Religulous!
 

This morning I saw a picture of the big bang on my toast.
Religulous - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I just came back from Religulous, and I must say that it's meant for atheists. It's meant to entertain and speak directly to atheists. If you're religious and go to see this film, I really hope you enjoy it, but it's meant for atheists.

And it's fantastic. It's funny (though not always making fun of), it's entertaining, it's well done. It also carries with it a strong message. You'll have to watch it yourself to get the message.

9.8/10

I also found this movie to be very funny. I like how he lets the interviewees provide the entertainment with the ridiculous answers.

Haven't seen it, just read a review. Sounds quite interesting but I seriously doubt it will be playing within 90 miles of this area before it hits DVD.

haha. I like how its done by the same director as Borat.

Looking forward to seeing it.

Just got back from it. Enjoyed it mostly. Then again, there wasn't any new material (except that ice/water/steam analogy.. whew!) but I was entertained for the most part.

Tell me it wasn't funny when the Spoiler: hemp worshiper's hair caught on fire. It came after such a serious moment, I don't remember the last time I laughed that hard.

The director said it wasn't for atheists at all, actually.

But be honest, they were just picking the low hanging fruit with some of these interviews, right?

Bill Maher said it was, and as an atheist I got it almost immediately. Several clearly religious people walked out when Jesus was Spoiler: being compared to Horace (an argument I've made myself repeatedly), as they were clearly offended. I'm sure there are open minded religious people that might enjoy the movie, but I doubt it would be a tool to create doubt for many. The message at the end of the movie is crystal clear.
Some yes, some no. Bill asked several questions that probably couldn't get a straight answer from religious scholars, let along Tom, Dick and Jane.

Bill interviewed some religious "authorities" more than he interviewed the regular Joes. Its great how they all have a different story.

I just got back from a screening and I must say, it was fantastic. I actually got tired of laughing after a while. The Jesus slap was brilliant.

I agree with Will that it's for Atheists though, despite what the director said. Sure, it could put a seed of doubt in Christian minds and convert those on the fence, but the ending monologue by Maher was a very obvious sort of call to arms for Atheists, both in and out of the foxholes.

I want to see this movie really bad. I hate how people keep saying that he chose "dumb" people or ignorant people to interview when it doesn't really matter who he chose...they will all have the same answer I'm guessing, just put in a more intellectual way.

The closest one is a hundred miles or more from here. :(

That wasn't his story on Fresh Air, and he, himself said he is not an atheist. He said his religion is "I don't know".

It was good though, the low hanging fruit in the debate are the apples that do the most damage.

Having lived in the buckle of the bible belt, they're the people who are taken as the epitome of Christian.

I'm not an atheist and I thought the movie was good. I was expecting much worse.

When Bill Maher says, "I don't know", it's a nice way of calling himself a rationalist, which in modern usage is a type of weak atheist.

Actually, I believe the term is agnostic.

I've been thinking about this movie for a few days. As an atheist, this movie never sat right with me. The closing message was almost crazy to hear. The interviews didn't seem to make any point.

I found an opinion article that does a good job of arguing against the shallow premise of the movie. Though this author is a religious man, he does not fight fire with fire. He creates a stance that you can agree on without having to believe in anything.

Maher's mockery misses the point - Los Angeles Times

Smug atheist misses the point of religion? I've never heard of that happening before.

Didn't Maher say on the Daily Show, that he did not consider himself an atheist, because that kind of surety was just as bad as the religious persons surety? He said he doesn't know and doesn't understand how anybody "knows" one way or the other. That would be more along the lines of agnosticism, as we understand it.

He's a weak atheist, or one who almost certainly doesn't believe in God but that can't dismiss the possibility completely because of a lack of evidence. This is the position of the vast majority of atheists.

I think you'd probably find that the vast majority of atheists really have very little (if any) problems with the possible existence of some sort of entity of superhuman power and influence. At least amongst most of the atheists I know, the issue has much more to do with the dogma, structure and blind faith in scripture characteristic of most organized religions. They take a stand of saying there is "no god" because that's a lot easier to say than saying, "if there is a god, he's not the god that Christians or Jews or Muslims or Buddhists or anyone else believes in and worships." It's a big fucking universe out there, and we occupy a ridiculously tiny blue-green corner of it, so who knows what might be poking around, and I think a lot of people are perfectly ok with that concept. It's the part where he cares about everything you do (or don't do) in order to reward you with a harp or a harem of virgins or a planet of your own or eternal hellfire that gets tricksy.

Which brings up another question.

If you get the harem of virgins, what happens to them after you've deflowered them? Do they get replaced with new virgins or are you stuck with your own sloppy seconds for eternity?

Think about it.

Then the vast majority of atheists are really agnostics.

Well, in the grand scheme of things, yes, it would. But as a practical matter, there isn't a huge difference between agnosticism and weak atheism, except that atheism has a strong connotative association with disbelief in the Judeo-Christian god, which is why I think many true agnostics style themselves atheists. It's better reflective of their direct ideological opposition to organized religion than the more general "agnostic" label.

Well I took it as he was saying:
atheism = belief that there is no god
agnosticism = don't know if there is or isn't

I think an agnostic could lean more one way or the other, and still have questions, while an atheist is sure about it.

All in all, I think there's no problem questioning. It seems more honest, with a true lack of proof.

It's implicit atheism, or weak atheism that you're describing:
Weak and strong atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia