Basically, it's a film featuring Bill Maher making fun of various religious beliefs. I think you can see where this is going.
As you can see from the trailer, the documentary mostly consists of Bill Maher openly mocking various religious people. While this will surely offend some people, it's actually an aspect of the film that I don't take particular issue with. I don't endorse acting like a jerk to people but when push comes to shove I think people should be able to handle being called stupid without getting too indignant. Maher's actions differ from PZ Myers' ("crackergate" guy) in that Maher is seeking to "call a spade a spade" (with a focus on being amusing) while Myers' was going out of his way to piss people off (Maher's actions may well piss people off but that is not the motivation for his documentary).
On the other hand, there are two main things about this documentary that I strongly dislike (both stem from the fact that Larry Charles, the director of Borat, directed the movie). First off, they tricked people into having interviews with Maher by lying about the title of the documentary to make it seem more neutral. The people eventually found out that they were being mocked but the fact remains that they were tricked into doing an interview that they would not have done otherwise. Ben Stein's documentary Expelled used the same dirty tactic (as did Borat). Even worse, and this is my main issue with Borat, the documentary seeks to create comedy at the extreme expense of those featured. I know that I would be absolutely mortified to be a laughing stock in a film like that. Holding a silly belief is not reason enough to publicly humiliate a person.
Thankfully the documentary is only being played in two theatres for a week.
EDIT: Bill Maher on Larry King. Okay, the clips they showed were actually pretty funny However, that doesn't change my last two points.
posted
Myers' can't escape the fact that pissing people off was crucial to his overall "demonstration."
I'm assuming you're talking about Myers' motivations for desecrating the eucharist (you're current post doesn't make any sense in the context of what I posted).
EDIT: Just to expand, Myers' would not have done what he did if people did not get pissed off whereas Maher's overall point in Religulous stands independent of whether or not it makes people mad.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't people have to sign something that says "I'm allowing them to do whatever they want with footage they take of me."
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe they signed the form before finding out that Maher would be the one interviewing them? Dagonee can probably lend some insight.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Starsnuffer: Don't people have to sign something that says "I'm allowing them to do whatever they want with footage they take of me."
I doubt it. I think you sign a thing that pretty much releases the producers from having to consult with you on what the final product will be.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My impression was that Myers was responding to people that were already pissed off out of proportion to an earlier event. The pissing more people off was just gravy.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then why did he drive a nail through some eucharist crackers, throw them in the trash, and post pictures? His whole point depended on getting a reaction out of people.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maher calling a spade a spade isn't so different from Myers calling a cracker a cracker, in my eyes.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Threads: but when push comes to shove I think people should be able to handle being called stupid without getting too indignant.
Seriously? We live in a country where I am allowed to believe whatever I want without persecution. Bill has the right under the first amendment to say I am stupid for believing the way I do, but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to get upset by what he says.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: Maher calling a spade a spade isn't so different from Myers calling a cracker a cracker, in my eyes.
In a previous post I said "Just to expand, Myers' would not have done what he did if people did not get pissed off whereas Maher's overall point in Religulous stands independent of whether or not it makes people mad." What do you think is wrong with that explanation or what am I missing?
quote:Originally posted by brojack17:
quote:Originally posted by Threads: but when push comes to shove I think people should be able to handle being called stupid without getting too indignant.
Seriously? We live in a country where I am allowed to believe whatever I want without persecution. Bill has the right under the first amendment to say I am stupid for believing the way I do, but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to get upset by what he says.
I didn't say anything about rights to be upset and I'm not sure why you would particularly care what Bill Maher thinks about your beliefs.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You did say something about the right to be upset (or too idignant) and I don't care what Bill Maher thinks. You posted a thread and I responded. I've watched his show and he is fairly amusing. My issue was with your comment about people not being offended when someone calls them stupid.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Then why did he drive a nail through some eucharist crackers, throw them in the trash, and post pictures? His whole point depended on getting a reaction out of people.
Just to be clear, you're pluralizing here where you don't need to.
It was one nail, one cracker and one picture.
Included with the cracker and also pierced by the nail were ripped out pages of an english translation of The Koran and Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion.
Sorry, just a stickler for accuracy. Carry on. Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I didn't say anything about rights to be upset and I'm not sure why you would particularly care what Bill Maher thinks about your beliefs."
Because disrespect of large populations leads to dehumanization. That can lead to other things that are not so harmless. I am afraid that today's Atheist Evangelicals are slowly paving a way for Mao and Stalinist justifications.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Because disrespect of large populations leads to dehumanization. That can lead to other things that are not so harmless. I am afraid that today's Atheist Evangelicals are slowly paving a way for Mao and Stalinist justifications.
That has to be a record for the largest leap of logic I have seen in a long time.
So ridiculing leads to genocide, now?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: You did say something about the right to be upset (or too idignant) and I don't care what Bill Maher thinks.
No I didn't. I said "I think people should be able to handle being called stupid without getting too indignant."
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: You did say something about the right to be upset (or too idignant) and I don't care what Bill Maher thinks.
No I didn't. I said "I think people should be able to handle being called stupid without getting too indignant."
See, I don't agree with you. I "should" be able to get mad if someone calls me stupid. Whether it be for religious reasons or not.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Then why did he drive a nail through some eucharist crackers, throw them in the trash, and post pictures? His whole point depended on getting a reaction out of people.
He followed through on what he said he'd do in his initial response. *Not* doing it would have been pretty awkward after making such a big deal about it initially and could have been interpreted as capitulation to the people issuing death threats.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
People were making threats on his life? If anybody can be called stupid, it's those people. They're only proving any point he's trying to make, if any. I've read the Bible(since we're talking about eucharists here), and I believe it prohibits this kind of behavior. . .
[ August 21, 2008, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bill Mahr is cherry-picking interviews with people he disagrees with in order to make fun of them? *yawn*
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sounds fun, I'll keep an eye on it to see if they do a wider release, DVD, streaming video, or such.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: You did say something about the right to be upset (or too idignant) and I don't care what Bill Maher thinks.
No I didn't. I said "I think people should be able to handle being called stupid without getting too indignant."
See, I don't agree with you. I "should" be able to get mad if someone calls me stupid. Whether it be for religious reasons or not.
What does that have to do with constitutional rights? You're using "should" in a completely different manner than I was. Nothing in my comment implied that you shouldn't be able to get mad. I was just expressing my opinion that you shouldn't get mad.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It saddens me that evangelical atheists are choosing to marginalize and even make enemies of moderate and liberal religious people who are generally on their "side" about most matters of public policy. I'm not sure what they think they gain by it other than the opportunity to feel smug.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shallow as it may seem, I've never been able to get past Bill Maher's looks. He just seems hastily put together.
That, and the years I glimpsed Politically Incorrect his public persona came off more as plaintive and needy than funny and smart. Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: Maher calling a spade a spade isn't so different from Myers calling a cracker a cracker, in my eyes.
In a previous post I said "Just to expand, Myers' would not have done what he did if people did not get pissed off whereas Maher's overall point in Religulous stands independent of whether or not it makes people mad." What do you think is wrong with that explanation or what am I missing?
Well, you're sort of comparing intentions to consequences there. I think both men have something to say about faith and religious belief, and both men prefer to do so in ways which they know will shock and anger people. Which I don't think is always unwarranted. I just also prefer to call a spade a spade. Either way, it's not a big deal to me. It was just a quibble, really. Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It saddens me that evangelical atheists are choosing to marginalize and even make enemies of moderate and liberal religious people who are generally on their "side" about most matters of public policy. I'm not sure what they think they gain by it other than the opportunity to feel smug.
Many atheists think that the moderate religious people open the door for extremists, because of the nature of religious faith, and the level of respect it is often granted.
I agree with your point though, we are a bit too quick to throw away allies. The new atheist movement needs to mature some. The good news is that many atheists (though not the whole of the movement of course) are quite young, so I would expect a good deal of maturity to arrive naturally.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair, the "new athiest movement" isn't as homogenous as you might think. It has mature proponents, and those that are rather more... how shall I put this diplomatically, direct than others.
Posts: 496 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it's homogenous. I do think a majority of the new atheist population base are rather recent "converts." The type of people who tend to be more confrontational, in my experience.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
True. Also it seems to be a good time to "stand up and be counted". But that doesn't necessarily mean act like a jacka**.
It disheartens me.
On the other hand, I was referred to as "agnostic" recently, and felt the need to assert that I am actually quite athiest, after years of politely remaining silent. Even though I didn't say "and you are wrong about your beliefs", that was the way it was taken, as if my disbelief was in direct confrontation to theirs. It is frustrating.
I see great things being put forward, and some not so great things as well. This film seems to be one of the latter.
Posts: 496 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It saddens me that evangelical atheists are choosing to marginalize and even make enemies of moderate and liberal religious people who are generally on their "side" about most matters of public policy. I'm not sure what they think they gain by it other than the opportunity to feel smug.
Please.
Teaching sound science in science class is about as much of a no-brainer of an issue as there is.
And there is precious little that moderate Christians have ever done to defend it.
Do you think that any anti-evolution bill would pass if moderate Christians told lawmakers "Hey, we are 70% of your constituancy, and this is really stupid"? Not a chance.
So if moderate Christians won't rouse themselves to take a stand on an issue where the facts are so clearly on one side, there is no hope of convincing them to take a desired stand on anything else.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Juxtapose: I'm not sure thats really all that true. IIRC, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens both decided to be atheists as children. PZ Myer's Wikipedia article indicates that he decided before confirmation (whatever that is). I can't find a reference to Bill Maher's views, but they go back to at least 2002 and probably more.
All that I think that is occurring is that pre-existing atheists are becoming more vocal. I'm not even sure that the "evangelical" label is all that useful since Richard Dawkins in particular has often stated that his goal is not to convert people, but to create an atmosphere where pre-existing atheists can "come out of the closet" using pretty much that metaphor.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots ... I'm not sure what they think they gain by it other than the opportunity to feel smug.
Sometimes, a spade really is a spade. This seems to pretty much be comedy and entertainment, not a strategic move in a concerted campaign to convert people (as if one really existed anyways).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think juxtapose was speaking more specifically of those who really are recent "converts." The Rational Response people, for instance.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was, but I definitely don't discount the population of people who were always skeptical, but never felt safe admitting it. In many situations, I think that population overlaps with the "recent convert" population. There's no need for them to be mutually exclusive.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It saddens me that evangelical atheists are choosing to marginalize and even make enemies of moderate and liberal religious people who are generally on their "side" about most matters of public policy. I'm not sure what they think they gain by it other than the opportunity to feel smug.
Please.
Teaching sound science in science class is about as much of a no-brainer of an issue as there is.
And there is precious little that moderate Christians have ever done to defend it.
Do you think that any anti-evolution bill would pass if moderate Christians told lawmakers "Hey, we are 70% of your constituancy, and this is really stupid"? Not a chance.
So if moderate Christians won't rouse themselves to take a stand on an issue where the facts are so clearly on one side, there is no hope of convincing them to take a desired stand on anything else.
You mean other than the moderate religious people who are science teachers? Or who vote democrat?
I admit that we are not a loud as the evangelicals. We are not, as a group, particularly "roused" - hence moderate. Yes, we should be louder. Evangelical atheists lumping us all together makes that more difficult rather than less. It feeds the idea that "religious" means "votes conservative" and that politicians need to cater to that.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Juxapose: Hmmmm, it was kind of unclear to me who you and kmbboots were referring to. If you're in fact referring to a different population of atheists than those represented by the men that I had listed, then we are in fact talking about different people. (Which is perfectly ok ... just different)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: You did say something about the right to be upset (or too idignant) and I don't care what Bill Maher thinks.
No I didn't. I said "I think people should be able to handle being called stupid without getting too indignant."
See, I don't agree with you. I "should" be able to get mad if someone calls me stupid. Whether it be for religious reasons or not.
What does that have to do with constitutional rights? You're using "should" in a completely different manner than I was. Nothing in my comment implied that you shouldn't be able to get mad. I was just expressing my opinion that you shouldn't get mad.
So what right do you have to say what I "should" or should not do. That is none of your business. I don't have a problem with the movie. It is well within his right to make it. I may or may not chose to watch it, but for you to say I should not get mad when someone calls me stupid is pretty ridiculous.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It saddens me that evangelical atheists are choosing to marginalize and even make enemies of moderate and liberal religious people who are generally on their "side" about most matters of public policy. I'm not sure what they think they gain by it other than the opportunity to feel smug.
Please.
Teaching sound science in science class is about as much of a no-brainer of an issue as there is.
And there is precious little that moderate Christians have ever done to defend it.
Do you think that any anti-evolution bill would pass if moderate Christians told lawmakers "Hey, we are 70% of your constituancy, and this is really stupid"? Not a chance.
So if moderate Christians won't rouse themselves to take a stand on an issue where the facts are so clearly on one side, there is no hope of convincing them to take a desired stand on anything else.
You've got to be kidding me.
Kitzmiller v. Dover in and of itself has tons of examples of your "moderate christians" standing up against exactly what you describe -- the judge, several plantiffs, the expert witness for the plantiffs, the ordinary citizens of the conservative town who voted out practically the entire school board (and that's just what I can think of off hand). It wasn't limited to people of faith, but it was entirely populated by people who were reasonable and willing to take a stand.
If you're going to make blanket statements about 70% of the nation's population, you'd better have some solid research to back it up.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: That is none of your business.
What you do is generally none of my business but I wasn't talking specifically about you. I was making a generalization about a behavior that I don't think is particularly productive.
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: I may or may not chose to watch it, but for you to say I should not get mad when someone calls me stupid is pretty ridiculous.
I think there's a good case to be made that getting angry over something like that is unproductive. Getting angry creates stress and brings attention to the documentary. Ignoring it and remaining calm keeps you* in a better mood and lets the documentary shrivel up and die.
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: If you're going to make blanket statements about 70% of the nation's population, you'd better have some solid research to back it up.
A significant chunk of that 12% is atheists. I know that some moderate Christians are against the teaching of ID in public schools but most aren't. swbarnes' generalization holds.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to mention, there's a pretty long list of media going back decades, possibly centuries portraying the religious as stupid (or vice versa). So getting, angry ... not so useful.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: If you're going to make blanket statements about 70% of the nation's population, you'd better have some solid research to back it up.
A significant chunk of that 12% is atheists. I know that some moderate Christians are against the teaching of ID in public schools but most aren't. swbarnes' generalization holds.
Because of one poll? A poll whose questions are not only incredibly vague, but seemingly (in my only slightly educated opinion) biased toward an impossible dichotomy between God and Science? (a dichotomy that Ken Miller rants about way better than I)
1. Looking at the numbers on table 2, the number of people who think human beings developed from earlier species is much higher when they are not forced to choose between God and science, like what it does in Table 5-6. If given only these choices:
Human beings evolved from earlier species. Human beings were created directly by God. Human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them. Not sure/Decline to answer
The question is *the same* as Table 2, the only difference are the references to God or a Designer. I happen to think 1 and 2 are both correct, and not mutually exclusive, so after stewwing over the question I'd probably be an outlier with "decline to answer". How many believers would choose God over science, if forced into making the choice in the first place?
But those tables make for too nice of a headline to worry about inherent bias in the questioning, I guess.
2. "Please tell me whether you agree or disagree with the following statement: Darwin’s theory of evolution is proven by fossil discoveries"
*WHICH* theory? Natural Selection? Common Descent? Sexual Selection? The poll doesn't say. Just saying "Darwin's Theory of Evolution" is like saying "Plato's Theory of Philosophy". But mentioning only Darwin himself just raises red flags with the uneducated and those who only follow the politics of the situation. It doesn't seem to be analyzing the science at all.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
However, that doesn't change my last two points.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
