RELIGULOUS--Bill Maher

[OctoberMist]

boagie said:

Welcome to the forum OctoberMist, glad to see you getting your feet wet!!

I am indeed doing that.

Well, I have not seen the movie myself, I have seen the trailer. I would think it goes without saying that it would be one sided just as any religious production is one sideded.

That may be, but if so, it begs the question: how is the movie more ethical or legitimate than any actual religious film?

The impression that Bill M is trying create with the film is that his message is somehow more 'legitimate'. Yet, if he uses the same non-objective approach as the people that he opposes, then he is guilty of hypocrisy, isn't he?

I am curious as to your belief system, and how that might effect your interpretation, are you a believer?

A "believer"? Everyone believes in something do they not? =)

If by that you mean, do I follow a religion, no I do not. I have a personal conception of God and a relationship with this God, but it does not conform to traditional depictions utilized by most existing religions. There is a touch of Sikhism, Reform Judaism, Quakerism, Unitarian Universalism, Mahayana Buddhism, and others, but no direct adherence to any per se.

Your analogy is probable right on, because the movie is intended to underline how dangerous religion is in our time.

Therein lies another fallacy. It is not religion that is dangerous; it is unrestrained and irrational application that is "dangerous". But that's beside the point because the movie only shows more the most extreme cases of it and does not give an accurate depiction of the religions it portrays. -- AND it makes an even bigger generalization by trying to portray all religion based on a few.

Anybody who studies logic can see how this simply doesn't work. To use another analogy: This would be like showing several black murderers and then concluding: All black people are dangerous murderers.

We perhaps will get some input from others whom have seen the movie. I think if you are religious and go to see the movie, the evaluation is perdictable, we all approach these things with our own biases in place, if your making this statement and indeed you are an atheist, then we might consider it an objective view-------otherwise your just another crazy----------just kidding!!

I know you're kidding, but it's not a question of whether one is an atheist, a theist, deist, or any of those designations. It's simply a question of logic.
=)

[boagie]

OctoberMist,

Well, we certainly know where you stand on this, it will be interesting to get a broad balanced consenses on this, which might be difficult to do with the number of believers here. One aspect I like about your post is it does not knock one down with its emotional investment---refreshing!!

[OctoberMist]

boagie said:

One aspect I like about your post is it does not knock one down with its emotional investment---refreshing!!

Thank you. It's a developed skill.. It took me a bit to master it and I still have slips occasionally, but in general I try to be objective. =)

[Solace]

One aspect I like about your post is it does not knock one down with its emotional investment---refreshing!!

Because making fun of other people's beliefs ISN'T an emotional investment boagie? And surely it's not about knocking others down...

[boagie]

Whitehead said the bible was a distinct example in all of literature, having no sense of humor. Take to church!! If you do not want your faith criticized your in the wrong place. Personally I find adults with imaginary friends humorous!!

[Didymos Thomas]

Same Whitehead who worked with Russell? I'm not sure I'd say there is no sense of humor in the Bible, but there is certainly a dearth of humor.

[Theaetetus]

Originally Posted by Solace

Love is (very) often irrational. So should we laugh at anyone devoted to that to?

I question this. Is love itself irrational or are people's conceptions of it what gives its irrational character. I am going with the latter, and, thus, I think it would be perfectly ok to laugh at people devoted to irrational foundational basis for love.

Anyway, that had nothing to do with the topic, but many something is something statements need serious examination.

[Didymos Thomas]

Love is a large word. To discuss whether or not love is irrational we would have to define the term - do we mean romantic love? love for family and friends? or some sort of larger, humanistic love?

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by Theaetetus

I question this. Is love itself irrational or are people's conceptions of it what gives its irrational character. I am going with the latter, and, thus, I think it would be perfectly ok to laugh at people devoted to irrational foundational basis for love.

Anyway, that had nothing to do with the topic, but many something is something statements need serious examination.

ON LOVE: If it had to be one of the two, I'd side with you.

That being said, I'm not sure classifying Love as Rational or Not is a fair classification. Love - to me - has no basis in rationality (in the same light that love has no basis in ultraviolet light, or in peanut butter either). So to say it is or is not seems juxtaposed.

ON LAUGHING: On the movie, and laughing at any "irrational basis", I think you hit on something important here.

Occasionally, I think it a good thing to be able to laugh at some aspects of our own behaviors and beliefs. My wife's got a favorite saying along these lines: "Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves for they will never cease to be amused".

Good stuff - Thanks

[boagie]

Try to stay on topic guys, I know Maher's is a rub for believers. Have any of you that would sidetrack the topic seen the movie? As far as my response to OctoberMist, did you hear me give him a hard time? I would interpret his finding god through the practice of humility and compassion as coming to his full humanity, the fact that he wishes to infer an imaginary friend in high office, to me is simply his preference for the irrational, but Yeah, he was not the topic was he!