would add to spreading the word of Answers In Genesis
I'd love to discuss the details of this project with you further over the phone. I can be reached at
323-860-3553
323-202-7343
or via email. When might be a good time to call and where can I best reach you?
I look forward to hearing from you.
All the Best,
Bethany Davis
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/10/religulous-use-of-deceit-in-ge.html
-
Religulous -- Deceiving Its Way into the Creation Museum
Thursday October 9, 2008
(http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/imgs/Bill%20comming%20in.jpg)
The official synopsis for Religulous says that Bill Maher "applies his characteristic honesty" to the subject of faith. Apparently, he has a somewhat selective definition of honesty. I've noted the sleights of hand used with Francis Collins and John Adams.
Consider, too, what they did to the Creation Museum near Cincinnati.
Now, in a documentary on religion, I think it's fair game to probe creationism and the role of "young earth" theology in public policy making. So I can understand why Maher was dying to get his crew inside the Museum and interview the leaders of the Museum. But he faced a problem. As a well known critic of religion, there's no way the Museum would give him free run of the museum. They'd turned down request to appear on Maher's TV show, figuring that they would simply become an object of ridicule.
So, Maher and company tricked them.
First, they secured cooperation by completely concealing Bill Maher's role in the movie. According to representatives of the Museum, on January 30, 2007, they got an email from someone named Bethany Davis. She gushed that "photos of the museum on your website are awe inspiring and we feel that showcasing this amazing museum to a broad audience would add to spreading the word of Answers In Genesis."The "documentary" would "explore the cultural landscape of the United States through highlighting religious centers, historical sites and key religious experts." They noted that the "producers involved have worked on various projects for CBS news, ABC news, Discovery Channel, FX and MSNBC to name a few." (Full email below the fold)
There was no mention of Bill Maher.
According to Ken Ham, the president of the Museum, here's what happened next. On the day of the interview, the crew (but not Maher) showed up at the main entrance, as planned, to interview Ham. He spoke to them about the Museum and gave a tour. Again, no mention of Maher.
After a while, the crew requested to interview Ham in his office. Maher snuck in a side door of the museum (picture, from a security camera, above) and went to Ham's office. Ham says he doesn't get HBO and didn't remember who Maher was. He assumed he was another reporter from the crew. He gave an interview which became the grist for a brutal segment in Religulous.
Ham saw the movie recently and claims, not surprisingly, that Maher left out parts where he was best defending his position. "Their agenda was to mock people," Ham said. "They don't believe in ethics."
Asked to comment on the idea that they tricked the Creation Museum into cooperating, the director, Larry Charles, sent me this statement via email:
"Ken Ham is a media whore. He has cultivated all sorts of media outlets to promote his agenda. Why should he be allowed to get off the hook? Why shouldn't he be asked some tough questions? He has built this quasi-museum to quasi-science, isn't there a journalistic obligation to scrutinize this?
He has gotten a free ride from the media. He is a dangerous man. We don't even know where the money comes from to build that $30 million museum. If Mike Wallace had grilled him for '60 Minutes', we wouldn't be having this conversation. Just because someone doesn't want to talk to us, doesn't mean they shouldn't be talked to."
The ends, in other words, justify the means. Now, as I said at the outset, I think Creation Science is certainly a fair topic for a movie like this. But for a movie that draws blood by accusing religious figures of dishonesty and hypocrisy, it's more than a little ironic that deception was such a central part of their modus operandi.
It would be one thing if Bill Maher marketed this only as a prank-filled comedy. But Religulous claims to be a "documentary" that raises profound questions of life and death. How can we take it seriously as a documentary if it relied so heavily on deceit?
The full email:
Dear Mr. Ken Ham,
My name is Bethany Davis and I am currently working on a documentary for First Word Productions, an independent production company.
Our documentary seeks to explore the cultural landscape of the United States through highlighting religious centers, historical sites and key religious experts. The producers involved have worked on various projects for CBS news, ABC news, Discovery Channel, FX and MSNBC to name a few.
After seeing one of your speaking engagements, and then further researching Answers In Genesis and The Creationist Museum we think you could be an invaluable inclusion in our exploration. Reading through some of your online material, we believe that you and your museum can illustrate Creationism in an insightful and engaging way that will appeal to our audience. We would be especially thrilled to be able to include a guided tour of the Creationist Museum with you. The photos of the museum on your website are awe inspiring and we feel that showcasing this amazing museum to a broad audience would add to spreading the word of Answers In Genesis
I'd love to discuss the details of this project with you further over the phone. I can be reached at
323-860-3553
323-202-7343
or via email. When might be a good time to call and where can I best reach you?
I look forward to hearing from you.
All the Best,
Bethany Davis
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/10/religulous-use-of-deceit-in-ge.html
This is why Bill Maher is one of my favorite mentors! Brilliant! Sneaky but brilliant! Also, before everyone gets flustered please consider for a moment that Bill's dishonesty doesn't make religion any less silly and great fun to sit and laugh at with some tasty popcorn.
-
-
good interviews.
-
Law enforcement tricks criminals into giving up info they wouldn't had they known they were cops. I really see no difference here.
-
Law enforcement tricks criminals into giving up info they wouldn't had they known they were cops. I really see no difference here.
So now we Christians are all criminals? ::)
-
So now we Christians are all criminals? ::)
not all of you.
-
So now we Christians are all criminals? ::)
It was an example of using tactics to get info/give up info that you can't get voluntarily. Come loco you know that's not what I meant.
-
It was an example of using tactics to get info/give up info that you can't get voluntarily. Come loco you know that's not what I meant.
You said you don't really see the difference, so I did not know what you meant.
-
You said you don't really see the difference, so I did not know what you meant.
Well now that you do, why is it such a controversy? If our law enforcement wants straight answers, they use trickery. So if Maher wanted straight answers, why is what he did wrong if what he got was the straight answers? He didn't force them to reply. What's wrong with finding out what really is going on?
-
Well now that you do, why is it such a controversy? If our law enforcement wants straight answers, they use trickery. So if Maher wanted straight answers, why is what he did wrong if what he got was the straight answers? He didn't force them to reply. What's wrong with finding out what really is going on?
Now that I do what? He can lie, cheat, deceive, and commit all kinds of dishonest acts if he wants to. I don't care. He is being a hypocrite because he claimed to be honest when he is not, and because he is doing the very same thing that he criticises religious people for.
You see nothing wrong with this, I get it. But I disagree. This is wrong. He needs to either be honest, or shut up and stop criticizing those he accuses of dishonesty.
It doesn't matter anyway because all he cares about is money and fame. He just wants to be funny and doesn't care about honesty, no matter how much he says he does care.
-
Now that I do what? He can lie, cheat, deceive, and commit all kinds of dishonest acts if he wants to. I don't care. He is being a hypocrite because he claimed to be honest when he is not, and because he is doing the very same thing that he criticises religious people for.
You see nothing wrong with this, I get it. But I disagree. This is wrong. He needs to either be honest, or shut up and stop criticizing those he accuses of dishonesty.
It doesn't matter anyway because all he cares about is money and fame. He just wants to be funny and doesn't care about honesty, no matter how much he says he does care.
Morality lies within the beholder. I'm more than sure that there are MANY church congregations that don't give everyone the "honest" truth with what goes on with donated money (hence scandals), and the political decisions when it comes to whom are board members and not.
I respect that you disagree, but to think that just because Christians are followers of God that no scandals and dishonesty are looming about, would be naive. I have Christian friends right now that are "sinning" and being dishonest to their loved ones. One who goes to church that is eying a female in our gym, but stays with his wife because he doesn't want to hurt the relationship he has with his son. Even told me that once the son is graduated from high school, he's leaving his wife. But in his mind, I don't think he feels he's being dishonest. He's just doing what he feels he needs to do.
No one in the world is really honest. Everyone has skeletons in the closet. It's just that they're not out there for everyone to see.
-
Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for there religious convictions.