The Arkansas senator was saying "You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate" and laughed. I laughed they showed Bill Maher's reaction and then the senator went from a full laugh to a chuckle to a "o_o".
When that happened the whole theater erupted into laughter. It was pretty much the best part of the movie.
I trust I don't need to remind you all that this is a thread about the movie Religulous, not religion in general, and that treating it as the latter will get this fucker locked down.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I trust I don't need to remind you all that this is a thread about the movie Religulous, not religion in general, and that treating it as the latter will get this fucker locked down.
but what if God made a thread even Jeffe couldn't lock down olo
I trust I don't need to remind you all that this is a thread about the movie Religulous, not religion in general, and that treating it as the latter will get this fucker locked down.
but what if God made a thread even Jeffe couldn't lock down olo
You tread on thin fuckin ice my friend, and El Jeffe will be underneeth you when it breaks.
anyways, what do you think the odds are of my local theater chain even getting back to me?
So I saw it (HAHA) (No, seriously, if you want to see cool movies that involve Bill Maher having fun at religion's expense, move to someplace more liberal. That's the price you pay for...whatever you get out of living in a conservative hellhole)
Anyway, I enjoyed all of the movie except for the last five minutes, which I will now bitch about at length
Seriously Bill? You think we don't get this shit? I know that you're targeting your "stand and fight, my brethren!" screed at atheists, and we hated every minute of it. Yes, we know that religious people are going to fuck things up. No, we can't do anything about it, because there's nothing a religious person hates more than an atheist, and you point out that they outnumber us by at least five to one, so shut up.
(I wish I could have fit "Loktar Ogar!" into that, but I didn't think enough people would get the reference. Of course, you all would so...whatever.
Saw the movie last night with a group of agnostics/athiests and one friend who is Catholic with doubts. I was surprised when she said she'd come (she said it looked funny). She did laugh, but other times I could tell she was uncomfortable...
For the most part, this movie is just athiest porn, but that's alright cause there isn't much of it out there.
As for the last five minutes, I'm inclined to agree. I would like it if there was somewhat of a 'movement' or awakening of non-religious people becoming a bit more outspoken so religious people wouldn't have such a monopoly on government in America. I want our church and state to get a divorce.
Personally, I'd like the see the interview with the Vatican guy who's like, "yeah, the whole Jesus resurrection thing is a bunch of bologna."
What? Who's "Vatican guy", you mean like a Vatican bishop? Who doesn't believe in the resurrection? O_o
EDIT: Not that I think it's impossible that there at least one bishop in the Vatican who doesn't believe... but finding him and getting him to say it openly in front of a camera would be something.
It was mentioned on NPR's Fresh Air. (you can hear it by clicking the red speaker button. i think you need flash)
Sorry it took so long to get back to you, I was listening to it again to check who the guy was. His name is Father Reginald Foster, he is American and he's the Chief Latinist at the Vatican. He has an office and apartment right down the hall from the pope, according to Maher, but only met Pope John Paul once when he was anointed pope. Larry Charles said when Father Foster was asked about the Jesus resurrection and rising from Hell, Father Foster opined, "Oh, Hell. That's a bunch of nonsense." Maher later noted that Foster basically summed up the bible as, "you know, people need their stories."
Hey, I actually heard about him before! Not for this though. One of my friends is a prof of Roman history and culture, and his dream is to take Father Foster's Latin conversation course one day.
Yeah, he's apparently very, very well known. I don't want this to steer things back off course into another spat about religion as opposed to what should be discussed, the movie Religulous, but I think this is somewhat relevant since it's relating to a pretty prominent figure featured (even if only briefly) in the movie.
"Last Saturday evening," [fr. Foster] explained, "We received a scrambled e-mail at my residence in Rome (the Teresianum), not addressed to me, but to my superior." The letter explained that, "Fr. Foster would be no longer teaching Latin at the Gregoriana."
The administration had cancelled Fr. Foster's Latin program and substituted another class for that time-slot. Their reason was cryptic: "Too many students are taking Fr. Foster's Latin without paying tuition." True, many of the students were not registered with the Univeristy, but everyone knew how renowned this Latin program was while drawing latinists from all over the world.
Fr. Foster, in good spirits, explained to us today: "Well you see, the Jesuits were rather Jesuitical about the whole thing, now weren't they?" Then, he went on to explain: "I'm taking this opportunity to announce the founding of a new Latin institute in Rome! We don't yet have a place to meet yet, but I'll keep you all informed! Latin lives!"
- source
It's not very often that I stick up for religion, but even Maher will concede that some things, such as the teachings of Jesus, were pretty radical and a very good thing. I love that Fr. Foster called out them out for being blatantly and very unChristian-like in their decision that money matters more than educating the people.
I don't know; I like a lot of Bill Maher's points, but I think he clouds his points by being a self-righteous, condescending douche too much of the time. He's like a caricature of what the right wants you to believe the left is like.
That's bad for the Democrats in an election year, because one, he only preaches to the choir, and two, he pisses off everybody else with his condescending remarks. Just in these past few months, he's called all swing voters "morons" and -- just last week -- made a crack about the "United Stupid of America."
A big part of this election is about winning over the undecideds, and he's counterproductive to that.
I don't know; I like a lot of Bill Maher's points, but I think he clouds his points by being a self-righteous, condescending douche too much of the time. He's like a caricature of what the right wants you to believe the left is like.
That's bad for the Democrats in an election year, because one, he only preaches to the choir, and two, he pisses off everybody else with his condescending remarks. Just in these past few months, he's called all swing voters "morons" and -- just last week -- made a crack about the "United Stupid of America."
A big part of this election is about winning over the undecideds, and he's counterproductive to that.
Yeah, I saw that. I don't think Sullivan really put Maher in his place, but Maher realized this wasn't going anywhere, that it seemed to be genuinely upsetting Will.I.Am and that the topic really needed to move on. I've heard Maher's response to Sullivan's assertions that Civil Rights Movement, etc. wouldn't have happened without religion. It boils down to: religion in those cases was only integral in that it was a central and focal meeting place. If tons of people had been meeting in buildings to play chess every weekend, the same thing could have happened. I don't know how much I agree with that, as the stories in the bible of the Jews fleeing Egypt were very inspiring for the Civil Rights Movement, but I certainly understand Maher's point. It easily could have been another story based on rising from oppression and it easily could have started in bingo halls, poetry readings, novel discussion meetings etc. The thing is, it's all pure speculation and hard to say what really would have happened if something else had been substituted for religion.
As an aside, I still find Sullivan to be a very convoluted figure. He's openly homosexual and still refuses to break from the GOP, despite virulent opposition to their stance on homosexuality, he's supporting Barack Obama, and he's incredibly defensive of the Catholic church. It many ways Sullivan reminds me of Uncle Ruckus from Boondocks.
Personally, I'd like the see the interview with the Vatican guy who's like, "yeah, the whole Jesus resurrection thing is a bunch of bologna."
What? Who's "Vatican guy", you mean like a Vatican bishop? Who doesn't believe in the resurrection? O_o
EDIT: Not that I think it's impossible that there at least one bishop in the Vatican who doesn't believe... but finding him and getting him to say it openly in front of a camera would be something.
It was mentioned on NPR's Fresh Air. (you can hear it by clicking the red speaker button. i think you need flash)
Sorry it took so long to get back to you, I was listening to it again to check who the guy was. His name is Father Reginald Foster, he is American and he's the Chief Latinist at the Vatican. He has an office and apartment right down the hall from the pope, according to Maher, but only met Pope John Paul once when he was anointed pope. Larry Charles said when Father Foster was asked about the Jesus resurrection and rising from Hell, Father Foster opined, "Oh, Hell. That's a bunch of nonsense." Maher later noted that Foster basically summed up the bible as, "you know, people need their stories."
Hey, I actually heard about him before! Not for this though. One of my friends is a prof of Roman history and culture, and his dream is to take Father Foster's Latin conversation course one day.
Yeah, he's apparently very, very well known. I don't want this to steer things back off course into another spat about religion as opposed to what should be discussed, the movie Religulous, but I think this is somewhat relevant since it's relating to a pretty prominent figure featured (even if only briefly) in the movie.
"Last Saturday evening," [fr. Foster] explained, "We received a scrambled e-mail at my residence in Rome (the Teresianum), not addressed to me, but to my superior." The letter explained that, "Fr. Foster would be no longer teaching Latin at the Gregoriana."
The administration had cancelled Fr. Foster's Latin program and substituted another class for that time-slot. Their reason was cryptic: "Too many students are taking Fr. Foster's Latin without paying tuition." True, many of the students were not registered with the Univeristy, but everyone knew how renowned this Latin program was while drawing latinists from all over the world.
Fr. Foster, in good spirits, explained to us today: "Well you see, the Jesuits were rather Jesuitical about the whole thing, now weren't they?" Then, he went on to explain: "I'm taking this opportunity to announce the founding of a new Latin institute in Rome! We don't yet have a place to meet yet, but I'll keep you all informed! Latin lives!"
It's not very often that I stick up for religion, but even Maher will concede that some things, such as the teachings of Jesus, were pretty radical and a very good thing. I love that Fr. Foster called out them out for being blatantly and very unChristian-like in their decision that money matters more than educating the people.
Do you have a link to where the quoted part is posted?
Personally, I'd like the see the interview with the Vatican guy who's like, "yeah, the whole Jesus resurrection thing is a bunch of bologna."
What? Who's "Vatican guy", you mean like a Vatican bishop? Who doesn't believe in the resurrection? O_o
EDIT: Not that I think it's impossible that there at least one bishop in the Vatican who doesn't believe... but finding him and getting him to say it openly in front of a camera would be something.
It was mentioned on NPR's Fresh Air. (you can hear it by clicking the red speaker button. i think you need flash)
Sorry it took so long to get back to you, I was listening to it again to check who the guy was. His name is Father Reginald Foster, he is American and he's the Chief Latinist at the Vatican. He has an office and apartment right down the hall from the pope, according to Maher, but only met Pope John Paul once when he was anointed pope. Larry Charles said when Father Foster was asked about the Jesus resurrection and rising from Hell, Father Foster opined, "Oh, Hell. That's a bunch of nonsense." Maher later noted that Foster basically summed up the bible as, "you know, people need their stories."
Hey, I actually heard about him before! Not for this though. One of my friends is a prof of Roman history and culture, and his dream is to take Father Foster's Latin conversation course one day.
Yeah, he's apparently very, very well known. I don't want this to steer things back off course into another spat about religion as opposed to what should be discussed, the movie Religulous, but I think this is somewhat relevant since it's relating to a pretty prominent figure featured (even if only briefly) in the movie.
"Last Saturday evening," [fr. Foster] explained, "We received a scrambled e-mail at my residence in Rome (the Teresianum), not addressed to me, but to my superior." The letter explained that, "Fr. Foster would be no longer teaching Latin at the Gregoriana."
The administration had cancelled Fr. Foster's Latin program and substituted another class for that time-slot. Their reason was cryptic: "Too many students are taking Fr. Foster's Latin without paying tuition." True, many of the students were not registered with the Univeristy, but everyone knew how renowned this Latin program was while drawing latinists from all over the world.
Fr. Foster, in good spirits, explained to us today: "Well you see, the Jesuits were rather Jesuitical about the whole thing, now weren't they?" Then, he went on to explain: "I'm taking this opportunity to announce the founding of a new Latin institute in Rome! We don't yet have a place to meet yet, but I'll keep you all informed! Latin lives!"
It's not very often that I stick up for religion, but even Maher will concede that some things, such as the teachings of Jesus, were pretty radical and a very good thing. I love that Fr. Foster called out them out for being blatantly and very unChristian-like in their decision that money matters more than educating the people.
Do you have a link to where the quoted part is posted?
D'oh! Sorry, I meant to put it in th epost but forgot. Thanks for reminding me!
I don't know; I like a lot of Bill Maher's points, but I think he clouds his points by being a self-righteous, condescending douche too much of the time. He's like a caricature of what the right wants you to believe the left is like.
That's bad for the Democrats in an election year, because one, he only preaches to the choir, and two, he pisses off everybody else with his condescending remarks. Just in these past few months, he's called all swing voters "morons" and -- just last week -- made a crack about the "United Stupid of America."
A big part of this election is about winning over the undecideds, and he's counterproductive to that.
Then again it's not his job to kiss the brownhole of people who haven't taken the time to decide between fucking JOHN MCCAIN AND BARACK OBAMA.
He's not part of or affiliated with Obama's campaign and if he wants to be blatantly honest and unapologetic about how he feels more power to him.
Personally, I'd like the see the interview with the Vatican guy who's like, "yeah, the whole Jesus resurrection thing is a bunch of bologna."
What? Who's "Vatican guy", you mean like a Vatican bishop? Who doesn't believe in the resurrection? O_o
EDIT: Not that I think it's impossible that there at least one bishop in the Vatican who doesn't believe... but finding him and getting him to say it openly in front of a camera would be something.
It was mentioned on NPR's Fresh Air. (you can hear it by clicking the red speaker button. i think you need flash)
Sorry it took so long to get back to you, I was listening to it again to check who the guy was. His name is Father Reginald Foster, he is American and he's the Chief Latinist at the Vatican. He has an office and apartment right down the hall from the pope, according to Maher, but only met Pope John Paul once when he was anointed pope. Larry Charles said when Father Foster was asked about the Jesus resurrection and rising from Hell, Father Foster opined, "Oh, Hell. That's a bunch of nonsense." Maher later noted that Foster basically summed up the bible as, "you know, people need their stories."
Hey, I actually heard about him before! Not for this though. One of my friends is a prof of Roman history and culture, and his dream is to take Father Foster's Latin conversation course one day.
Yeah, he's apparently very, very well known. I don't want this to steer things back off course into another spat about religion as opposed to what should be discussed, the movie Religulous, but I think this is somewhat relevant since it's relating to a pretty prominent figure featured (even if only briefly) in the movie.
"Last Saturday evening," [fr. Foster] explained, "We received a scrambled e-mail at my residence in Rome (the Teresianum), not addressed to me, but to my superior." The letter explained that, "Fr. Foster would be no longer teaching Latin at the Gregoriana."
The administration had cancelled Fr. Foster's Latin program and substituted another class for that time-slot. Their reason was cryptic: "Too many students are taking Fr. Foster's Latin without paying tuition." True, many of the students were not registered with the Univeristy, but everyone knew how renowned this Latin program was while drawing latinists from all over the world.
Fr. Foster, in good spirits, explained to us today: "Well you see, the Jesuits were rather Jesuitical about the whole thing, now weren't they?" Then, he went on to explain: "I'm taking this opportunity to announce the founding of a new Latin institute in Rome! We don't yet have a place to meet yet, but I'll keep you all informed! Latin lives!"
It's not very often that I stick up for religion, but even Maher will concede that some things, such as the teachings of Jesus, were pretty radical and a very good thing. I love that Fr. Foster called out them out for being blatantly and very unChristian-like in their decision that money matters more than educating the people.
Do you have a link to where the quoted part is posted?
D'oh! Sorry, I meant to put it in th epost but forgot. Thanks for reminding me!
Source of quote
Very interesting, thank you. Also the comments are worth a read, a lot of old students and friends of him have commented on the entry.
Yeah, I saw that. I don't think Sullivan really put Maher in his place, but Maher realized this wasn't going anywhere, that it seemed to be genuinely upsetting Will.I.Am and that the topic really needed to move on. I've heard Maher's response to Sullivan's assertions that Civil Rights Movement, etc. wouldn't have happened without religion. It boils down to: religion in those cases was only integral in that it was a central and focal meeting place. If tons of people had been meeting in buildings to play chess every weekend, the same thing could have happened. I don't know how much I agree with that, as the stories in the bible of the Jews fleeing Egypt were very inspiring for the Civil Rights Movement, but I certainly understand Maher's point. It easily could have been another story based on rising from oppression and it easily could have started in bingo halls, poetry readings, novel discussion meetings etc. The thing is, it's all pure speculation and hard to say what really would have happened if something else had been substituted for religion.
A "story based on rising from oppression"? You mean, like, Ghandi's Indian independence movement? The one that MLK based his philosophy of non-violent resistance on?
Religion, throughout time, has gotten shit done. It got people to find a reason to live when times were hard, gave them a reason to build civilizations (talking about everything prior to the industrial age pretty much) and strive. However, in today's age we can all understand how disgraceful and de-evolving the concept is
I generally think that almost every form of religion is absolutely insulting to the intelligence of the human mind, it squanders potential, limits the conciousness, dulls the senses, you name it. Now in regards to faith, since the definition and scale of explanation is so broad, i'll go ahead and say that every single human being has faith in some way. I have faith, a faith in my own spirituality and my own perception of the world. It is not founded on any book or text, but my own findings and my own truths based on my own experiences and nothing more. In this day and age, people should find reasons to go on through the hope of a better future, or the advancement of science, or just become spiritual. There is no reason to embrace anything encouraging ignorance, instead embrace something that can encourage awareness.
If you want to base your faith off The Bible or anything dictated by another person or group, that's fine, because then you can develop a more personal faith around the guidelines of the book and strengthen yourself that way. However, the moment that faith becomes a wall preventing you from expanding and taking in new ideas or thoughts, is when it becomes poison. Any religious person who is convinced of any greater truth applying to society or how the world works has walled themselves, the key is to always realize there is more information to be gained, and our understanding of EVERYTHING in the world is absolutely fragile. The wise man knows what he does not know, says Socrates.
I'll just finish and sum it up with a quote from Watchmen:
"This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us."
We don't know anything. We never have. The more you can become grounded in the fact that we don't know shit as a race, the better a person you can become from rising up from that awareness. Scrawl your own design on this blank world.
P.S. Of course Science has done tremendous things, and is the most important thing we've ever progressed on as a race, but when it comes to the big questions we don't know anything, which is what I was talking about. We have always built the kind of people we are based on thoughts we imagine after staring at the world for too long, or base it off other people's teachings. But the core of every religion and guideline on how to live came from people who just observed the world and life itself as it happened.
A "story based on rising from oppression"? You mean, like, Ghandi's Indian independence movement? The one that MLK based his philosophy of non-violent resistance on?
And Ghandi got his principle of non-violence Hinduism and Buddhism. Ghandi derived most of his principles from Hinduism.
"Hinduism as I know it entirely satisfies my soul, fills my whole being...When doubts haunt me, when disappointments stare me in the face, and when I see not one ray of light on the horizon, I turn to the Bhagavad Gita, and find a verse to comfort me; and I immediately begin to smile in the midst of overwhelming sorrow. My life has been full of tragedies and if they have not left any visible and indelible effect on me, I owe it to the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita." -Ghandi
However, being an intelligent person he was critical of his own religion.
Yeah, I saw that. I don't think Sullivan really put Maher in his place, but Maher realized this wasn't going anywhere, that it seemed to be genuinely upsetting Will.I.Am and that the topic really needed to move on. I've heard Maher's response to Sullivan's assertions that Civil Rights Movement, etc. wouldn't have happened without religion. It boils down to: religion in those cases was only integral in that it was a central and focal meeting place. If tons of people had been meeting in buildings to play chess every weekend, the same thing could have happened. I don't know how much I agree with that, as the stories in the bible of the Jews fleeing Egypt were very inspiring for the Civil Rights Movement, but I certainly understand Maher's point. It easily could have been another story based on rising from oppression and it easily could have started in bingo halls, poetry readings, novel discussion meetings etc. The thing is, it's all pure speculation and hard to say what really would have happened if something else had been substituted for religion.
A "story based on rising from oppression"? You mean, like, Ghandi's Indian independence movement? The one that MLK based his philosophy of non-violent resistance on?
We don't know anything. We never have. The more you can become grounded in the fact that we don't know shit as a race, the better a person you can become from rising up from that awareness. Scrawl your own design on this blank world.
Of course you know this is a belief held (though slightly different) by modern engaged Buddhism?
Let's look at some of Tich Nhat Hanh's precepts eh? He warns against any belief in "changeless, absolute truth" and "narrow-minded[ness]...bound to present views." He also says "Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. All systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth" And "Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda or even education. However, through compassionate dialogue, help others renounce fanaticism and narrowness."
You are right man! All religion is so insulting to our intelligence!
Inquisitor on
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
I guess my point is more is that religion is incredibly broad but when people talk about religion on these boards the vast majority of the time they mean judeo-christian religions, and most often Christianity in America.
I mean, look at the movie in question in this thread. It's called, religulous. The obviously implication that religion is ridiculous. When, crazy fundies would probably be a more apt title.
Inquisitor on
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
I guess my point is more is that religion is incredibly broad but when people talk about religion on these boards the vast majority of the time they mean judeo-christian religions, and most often Christianity in America.
I mean, look at the movie in question in this thread. It's called, religulous. The obviously implication that religion is ridiculous. When, crazy fundies would probably be a more apt title.
Man to me you're talking about the belief in invisible sky fairies and shit. Might as well be talking about dragons and leprechauns.
I mean, go have fun with that and all but don't ask me not to think in this day and age it's not bonkers. Because I can't.
Besides I'm pretty sure the movie covers all religions, not just the popular ones.
It does cover Christianity (including Catholicism, Mormonism, etc.) more than the others, but Judaism, Islam, Scientology and some others are all in there. I'd say it was maybe 50% Christianity and 50% split between everything else.
Crazy Fundies are just people who have actually read their crazy stories and STILL believe in them.
Don't get me wrong, being religious doesn't make you a bad person - I love my Buddhist and Wiccan friends - but it does mean you have seperated yourself from verifiable reality.
And in the case of Abrahamic faiths, you've allied yourself with a toxic philosophy.
And yeah, Christianity will usually be the target of these things due to having the most colorful history and also they won't suicide bomb you for ragging on them.
I was actually under the impression that the film was about faith, primarily, particularly faith in the unverifiable.
I don't know, to be honest, I just did a quick skim of the people he interviews in the film and it seemed like they were all pretty much christian, jewish, or muslim.
I'm just saying that religion tends to get generalized quite a lot. I mean, you can be an atheist Buddhist but most people wouldn't know that. For the record I'm pretty much a non-religious atheist/agnostic. I'm just taking a Buddhism class this semester at college, mainly to gain insight into other cultures.
Posts
What is faith then? I thought it was where you believed something was true - what's the point if you don't actually believe in what you believe in?
I totally think everything I have faith in is fact, why would someone have faith in something they thought was not true? I obviously don't understand!
Faith is doubt. You believe something to be true.
But I believe facts to be true.
No, you know facts are true, that's why they are facts.
"Knowing" something to me only means I have a lot of faith that I am right.
this movie looks awesome. i shall see it.
I'd like to see this, but I'm like 60 miles away from the nearest theater.
seems to be doing really well at the box office ($2000+ per theatre)
You just be glad this is a thread about a movie! You underestimate the amount of doubt I can generate! Pedantic amounts, I tell you what!
\/ Great, now I don't even know what trust means anymore.
but what if God made a thread even Jeffe couldn't lock down olo
You tread on thin fuckin ice my friend, and El Jeffe will be underneeth you when it breaks.
anyways, what do you think the odds are of my local theater chain even getting back to me?
Anyway, I enjoyed all of the movie except for the last five minutes, which I will now bitch about at length
(I wish I could have fit "Loktar Ogar!" into that, but I didn't think enough people would get the reference. Of course, you all would so...whatever.
For the most part, this movie is just athiest porn, but that's alright cause there isn't much of it out there.
As for the last five minutes, I'm inclined to agree. I would like it if there was somewhat of a 'movement' or awakening of non-religious people becoming a bit more outspoken so religious people wouldn't have such a monopoly on government in America. I want our church and state to get a divorce.
Yeah, he's apparently very, very well known. I don't want this to steer things back off course into another spat about religion as opposed to what should be discussed, the movie Religulous, but I think this is somewhat relevant since it's relating to a pretty prominent figure featured (even if only briefly) in the movie.
It's not very often that I stick up for religion, but even Maher will concede that some things, such as the teachings of Jesus, were pretty radical and a very good thing. I love that Fr. Foster called out them out for being blatantly and very unChristian-like in their decision that money matters more than educating the people.
Steam ID - BewilderedRonin
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
That's bad for the Democrats in an election year, because one, he only preaches to the choir, and two, he pisses off everybody else with his condescending remarks. Just in these past few months, he's called all swing voters "morons" and -- just last week -- made a crack about the "United Stupid of America."
A big part of this election is about winning over the undecideds, and he's counterproductive to that.
Andrew Sullivan put him in his place.
Yeah, I saw that. I don't think Sullivan really put Maher in his place, but Maher realized this wasn't going anywhere, that it seemed to be genuinely upsetting Will.I.Am and that the topic really needed to move on. I've heard Maher's response to Sullivan's assertions that Civil Rights Movement, etc. wouldn't have happened without religion. It boils down to: religion in those cases was only integral in that it was a central and focal meeting place. If tons of people had been meeting in buildings to play chess every weekend, the same thing could have happened. I don't know how much I agree with that, as the stories in the bible of the Jews fleeing Egypt were very inspiring for the Civil Rights Movement, but I certainly understand Maher's point. It easily could have been another story based on rising from oppression and it easily could have started in bingo halls, poetry readings, novel discussion meetings etc. The thing is, it's all pure speculation and hard to say what really would have happened if something else had been substituted for religion.
As an aside, I still find Sullivan to be a very convoluted figure. He's openly homosexual and still refuses to break from the GOP, despite virulent opposition to their stance on homosexuality, he's supporting Barack Obama, and he's incredibly defensive of the Catholic church. It many ways Sullivan reminds me of Uncle Ruckus from Boondocks.
Steam ID - BewilderedRonin
Do you have a link to where the quoted part is posted?
Do you have a link to where the quoted part is posted?
D'oh! Sorry, I meant to put it in th epost but forgot. Thanks for reminding me!
Source of quote
Steam ID - BewilderedRonin
Then again it's not his job to kiss the brownhole of people who haven't taken the time to decide between fucking JOHN MCCAIN AND BARACK OBAMA.
He's not part of or affiliated with Obama's campaign and if he wants to be blatantly honest and unapologetic about how he feels more power to him.
Hell I wish I could be so honest in real life.
D'oh! Sorry, I meant to put it in th epost but forgot. Thanks for reminding me!
Source of quote
Very interesting, thank you. Also the comments are worth a read, a lot of old students and friends of him have commented on the entry.
I generally think that almost every form of religion is absolutely insulting to the intelligence of the human mind, it squanders potential, limits the conciousness, dulls the senses, you name it. Now in regards to faith, since the definition and scale of explanation is so broad, i'll go ahead and say that every single human being has faith in some way. I have faith, a faith in my own spirituality and my own perception of the world. It is not founded on any book or text, but my own findings and my own truths based on my own experiences and nothing more. In this day and age, people should find reasons to go on through the hope of a better future, or the advancement of science, or just become spiritual. There is no reason to embrace anything encouraging ignorance, instead embrace something that can encourage awareness.
If you want to base your faith off The Bible or anything dictated by another person or group, that's fine, because then you can develop a more personal faith around the guidelines of the book and strengthen yourself that way. However, the moment that faith becomes a wall preventing you from expanding and taking in new ideas or thoughts, is when it becomes poison. Any religious person who is convinced of any greater truth applying to society or how the world works has walled themselves, the key is to always realize there is more information to be gained, and our understanding of EVERYTHING in the world is absolutely fragile. The wise man knows what he does not know, says Socrates.
I'll just finish and sum it up with a quote from Watchmen:
"This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us."
We don't know anything. We never have. The more you can become grounded in the fact that we don't know shit as a race, the better a person you can become from rising up from that awareness. Scrawl your own design on this blank world.
P.S. Of course Science has done tremendous things, and is the most important thing we've ever progressed on as a race, but when it comes to the big questions we don't know anything, which is what I was talking about. We have always built the kind of people we are based on thoughts we imagine after staring at the world for too long, or base it off other people's teachings. But the core of every religion and guideline on how to live came from people who just observed the world and life itself as it happened.
I liked the part where he's preaching the tenets of Scientology in public.
And Ghandi got his principle of non-violence Hinduism and Buddhism. Ghandi derived most of his principles from Hinduism.
"Hinduism as I know it entirely satisfies my soul, fills my whole being...When doubts haunt me, when disappointments stare me in the face, and when I see not one ray of light on the horizon, I turn to the Bhagavad Gita, and find a verse to comfort me; and I immediately begin to smile in the midst of overwhelming sorrow. My life has been full of tragedies and if they have not left any visible and indelible effect on me, I owe it to the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita." -Ghandi
However, being an intelligent person he was critical of his own religion.
Yeah. Nothing religious about Gandhi.
Of course you know this is a belief held (though slightly different) by modern engaged Buddhism?
Let's look at some of Tich Nhat Hanh's precepts eh? He warns against any belief in "changeless, absolute truth" and "narrow-minded[ness]...bound to present views." He also says "Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. All systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth" And "Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda or even education. However, through compassionate dialogue, help others renounce fanaticism and narrowness."
You are right man! All religion is so insulting to our intelligence!
I guess my point is more is that religion is incredibly broad but when people talk about religion on these boards the vast majority of the time they mean judeo-christian religions, and most often Christianity in America.
I mean, look at the movie in question in this thread. It's called, religulous. The obviously implication that religion is ridiculous. When, crazy fundies would probably be a more apt title.
Man to me you're talking about the belief in invisible sky fairies and shit. Might as well be talking about dragons and leprechauns.
I mean, go have fun with that and all but don't ask me not to think in this day and age it's not bonkers. Because I can't.
Besides I'm pretty sure the movie covers all religions, not just the popular ones.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Don't get me wrong, being religious doesn't make you a bad person - I love my Buddhist and Wiccan friends - but it does mean you have seperated yourself from verifiable reality.
And in the case of Abrahamic faiths, you've allied yourself with a toxic philosophy.
And yeah, Christianity will usually be the target of these things due to having the most colorful history and also they won't suicide bomb you for ragging on them.
I don't know, to be honest, I just did a quick skim of the people he interviews in the film and it seemed like they were all pretty much christian, jewish, or muslim.
I'm just saying that religion tends to get generalized quite a lot. I mean, you can be an atheist Buddhist but most people wouldn't know that. For the record I'm pretty much a non-religious atheist/agnostic. I'm just taking a Buddhism class this semester at college, mainly to gain insight into other cultures.