Religulous - Review

You know what? I think you all have way too much time on your hands. The only way you will ever know for sure if God exists is when you croak.....end of story. Stop arguing and get a life.....with religion or without...It's your choice.

@graphicartist2k5, the logic is terrible and doesn't help.

I for one am a person that believes in a higher power and I've seen this movie. I guess you could say I've come to be religious from always questioning things around me.

But I too, don't think Atheism is the aim of this movie either. I think its just a nice vocal point to show that people don't question or think about what they do on a everyday basis, and this movie in particular hits the nail in the head with religion.

Its a fundamental truth about humans, we all want to belong to "something", but in our want to be part of a group, do we relinquish our right as humans to think for ourselves? Free thinking is supposed to be something that's attributed as a gift from god, but few religions allow their followers to question their faith. And since they don't question their faith, they don't know what it means, what it does, or how or why its even there.

The arguments about evolution versus creation are silly to me, because neither can truly prove their point. The further you go back in time, the harder it is for the average religious zealot or science guru to explain what exactly happened in the beginning. If you go back to what was discussed about how the universe itself was made, you have several questions that you'll be hard pressed to answer, like, What exactly started the big bang? How did the materials come together? How were the materials for the big bang created? Where did THOSE things come from? Did they just suddenly materialize out of nothing? But with science, that can't logically be possible, or we would already have perpetual motion machines all around us. But with an power beyond that of humans it can be.

The point of this documentary isn't to bring down those that believe in God, nor is it to promote atheism. Its to promote THINKING. I recommend it to all people. Its time to wake up, and turn our brains BACK ON! Praying to a WALL isn't going to help and neither will putting a blind fold on and saying "nothing is there."

Another reason Atheism "seems" right is because folks in organized "sane" religious do things so crazy. The pope with his gold robes and dunce hat? Really? Is that really following the idea of Jesus, who was supposedly to be a lowly carpenter? Wake up people!

I liked the movie and it was a great laugh. But its not likely to make people lose there faith and become agnostics or atheists. They will just get angry and say that this is not what their religion is about. But i dont think the movie was intended for that purpose. Many other well known atheists and agnostics like dawkins and hitchens seem to dispize religion to much to get there points across to the believers. Even they are many atheists hero's i personally think their too blunt. They should be more sensitive to the views of such a large group or it will just work in the disadvantage of atheism.

Ok heres my attempt to convert people to atheism (which isnt a belief or a religion)

Im an atheist. My belief is that religion is likely to be wrong about reality and that beeing an atheist (without a capital a) gives you a far greater ability to see atleast a tiny part of the reality we live in. I think the biggest problem with many religions is that they claim there is a devine creator responsible for the universe and that we are here for the purpose to follow his rules, admit our sins and reconize his existance on faith alone.

Beeing an atheist makes you wonder about reality and ask questions that many religeous people havent even thought about since when they were a child. Einstein (an atheist) made his greatest theorys by making up the most basic childish thought experiments. Like what would happen if u were in an elevator at the speed of light. And you would shine a flashlight. Would the light bend... would u even see the light? He showed us things that are truly mind boggling like the existance of curved space and and that space and time are just relative instead of fixed.

The reason is stopped believing is by daring to ask myself childish questions again about my faith. If the creation story, the very first book of the bible isnt even to be taken literally. Should i take any other story literally...? Have a man really lived inside the belly of a whale? Did someone really wakeup from the dead? The worldwide flood? Why arent the dino's mentioned in the bible? What about all the other different religions in this world? Does everyone who believes in god really have a telepathic link to a supreme beeing that loves u? IS there actually any proof that any of this is right?
The world we live in just doesnt work this way. Could the complete absence of proof for a god and the untru scientific claims the bible makes actually mean that its just a bunch of supersticious b.s.? Well iam pretty sure it is and i think we could just as well live in the matrix as in the kind of reality a particular ancient text discribes.

Evolution teaches us how complex things come from less complex things and thats how the whole universe works. A simple superenergy splitting off in the forces and laws we know. Energy condensing into matter. The simplest of atoms beeing compressed into heavyer elements inside stars. Scientists dont even wonder anymore if these things happen. They know it. It may seem like the universe has just been created for us but its actually the other way around. We are a product of our environment and thats why it seems so. Millions of years of evolution caused us to be perfectly adapted. And by the way a biologist could show us many different things in our body that arent all that perfect if they were designed by an engineer. Were just a tiny spec in the vastness of space where the conditions were just right for some of the highest forms of complexity to form.

And if u want to believe that ur god just set off the big bang and stands on the sideline watching us sin. Then i ask u this.

What makes u think a god did it and specifically the type of god that ur particular religion discribes?
Do you really think that because science (humans) dont know what was before space and time that thats a proof for god?
Are u better then people with another religion because u know the tru path to salvation? Are you just lucky to have been born in ur part of the world or did god put u there cause he wanted u to believe in him?

'Look at the book of Genesis. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" - modern scientists refer to the concept of "space/time" and there it is right in the first page of the Bible. Time - In the beginning - the beginning of what? The beginning of time. Space - Heavens and earth. There is definitely a way to approach the Bible intellectually for those who don't let their prejudices blind them from it'

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth

That is just the most basic of sentences. Do you really believe that this has any relevance to the theory of relativity? Or any other theory for that matter?

I still believe it sounds like the words of ancient men who would believe such a thing along with talking snakes and people living in whales.

Why does it matter if we believe in God or not believe in God? Fact is, we don't have a clue who we are, what we are, why we are here, what happens after death, if there even is a "death", if everyone sees the universe or the color red for that matter the same way, what created the earth, solar system, universe, space, how long its all been here, what made it all happen, what was before that, and before that, and the origin of everything.

So i guess my point and Bill Maher's point is there is some fuckin thing out there that can make sense of it all, in which some people call it "God". We are all still much too primitive to make any decisions as to what it is or isn't at this point in time.

Mike,

What happened before the beginning of time? and before that? and before that? etc.. etc.. etc..

An excerpt from the the complete review from an honest Christian writer:

"The bottom line is this. Religulous basically states that the religious are hypocritical, judgmental, intolerant, uneducated in personal beliefs, free of personal experiences, interested in marketing a product and downright selfish – and you know what? It is absolutely right!"

The entire article can be found here: http://desh412.blogspot.com

One thing that I would like to point out is that many intellectuals in attempting to deny the truth of the Christian faith and resurrection of Jesus Christ have become believers themselves. If evidence were weighed the same way it is in a court trial, the resurrection of Jesus Christ would be considered an absolute fact of history. There is more reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead then there is to believe that George Washington ever existed.
Next, I would like to say that fulfilled Bible prophecy is an incredible testament to the truth that God knows the end from the beginning and has put it in the Bible and anybody who tries to pass off the Bible as "fables" without examining prophecy is being fairly dishonest. The book of Daniel, and other prophets, when properly examined, describes much of what is going on in our world today and should not be ignored. Daniel 9 and Psalm 22 predict the crucifixtion of Jesus Christ (100% verifiable by historical fact) years before it happened. The rise of the Muslim world can clearly be seen in the book of Ezekiel, but nobody every seems to talk about that.

Look at the book of Genesis. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" - modern scientists refer to the concept of "space/time" and there it is right in the first page of the Bible. Time - In the beginning - the beginning of what? The beginning of time. Space - Heavens and earth. There is definitely a way to approach the Bible intellectually for those who don't let their prejudices blind them from it.

The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God."

Man is fallible. The Bible was written by those men. Logically, that means that the Bible is fallible. Thus, one cannot believe ANY of the Bible.

I have been to Meggido, where Bill starts out in the movie. It is not a worthless pile. There is a water cistern and delivery system that predates king Solomon. There are over 26 separate layers in the "Tel", or hill composed of layers of cities built atop one another. Would anyone call rome worthless?

Bill is a bitter man, he can't even be in a relationship with a woman his age...he dates teenagers. He smokes pot, and literally thinks his excrement doesn't stink... he once said it is because he is a vegetarian.

Please don't take what I have to say personally, I know I'm not going to change any minds, and mine is just another opinion. One which I'm certain many would consider a bit radical.

Let me first say thank you to those atheists who have made logical arguments here, and to those religious believers who have at least made an attempt at logic and actually understood what they were writing about. *Take a stand* in particular made some intelligent points if there are such things for religion.

Decent please consider what you just said, "blindly leftist college students" if they're in college they have to at least have some intelligence. I once read an interesting study (which I wish I could cite specifically but I've not been able to find it again) showed that the more time a person spends in college (furthering their education, not failing classes) the more liberal they tend to be and the less tightly they tend to hold on to religious views.

I myself am an Atheist and I have many problems with the idea of god, many of which have already been mentioned. But I have even more of a problem with organized religion as I will explain below. My view is that religion and the man invented idea of god is actually detrimental to the advancement of mankind.

Just thought I'd throw in that I loved Religulous, and thank Bill Maher for saying the things that everyone else seems to be scared to say.

This is a short essay I wrote for school in response to a prompt which posed the question of whether science should include a discussion of religious creationism versus evolution. Needless to say I jumped on the opportunity to expand this small opening into a discussion of religion as a whole. Again let me reiterate, please do not take personal offense to the things I say. I understand there are intelligent points to be made from both sides of the argument and the examples I use don't necessarily categorize any group as a whole, however I picked the strongest examples to illustrate my points. I made a lot of harsh stabs at groups, ideas, and individuals, most were either for humor or in order to drive a point home. Some however belong to the points themselves and are only harsh to those reading from a closed-minded perspective.



Evolution vs. Religious Creationism

The idea that science should include a discussion of religious creationism versus evolution is absolutely absurd. Evolution has the total backing of scientific evidence. The only reason it is still classified as a theory and not a scientific principle is the resistance of the Religious Right (or should that be Reich?). Conversely, creationism is a small piece of a long book of stories which were written down by people, who in modern times would be committed to a psychiatric institution as paranoid schizophrenics (or nominated as the republican candidate for vice president). Those who support creationism would like to see my beloved country as a Christian nation. This concept is explicitly against the intentions of the founding fathers. This would be reason enough to take advantage of my dual citizenship and escape this country and the persecution and restriction of freedom that would be accompanied by such recognition. Religion is the single most dangerous force in the world; it divides and incites violence more than any other socio-political factor. So why would any logical person want to perpetuate its grasp on society?

In the scientific world, evolution is an accepted fact. It can be traced in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and through genetic analysis (DNA). It is agreed upon throughout the world’s scientific community with little variation, as opposed to creationism in which there is a different version for nearly every religion. According to the Times Online in an article about the British government’s response to a teacher who wanted to teach creationism in school, “National curriculum guidelines state that creationism has no place in science lessons. The Government says that if it is raised by students, teachers should discuss how creationism differs from evolution, say that it is not scientific theory and that further discussion should be saved for religious classes.� (The Times Online, no author cited.) Most civilized countries take a similar view, and the fact that this question is still on the table speaks to the weakness of this country’s academic system, and the frightening strength of the religious radicals.

By comparison, creationism has no scientific evidence at all. It hinges solely on the say-so of the Bible, a book of stories which tend to be as schizophrenic and contradictory as the Bronze Age nomads who wrote them down. Suggesting that the Bible is written documentation or proof of creationism is like suggesting that the works of Theodor Seuss Geisel (Dr. Seuss) should be taken as the same for the existence of the Lorax (although I have heard rumor of the Nader, another mythical beast who speaks for the trees). Creationism is completely unsupported and like most religious ideas is unsafe at any speed. To creationists I therefore say, “see me again when you have real proof and can argue in a non-circular fashion.� I won’t hold my breath.

This country was founded on the principle of religious tolerance. However, I think it is time we stop tolerating religion. It is understandable that people do not want to give up ideologies which allow them to lay the blame for their woes on a supreme scapegoat. That is to say, honestly, who wouldn’t rather believe that “when the shit hits the fan� (pardon my French), it is part of some great plan and there is a reason for it. The only people in the real world who can forgive someone for their “sins� are the people who were hurt by their actions. It is far more difficult, however, to look a real person in the eyes and ask for forgiveness than it is to pray to a mental apparition. What modern religions tend to forget with regard to their chosen deity is that many other religions (mostly polytheistic) had come and gone long before these modern insanity clusters were even a twinkle in their schizophrenic founders’ eyes. And to me, one of the many questions this raises is, if God were real and powerful enough to have created the earth in 7 days, what took him so long to pass his word to the earth? It is unfathomable. Then consider how vengeful God is supposed to have been in the Old Testament. I have been told by radical Christians I would burn in hell for being of Jewish heritage unless I accepted Christianity as the one true path, and Jews share the same God as Christians. Why then would such a vengeful and powerful deity have allowed any dissent at all? Ockham’s Razor, paraphrased, says that the simplest explanation is usually the most accurate. There is one simple explanation that answers both of these questions and a great many others which I do not have room to pose here: God is a fictional character!

Religion is the single largest obstacle for progress in the history of mankind. It is bereft of any value or any real positive effect which could not simply be replaced by responsible parenting and teaching of basic morals and ethics. (I think we can all agree it is basically wrong to kill, rape or steal.) Religion serves almost exclusively to divide and incite violence. The world is grossly overpopulated, but stopping the growth of a cluster of cells that cannot possibly even be aware of their own existence, when the mother knows she is not ready to bring a child into the world, is wrong because it is against “God’s� will. Add to that stem cells’ likely ability to cure many of the most debilitating and degenerative diseases in the modern world, but this too is an abomination under the oppressive ideas of religion. Birth control and sex education are unacceptable in Catholicism even though these things would greatly reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies and thus reduce the need for abortions. (Please forgive my sarcasm, but that’s not backwards logic, is it?) It has been said that more people have been killed throughout history in the name of religion than for any other cause. When you consider that nearly every war throughout history was in some way or other about religion, and add to that all the individual murders and terrorist attacks on the premise of religious differences, it’s easy to understand why. Creationism is one small piece of a much larger problem facing society.

So, in reality, rather than simply asking whether creationism has a place in science, isn’t the better question whether religion deserves a place in our future as a global community? I am sure many will call me a radical or a heretic. I will proudly wear these badges of honor, as they represent my willingness to take responsibility for my own actions and my readiness to make my own plan for the future. Humans cling to religion because it is easy for them to do so, and because religious ideas are drilled in from a very early age such that they are a part of a person’s emotional temperament. However, I believe that if even the most religious of people would set aside that emotional connection for a moment, and force themselves to look only at the facts and logic, (whether they would admit it to themselves or anyone else, or not) they would see how ridiculous, outdated and unnecessary religion really is. If freedom is really so important to us, as Americans, then why can we not break free from the rule of the longest standing, most destructive fictional monarch in history?

Wow. From reading all the flares I see the true danger of this movie. It is not a dangerous film because it questions what many people hold so sacred but it is dangerous because it tempts humans to argue and fight and not let eachother live. Let us never forget that people must live their own lives. If someone does not want to believe in God, that is their decision. If someone chooses to pray endlessly, that is their decision. But when people begin pointing fingers at eachother and judging eachothers decisions... that is where the problem is. But whatever. Humans will always find some reason to hate and kill eachother, whether they throw God into the process or not.

Thank you Erin, Nate and Eduardo. I totally agree with you all. I was wondering how everyone missed the point that Bill Maher is an agnostic and not an atheist. I also saw the movie and enjoyed it very much and I think this review is right on point.

Uhhh,...maybe I'm missing something - I don't think Bill Maher is an atheist, but an agnostic. An atheist doesn't think there is a god or gods. An agnostic doesn't know whether there is or isn't. I think agnosticism is is a more logical approach than either atheism or religiousness, as the bottom line is that nobody really knows. Therefore, all of these arguments about atheism in regards to "Religulous"
are irrelevant.

That was a great review of the movie. I believe everyone should see Religulous before bashing it. If you cannot question your faith, then you have no faith at all. I don't know...and neither do you!

All i can say is wow. i really feel sorry for all of the people who cant accept that everybody believes different things, so they spend rediculous amounts of time typing out huge paragraphs to try and prove a point. personally, this movie had me in tears cracking up. come on ppl, its just a movie! a movie about one persons opinion which should have no significant effect on your own life. if you didnt like it, dont watch it again :)

Dear graphicartist2k5:

Unicorns and trolls aside, since you believe "there is NO such thing as an atheist", hence, by your own words and logic, atheists exist.



--newsflash: there is NO such thing as an atheist. just the simple statement that atheists believe there is no God proves they do believe there IS a God, and that He does exist. let me explain. in order for ANY person to believe something doesn't exist, they must FIRST know that whatever it is they believe doesn't exist ALREADY existed.--

The fundamental problem for me with any discussion like this (and with this movie) is that it presupposes the need to select from exactly one of two belief systems:

A. The earth is 5000 years old, and two people produced an entire species (both biologically impossible, and according to the bible, sinful by definition...an entire civilization populated out of incest)

B. There is no God.


What narrow vision. Deconstructing the Bible from a literal point of view has always been the "fish-in-a-barrel" approach taken by many athiests who are too lazy to articulate any kind of original thinking...."O look, dinosaurs and people together...O look, Methuselah was 969 years old....ergo, God does not exist". The sad part is that Mahar is sharp enough to avoid resorting to this trap, but dives in headlong.

How about option C?:

A fundamental belief in a supreme creator, whose power and scope is beyond anything that can be imagined or conceived regardless of how far our brains evolve. I've heard the argument that cavemen saw meteors and said "Yaweh!," and that we are equally cavemen compared to what we will understand 5000 years from now, and so what i am talking about reaches beyond that. No creed, no dogma, no book, no list of rules for lazy atheists to deconstruct.....just faith.

What Mahar doesn't come close to understanding or even exploring is why people need it so badly? He may be right that we as individuals with a survival instinct hardwired into our DNA need to contruct ANY scenerio where we get to live forever, and we will swallow any story that hints at that promise, and affirm out loud in a shakydesperate voice to anyone who may be listening that we are on the "right team"

We may need faith, just like we need food, water, sex, and coffee. Mahar is right when points out that dogma, creed, commandments, and fighting over whose fairy tale is the right one is leading us to hell on earth.

I am not an idiot, and I do believe in God. They don't need to be mutually exclusive.

Did anyone get the sense that Maher has/had put any time, prior to filming the documentary, in researching what the various religions believe? He should have interviewed Reverend Wright too…would have made for an interesting movie in this time in US history.

A general question....would you consider an agnostic person to be a skeptic; if so, then do you agree that skepticism would keep them from believing in something false and also, on the other side of the coin, keep them from believing in the truth?

Professor of Comparative Religion Reviews Religulous
http://www.biola.edu/news/articles/2008/081007_religulous.cfm

@life

Really? So you don't think a Vatican priest has actually "study what they were talking about"? A U.S. Senator? A televangelist? Fake Jesus? Come on, that's a cop out. Untrue and you know it.

Thank you everyone for showing that there are stupid athesists, christians and agnostics. thank you also for showing that some inteligente people belong to each group. I'm a Christian and believe in God because I've had a personal experience with him, not because of some preachers teaching or even what the bible says. I believe that both those are interesting guides.
As to the moive in found it truely interesting that he didn't interview any one who actually had study what they were talking about.

Mark,

Well, that is a reasoned response. I too have seen those that reject God spew their venom all over those around them. From either side, it in no way strengthens their view.

I read what you had to say and I appreciate it as you actually understood it. I do of course disagree with your conclusion. :o)

Let me say up front, I am a rather simple guy that does not understand it all and your thinking (although I think flawed) is still very good. With that said, I will do my best to answer your thoughts.

[Like any other non-existent concept, god is defined by relation to other things that are already defined.]
However, God is not like anything else and thus how can He be defined (conjured up in the mind) by other things that have definition in the world around us?

You then move directly to the concept of a creator and I think this is a weakness on your side as in the very concept of creator it conveys the idea of purpose, meaning and relationship to something else outside of us.

In a universe that has been formed from “nothing� by blind, meaningless, purposeless forces how can the concept of creator even fit nearly any frame of reference? It is interesting that people no matter what they believe seek to have meaning in life. Why is that? Even the most avid atheist, or let’s take Maher himself, seeks to have a purpose in this supposed purposeless universe. Odd, no?

Sorry there I got side tracked, but I had a purpose! :o)

Your Zeus response goes back to my point about derivatives of an original (i.e. horse + rhino = unicorn, or God reshaped and repacked into lesser gods of all sorts).

You also wrote [The other refutation of this argument would be the existence of isolated cultures that do not have the concept of gods that are even remotely similar to the western (by which I mean Egyptian, Roman, Greek, Babylonian and Judeo-Christian) conceptual gods.]

I will not quote everything but yes, man have taken the idea of monotheistic God and made into the concepts of pantheism and polytheism, but that in itself does not erase God.

Mark, it is very interesting that you point this out as this is something very critical in the Bible.

Paul takes about this very thing. Romans 1:20-23 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man -- and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

There is more in that chapter but I think this gets the idea across. The reason you can find a tribe in a deep dark jungle somewhere that has never met a missionary and yet they still have some sort of “religious� belief system is that you can look around at creation and see there must be a creator.

That is why I find it interesting you mention the creator concept; it is derived from the simple fact that there is a creation and thus there must be a creator.

The other corresponding piece is found here. Ecclesiastes 3:11 Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end.

Mark, I personally believe that this is exactly why the Carl Sagan’s and other scientist of the world will doggedly use up their entire lifetime to fathom the depth of the universe. There must be a reason for all of this, right?
However, what most are striving to achieve, is the mathematical proof, the theory of everything, something, anything that will ultimately lead man to the conclusion, nay proof, we no longer need God; because we have figured it all out ourselves.

So, God has in us the very idea of Himself, and creation shows that there is a creator, so people are without excuse to not recognize it.

Side note: William Paley’s watchmaker argument is quite a challenge to get around.

[The bottom line is that man created the idea of gods, not the other way around.]

This is where I think you absolutely are going to have trouble. There is absolutely no way to prove that statement.

As I have stated in other posts it comes down to faith. It is interesting that we are both men of faith. The main point is the object of our respective faiths.

I have faith in a Creator that made everything that exists from nothing, because He is the God of creativity, order and purpose.

You have faith in nothing; that nothing created everything for no purpose or meaning.

And yet, millions, and billions of dollars are spent to “create� means to study what nothing did, for the purpose of proving we have no real meaning in the cosmos.

Interesting isn’t it?

Thanks for the conversation, it is a good one to have.