Religulous (Bill Maher Documentary)

[Pangloss]

Anybody see this yet? I think it's only out in New York and LA this weekend. It's Bill Maher's documentary about the idiocy of religion. Here's the Wikipedia entry:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religulous

 

I guess the thing I wonder is, why is this better than the same stuff from Ben Stein on Creationism? Isn't intolerance a far greater problem facing society than religion?

[iNow]

Anybody see this yet? I think it's only out in New York and LA this weekend. It's Bill Maher's documentary about the idiocy of religion. Here's the Wikipedia entry:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religulous

 

I guess the thing I wonder is, why is this better than the same stuff from Ben Stein on Creationism? Isn't intolerance a far greater problem facing society than religion?

 

If you haven't seen it, then why are you commenting?

 

Didn't you do that with Wall-E?

 

Also, the film has been extremely well-received by religious people. What's the problem again?

[blike]

If you haven't seen it, then why are you commenting?

 

Didn't you do that with Wall-E?

 

Also, the film has been extremely well-received by religious people. What's the problem again?

Pangloss didn't comment on the film, he asked what sets it apart from other documentaries that "the other side" puts out.

 

Also, the film has been extremely well-received by religious people.

Can you show me a few examples?

[iNow]

Pangloss didn't comment on the film, he asked what sets it apart from other documentaries that "the other side" puts out.

Fair enough.

 

Pangloss asked:

why is this better than the same stuff from Ben Stein on Creationism? Isn't intolerance a far greater problem facing society than religion?

 

I suppose "better" is subjective, and not all of us will agree. It is, however, different.

 

Steins retarded movie Expelled was a propogation of lies, spin, and ignorance. It suggested some conspiracy theory as to why creationism and ID are not taken seriously, as opposed to the truth of the matter... how they simply don't work, and how evolution does.

 

Religulous (now, bear in mind, I have not yet seen it) appears to represent truth. It makes people laugh, but does not change facts or attempt to sow the seeds of falsehood into the minds of our populace.

 

Summarized: It's intended to make you laugh, not to perpetuate some lie. That's why.

 

 

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/arts/story.html?id=22569ac8-9ec8-41eb-8a03-fc4e073ddd06

Unlike, say, a Michael Moore, Maher doesn't take himself too seriously. He is not sanctimonious. He also is funny. He takes the old velvet-hammer approach in this pilgrimage.

 

"I'm just asking questions," Maher explains. "Michael is trying to make a point. We are trying to make points, too, but we do it through Socratic inquiry."

 

And, mustn't forget, comedy. Maher asks seemingly innocent questions and allows his subjects to answer and, in the process, often dig holes for themselves.

 

<...>

 

Maher, who is half-Catholic, half-Jewish, but raised Catholic, has oft noted he doesn't have to make fun of religion: "It makes fun of itself."

 

His thesis is proved correct more often than not in Religulous.

 

 

http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/ny-ffmov5856561sep28a,0,4821158.story

After its premiere at the recent Toronto International Film Festival, Variety critic Robert Koehler wrote: "To the film's credit, Maher never engages in Michael Moore-style gotcha tactics, but rather asks questions that raise more questions, in the form of a Socratic dialogue. To believers expecting a blind hatchet job, this will prove both thought-provoking and a bit disarming."

 

 

Interestingly, my google search turned up a whole article talking about differences between the two [Religulous / Expelled] films (and this guy put a fair bit more effort into the comparison than I'm willing to):

 

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_movies_blog/2008/09/expelled-vs-rel.html

 

 

 

EDIT: To answer Pangloss' actual question, no. Intolerance is not worse than religion. Case in point, I'm intolerant of lies, belief in the absense of evidence, discrimination, poverty, ignorance, and all manner of other things. Intolerance is not bad in and of itself. It's the subject of said intolerance which matters.

 

 

 

 

 

Can you show me a few examples?

 

It turns out that this is harder to support than I'd imagined. I first heard the idea that "moderate" religious folks were enjoying it when I viewed this clip online (via RichardDawkins.net News):

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCrPWWqNl1I

 

 

However, it seems my comment above was, in fact, off base. Thank you for calling me out on it. While finding that the religious reaction has been so frenzied is depressing and exasperating, it does appear that they are not happy about the film. I had an incorrect awareness of what was happening and was wrong.

 

Perhaps it would have been better if I'd said, "Mostly it appears to be the extremist nutters with fatwah envy who seem to care very much about it."

Edited October 3, 2008 by iNow

[bascule]

I guess the thing I wonder is, why is this better than the same stuff from Ben Stein on Creationism?

 

Not having seen the movie, I'm still going to go ahead and guess that Religulous doesn't invoke Godwin's Law, whereas Stein's movie did.

[blazarwolf]

I used to watch politcally incorect after nightline religiously as a child... now it seems he is another example of a great mind becoming intolerant and inmoveable... Hes twice the jew I am, but figured it out 2 years earlier (18 to my 20)... hope no one misunderstands, we just need to be isolated with books, its the way, modern society is ****ing with are natural tendencys.

[Pangloss]

It's intended to make you laugh, not to perpetuate some lie.

 

iNow clearly it's a message film, not a comedy experiment.

 

I guess the question I have is whether it's about demonizing all organized religion, or if it's just saying that people do stupid things sometimes, some of which happen to be religious in nature. Maher's split this hair before, and sometimes he appears to do the latter while saying he's doing the former.

 

I agree with his pet peeve about how there's been a lot of positioning of religion as a morality crutch, implying that it provides one with a "path to moral behavior", and trying to convince people that you can't be moral without religion. That's a pet peeve of mine as well, since long before Bill Maher came to fame. But that says nothing about religion per se, it says something about people's misconceptions and misunderstandings.

 

Ultimately I think iNow is wrong, and that intolerance is a MUCH greater problem for society than religion, or in fact any other single issue facing society today. Partisanship is what's produced the current untenable political environment, in which we cannot celebrate any success or achieve any greatness anymore without one half of the country or the other turning red with rage, not because of what was achieved, but because of who achieved it.

[iNow]

Intolerance [math]\ne[/math] Partisanship

[Pangloss]

Correct, it's a subset and an illustrative example.

[john5746]

I guess the thing I wonder is, why is this better than the same stuff from Ben Stein on Creationism? Isn't intolerance a far greater problem facing society than religion?

 

 

I haven't seen either, but here goes:

 

the Creationism/Evolution argument is in the realm of science

 

the religion argument is in the realm of opinion

 

Ben Stein is claiming that people who do not allow 2 + 2 = 'BOB' to be taught in math are intolerant atheists. He is being stupid, intellectually dishonest and probably just lying.

 

Bill Mahr is claiming that people who think their music is the only true music are not only wrong, but that their music sucks. He is being politically incorrect.

 

More tolerance of opinions is a good thing, which includes criticism.

 

Tolerance of incorrect teachings or ignorance of facts is not a good thing.

[Pangloss]

I don't think Maher stops there, though. I've heard Maher argue that religion is a lie and that it "stops people from thinking". He feels it's an actual detriment to society.

 

I really think Maher's problem is the way religion is sometimes used to oppose specific political issues, such as abortion and scientific education. I happen to agree with his positions, but I think he's using a logical fallacy, and it's one that is causing more harm than good through the propagation of intolerance and separatism. He's also profiting off that fallacy and its resulting harm.

 

Doesn't that make him just like Ben Stein?

[blazarwolf]

I don't think Maher stops there, though. I've heard Maher argue that religion is a lie and that it "stops people from thinking". He feels it's an actual detriment to society.

 

That has some truth to it... The religions i respect the most in no order are toasim, buddism, jainism, methodism, mormonism, reformist judaism, and someotherisms

 

Why? Becuase they all preach respecting differences and alternate opinions, and in differnt ways.. only god can truley judge.

 

Bill was raised catholic.. if you know about catholism, you should be able to fill in the blanks. At the same time, some of the most intuitive, intellectual, scientific men of religion have been catholic friars.

 

I was raised methodist. There were sex-change couples at our church and we loved them as brothers/sisters. You can be a methodist if you believe god only INSPIRED the people and storys of the bible, not nessesaraly wrote it himself word for word.

 

However i cant be a christian becuase i no longer believe in free-will. I beleive god was and is 13-20 billion years ago, did that, and is now just watching the movie he produced.

 

I beleive all things were inspired from Jahway (YHWH, the name of god). From Hitler to Eienstien.

 

Too that I most strongly identify with the philosophy of jainism.

 

Reincarnation seems the perfect path of enlightenment and afterlife, but who can scientifically say they arent agnostic in respect?

 

Bill maher has many good points.. I wish he would focus on mine. That is religion is tought to people when they are young. Maybe a psychologist could chime in, but it doesent take one to know what kids are tought at youth sticks with them. Its still criminally disgusting to me that people would teach a child things that arent fundementally known.

I remember recently seeing a Islamic fundementalist video on youtube. Women are just as intellegent men. They seem to have a completly different form of intellegence. The woman said "we will teach this to them while they are young so they know of the jews". The 5 year old child went on to answer questions of the Jews... she said "decended from apes and pigs" & "responsible for all wars" & "mohhamed said to kill them (which is false)''

 

I cant remember if bill has this point but its true and relates to teaching religion at youth.

Everyone is afraid of death. This is in our nature. Religion feeds of this. I remember as a child I was so afraid thinking about the possibility of "Lights Out" after death. Its not comforting to know this life may be all we have. How can we not want to comfort are children? Comming to elimate this fear without the comfort of afterlife is the most spiritual of tasks.

 

Just my 25 cents, forgive me for the tyrade.

[iNow]

I don't think Maher stops there, though.

Again, I propose you watch the movie first and THEN report back with a more informed opionion of his appproach. We can speculate about all manner of things, but without tying said speculations back into reality, it matters not.

[ParanoiA]

If you haven't seen it, then why are you commenting?

 

Religulous (now, bear in mind, I have not yet seen it) appears to represent truth. It makes people laugh, but does not change facts or attempt to sow the seeds of falsehood into the minds of our populace.

 

Again' date=' I propose you watch the movie first and THEN report back with a more informed opionion of his appproach. We can speculate about all manner of things, but without tying said speculations back into reality, it matters not.

[/quote']

 

WTF?

 

 

I don't think Maher stops there, though. I've heard Maher argue that religion is a lie and that it "stops people from thinking". He feels it's an actual detriment to society.

 

And I would agree with that, to a certain extent. Stops thinking entirely? No. Filtered thinking? Yes. Some things are off limits to re-examine, in any religion, and that's the detriment to society.

 

I really think Maher's problem is the way religion is sometimes used to oppose specific political issues' date=' such as abortion and scientific education. I happen to agree with his positions, but I think he's using a logical fallacy, and it's one that is causing more harm than good through the propagation of intolerance and separatism. He's also profiting off that fallacy and its resulting harm.

 

Doesn't that make him just like Ben Stein? [/quote']

 

I think John5746 nailed this one, and I don't think this makes Maher just like Ben Stein. And from what I've heard, Maher uses questions and inquiry and let's them hang themselves. I think you made that point before, that the best way to handle extremists is to let them have all the rope they want to hang themselves. I'm not saying they are extremists, but it's certainly a valid approach, if that's actually how it plays out.

 

The worst thing he could do is come off like Michael Moore. I'll bet he knows that too.

 

By the way, what about 'An American Carol'? That's supposed to be a spoof on liberalism.

[iNow]

WTF?

I appreciate your desire to support Pangloss, and also recognize that I can sometimes be a total ass, especially in response to him (although, he and I do share a mutual respect), I was responding to a direct follow-up from Blike when I made my comments. I was not sorting through the aether of my thoughts to make some tirade, nor was I repeating the same comments over and over despite not having viewed the film personally.

 

 

 

With that said, I think we're all now in agreement that the comparison to Expelled by Ben Stein is invalid.

[ParanoiA]

Actually I had no desire to support Pangloss in this one, I was only concerned with seeming contradiction from you. Your reply is a perfect example of why I respect you, so be an ass, my friend. Lord knows, I feel like I'm being an ass in half of my posts and I'm thankful nobody calls me out on it.

[Pangloss]

Lol! Well look, iNow, Bill Maher has a stated position on religion and the reviews and summaries and statements from Maher himself appear to support the idea that this movie is an extension of those views. So I don't think it's unreasonable for me to comment on those views, just as you have, even as I keep an open mind about his movie.

 

I am not in agreement that the comparison with Ben Stein is invalid, and I think you're attempting to dismiss my argument from public view because you don't like it, so I'm going to drag it back in the forefront again. Only ParanoiA has responded to my response to john5746 yet, and I have a response to his point below.

 

John's argument was this:

 

Ben Stein is claiming that people who do not allow 2 + 2 = 'BOB' to be taught in math are intolerant atheists. He is being stupid, intellectually dishonest and probably just lying.

 

Bill Mahr is claiming that people who think their music is the only true music are not only wrong, but that their music sucks. He is being politically incorrect.

 

Which I refuted with this:

 

I don't think Maher stops there, though. I've heard Maher argue that religion is a lie and that it "stops people from thinking". He feels it's an actual detriment to society.

 

To which ParanoiA responded (in a nutshell):

 

And from what I've heard, Maher uses questions and inquiry and let's them hang themselves.

 

Which I think is true, but it's really more of a technical difference than a real difference in approach. Both Maher and Stein are still appealing to ridicule, and this is the central method of their works (as I understand it through the reporting and their own comments).

 

Also, even if Maher softens the blow with the occasional look at the "nice side" of Christianity, does that invalidate the comparison? It seemed like a couple folks were hinting in that direction earlier in the thread.

[iNow]

So, are we talking about Bill Maher in general, or is the conversation limited to the premise of the OP and thread title... namely, the movie Religulous?

 

I'm confused.

 

 

Also, what did you think of the link I shared above whch went through a long comparison of Expelled and Religulous? Are you planning to argue that there is no difference between the films, are you planning to argue that the differences are too minimal to differentiate, or are you planning to argue something else entirely?

 

Again... I'm confused.

[Pangloss]

I'm confused.

 

Okay, what I'm talking about is the general principle of "appeal to ridicule" and what value it may or may not have in society. I posed that question in the opening post: "Isn't intolerance a far greater problem facing society than religion?"

 

You directly answered that with the following:

 

Intolerance is not worse than religion. Case in point, I'm intolerant of lies, belief in the absense of evidence, discrimination, poverty, ignorance, and all manner of other things. Intolerance is not bad in and of itself. It's the subject of said intolerance which matters.

 

That's an interesting answer and I would like to explore it further. You say that the subject of intolerance is what matters. Okay, the subject here is religion. Do you feel that intolerance of religion, and specifically the ridicule of religion and religious people, is a productive and desirable means of bringing about social change? And if so, why?

 

(We're on the same page regarding the respect issue you mentioned up-thread; I appreciated what you said. I don't think anything less of you for this position, if it even is your position -- I see it as an intellectual difference of opinion, not a character issue. In fact we probably couldn't have had this discussion earlier without yelling at one another, but I think we can have it now.)

Edited October 4, 2008 by Pangloss

[foodchain]

Okay, what I'm talking about is the general principle of "appeal to ridicule" and what value it may or may not have in society. I posed that question in the opening post: "Isn't intolerance a far greater problem facing society than religion?"

 

I mainly stab against religion in general and take on science more or less simply from the idea I think its the only thing people have that can really generate anything close to truth about reality, I find the concept of humanity trying to live in truth more important then anything religion does. I take a great offense to the entire creationist issue because again not only is it really a masked product of Christian conservatism in America really it clearly demonstrates that religious ideas do not require anything of a factual basis in reality, such a movement seems lacking to acquire one via science at all ever by choice.

 

Think about a world in which human survival or just humans being able to make it day to day is reduced to some reality in which no truth on anything close matters, such as being able to label hydrogen or identify a gene not viewed as important at all, I could only see this as bad. Lets look at global warming, not only to include the idea that religion and global warming have a history in various ways the idea I am trying to point out is factual understanding becomes key to survival, nothing more or less in regards to decisions we should be making with climate change.

 

Also when you deal with religion you in my opinion ultimately accept subjectivity, this means in application to law to how people may behave in regards to shopping. This simply can be noticed to be true via all the variance in religion in just America with one example of differences in churches. I think a fine line does exist in that regard on even a “moral” level if not really an ethical one.

 

So while a multicultural context is probably a needed requirement for people to tolerate liberty how do you define what is what in some decisions a person or people might make and really if its good? Would we via multicultural tendencies come to accept living in a theocracy? Do we as a society say its ok for students in school to accept some story from the bible as science comparable to evolution? To even where does religion become capable of being called stupid?

[iNow]

That's an interesting answer and I would like to explore it further. You say that the subject of intolerance is what matters. Okay, the subject here is religion. Do you feel that intolerance of religion, and specifically the ridicule of religion and religious people, is a productive and desirable means of bringing about social change? And if so, why?

I think religion has enjoyed a special status of being beyond criticism for far too long. When someones religious belief gets criticized, even the non-religious tend to be offended on their behalf, and it's ridiculous. It's finally being criticized and poked at like any other subject in our modern world, and that's a wonderful thing.

 

Back to your larger point, any argument made alone on logical fallacies is a bad argument, and appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy. However, the argument against religion is a powerful one, and is not solely based on ridicule. Absence of evidence... Internal inconsistency... Different stories depending on where you're born... etc.

 

For a very long time, logical arguments against religion and faith based belief have gone unheeded, ignored, and even actively repressed. We see this often in Islam (for example, the mohammed cartoons and authors being firebombed, or the entire concept of apostasy), and more and more now with Christianity (see the censorship activities of youtube, attempts to teach creationism in science classrooms, the calls for termination and harm against PZ Myers for putting a nail through a cracker, the list goes on and on and on and on and on some more).

 

Logic has failed, and yet it's still so prevalent. The good arguments have gone ignored and disregarded. The special status of religious belief being "above criticism" is outdated and slowing our societal progress. So, in sum... Yes. It's time for people to express openly their disgust with this idiocy and to mock them mercilessly like the ignorant children they are. It would be much different if they could rationally support their beliefs in these fairy tales, and if they can't take criticisms or ridicule, tough. Ridicule doesn't tend to last very long when truth is on your side.

 

It's all about group theory. If someone sincerely believed that babies were delivered by storks, then they'd deserve to be ridiculed (if, of course, multiple attempts to educate them on the valid theory had been consistently ignored). Religious belief is more and more becoming no better than the stork childbirth approach, and society is waking up to the fact that there's zero good reason for believing in an ambiguously defined three letter word and practice traditions set by iron age tribesman.

 

Expelled can't make a logical argument why they are right, so they mock and misrepresent evolution.

Religulous has seen the logical arguments based in reality fall on deaf ears, so has decided to mock them instead.

 

At least... I think that's what it does. I haven't seen it yet.

[The Bear's Key]

Partisanship is what's produced the current untenable political environment, in which we cannot celebrate any success or achieve any greatness anymore without one half of the country or the other turning red with rage, not because of what was achieved, but because of who achieved it.

I strongly disagree. I never voted before 2004, barely knew what a Republican or Democrat were, and thought Ross Perot was the only candidate who wasn't a total weasel politician in 1992 -- yet couldn't vote for him either.

 

91% supported the prez after the buildings went down. His crew used the opportunity to entrench their party and destroy the opposition, in a time when the nation needed their leadership.

 

You call that anger or jealousy by the people affected by the nonstop, bold scheming of this administration? Postponing explanations and then claiming it's old news when it's long due?

 

Sorry, but I have defended faith, business and government to people who are right to be angry, and I still do. But there is something you might consider. It's not politics when an obsessed group of politicians have committed treason.

 

And I'm not even talking about Iraq.

 

I do believe in God, by the way. And I don't like documentaries such as the one Bill Maher created. Yet his movie is far less dangerous than when a political gang takes hold of something pure like faith and twists it, gaining a large swath of unsuspecting votes.

 

I know someone who is all Christ the Savior, nothing is possible without God, put all your faith in His Son, etc. Her radio is always playing sermons, but I must tell you, she filters it only gaining the nuggets, dismissing the politics sprinkled within, and not fully trusting the church.

 

She will never be dangerous. But she knows those who seek power by luring with the attraction of holy scripture, they are more likely to be corrupt. She doesn't trust the prez nor this new Palin, and she has no idea what a Democrat or Republican is, nor even about world events.

 

You know, some things are just obvious. While I and others saw both candidates as a dreaded lesser of both evils choice, we had been unaware there was a huge following that idolized politicians of their party, and worse, tuning in solely to a.m. radio, conservative media, or evangelists who drilled over and over into their heads that the media was liberal and so it's safe to tune in only to the safe networks: the political machine using religion as tool after twisting a few key concepts.

[Pangloss]

I mainly stab against religion in general and take on science more or less simply from the idea I think its the only thing people have that can really generate anything close to truth about reality, I find the concept of humanity trying to live in truth more important then anything religion does.

 

That was an interesting post, so don't take this the wrong way, but unless you meant that as a justification it doesn't really answer the question on the value of intolerance, and, aside from the initial "stab" bit, that's not really what I gathered from your post.

 

Same question as iNow: Do you feel that intolerance of religion, and specifically the ridicule of religion and religious people, is a productive and desirable means of bringing about social change? And if so, why?

 

I think religion has enjoyed a special status of being beyond criticism for far too long. When someones religious belief gets criticized, even the non-religious tend to be offended on their behalf, and it's ridiculous. It's finally being criticized and poked at like any other subject in our modern world, and that's a wonderful thing.

 

I'm gonna stop ya right there, because I think that's a straw man. If Religulous were a serious criticism of religion then it would clearly lack credibility because of the logical fallacy of "appeal to ridicule". For example, making fun of the look on somebody's face when they're speaking in tongues is not a scientific refutation of whether or not they're speaking with a deity.

 

The part about religion being a sensitive subject, that's legitimate in my opinion, but I don't know that it's relevant here, for the reasons described directly above.

 

Back to your larger point, any argument made alone on logical fallacies is a bad argument, and appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy. However, the argument against religion is a powerful one, and is not solely based on ridicule. Absence of evidence... Internal inconsistency... Different stories depending on where you're born... etc.

 

Great, I'm glad we agree.

 

If you want to bring up the subject of religion's validity, as foodchain did (nothin' wrong with that), I would agree and say that there's nothing wrong with pointing out the flaws in arguments in favor of religion. Absolutely.

 

Now it gets interesting:

 

Logic has failed, and yet it's still so prevalent. The good arguments have gone ignored and disregarded. The special status of religious belief being "above criticism" is outdated and slowing our societal progress. So, in sum... Yes. It's time for people to express openly their disgust with this idiocy and to mock them mercilessly like the ignorant children they are. It would be much different if they could rationally support their beliefs in these fairy tales, and if they can't take criticisms or ridicule, tough. Ridicule doesn't tend to last very long when truth is on your side.

 

Cool, that's a gutsy post, and stated with aplomb. Because you basically just said in the three quotes above "Logical fallacies are bad, but it's okay to use them when logically valid approaches are not working." In short, the ends justify the means. In this case, the ends being mocking people mercilessly and expressing open disgust at their behavior, and more importantly, encouraging other people to do the same, which is what making a documentary movie is all about. It's not just Bill Maher expressing his personal opinion -- it's Bill Maher telling you that you should do this too (he said so himself when he said it is a message film).

 

Expelled can't make a logical argument why they are right, so they mock and misrepresent evolution.

Religulous has seen the logical arguments based in reality fall on deaf ears, so has decided to mock them instead.

 

Exactly! Houston, the light is green, we have a meeting of the minds! I admit it's not a very deep comparison.

 

And, of course, I completely disagree with your justification, though I see no need to repeat all that -- you got my point. And I admire you for saying what I think a lot of people here are afraid to say.

 

Let's face it, neither you nor I are going to decide whether society is going to continue to accept this approach. It may embrace it, reject it, or anything in-between, but it won't be at MY behest. All I can do is express my opinion and then deal with it. And in that sense I've already accepted that this is the way things are at the moment. And being the eternal optimist that I am ("We live in the best of all possible worlds!"), my feeling is that ultimately some good can come of it.

 

I'm a big believer in "process" in societal growth. You know the old saying about repeating the mistakes of history? Don't buy it. Never have. Quite the contrary, in fact -- the repetition makes us better.

 

Thanks for the reply.

[foodchain]

That was an interesting post, so don't take this the wrong way, but unless you meant that as a justification it doesn't really answer the question on the value of intolerance, and, aside from the initial "stab" bit, that's not really what I gathered from your post.

 

Well I gave my reasoning as an individual. Maybe truth is to broad of a word to use, but for the sake of argument with going from the history and diversity of religious beliefs to the contrast of what science seems to be about and operates I think such a word can find use. Science does not use spirituality to build some new advanced drive train as much as I don't think such goes to work making some nuclear reactor function. I think if you make all absolute beliefs factual for the sake of argument you then deal with basically saying no truth can exist about reality, otherwise you do tend to have to negate certain beliefs as maybe not true or false, if you would say ok creation is as acceptable as evolution scientifically I could then say that the FSM happens to be real?

 

So without being very systematic about it I think religion really has no validity in regards to studying the natural world currently. I also think this brings to bear how you do accept say power in the hands of religion, should religious people have the right to veto matters such as stem cell research, how do you label bias in something like that?

 

I don't really feel any ethical decisions exist that also happen to be clear and or concise. I don't think such a situation should be ruled by attempts to get absolute with it either, but there is a separation from science and religion in the most basic sense that one does not operate the way the other does to reach any conclusions about things.

 

So as a culture again that accepts and or lives with concepts like multiculturalism should the idea that my post could be called insult simply devalue any points I may hold? If you say religion is stupid and or mock it should some cultural rule prevent such behavior against any religion or organized ideology or what not? I am not calling such a position a slippery slope but on what grounds is such based on what has a green light to mock in the first place and why?

[john5746]

Same question as iNow: Do you feel that intolerance of religion, and specifically the ridicule of religion and religious people, is a productive and desirable means of bringing about social change? And if so, why?

 

I think you could generalize this further and ask should ANY group of people be ridiculed? Certain aspects of all groups are ridiculed at some point, but it can be taken to far. So, maybe this movie is in poor taste. Maybe he could take care in being more specific about the type of people he is criticizing. That's the problem with groups.

 

That would be as far as I could go in comparing the two movies as I perceive them. I will watch the movie, then I will have a better idea. I certainly wouldn't appreciate a movie that portrayed all muslims as suicide bombers, so if he does something like that, then I would conclude that its garbage.

Edited October 5, 2008 by Pangloss
fixed broken quote tag