Religulous

[The Stranger]

ye that was hilarious, but i mean more on the level of arguments, does Maher make any good points. I mean, he made fun out of a lot of stuff but did he actually say something worthwhile?

[a completely inoffensive name]

ye that was hilarious, but i mean more on the level of arguments, does Maher make any good points. I mean, he made fun out of a lot of stuff but did he actually say something worthwhile?

The whole movie is pretty much mocking people until the last 10 or so minutes. Then he gives a long speech that pretty much just details his thoughts about religion, that is, it should be destroyed.

[The Stranger]

ye... that is quite a good summary. i thought maybe it was just me :P

[Ronin]

ye that was hilarious, but i mean more on the level of arguments, does Maher make any good points. I mean, he made fun out of a lot of stuff but did he actually say something worthwhile?

the movie is more of a mocking joking movie, more preaching to the choir than a serious debate piece.

a couple of ideas do make it through I think, for example in the scene in the trucker chapel, Bill points out a couple of obvious inconsistencies in the bible, and he doesn´t do it in a nasty or snarly way, he simple says 'ok, but x, y and z are not mentioned anywhere in the bible, why do you follow these ideas?' and the conversation immediately breaks down with a guy that clearly thinks you can´t even question any of this stuff, that's interesting.
but the really interesting part comes after this, Bill gets into a conversation with another trucker, that has a bit of a colorful story (ok whatever) he goes through it and then hits Bill with one of the classic lines religious people always try to use on atheists - "but what if we are right and you are not? we will go to heaven and you won´t"
Here Bill takes that apart brilliantly, pointing out that if you are being good and following these rules just in case they might get you ahead then you are not really good or moral...you are just basically "buying a lottery ticket" because, "hey you can´t win if you don´t play".
this is actually something that comes up quite frequently when you talk with supposedly religious people...that seems to act more as people playing the odds than actual believers.



also the IQ moment for everyone's enjoyment:

[The Stranger]

the movie is more of a mocking joking movie, more preaching to the choir than a serious debate piece.

a couple of ideas do make it through I think, for example in the scene in the trucker chapel, Bill points out a couple of obvious inconsistencies in the bible, and he doesn´t do it in a nasty or snarly way, he simple says 'ok, but x, y and z are not mentioned anywhere in the bible, why do you follow these ideas?' and the conversation immediately breaks down with a guy that clearly thinks you can´t even question any of this stuff, that's interesting.
but the really interesting part comes after this, Bill gets into a conversation with another trucker, that has a bit of a colorful story (ok whatever) he goes through it and then hits Bill with one of the classic lines religious people always try to use on atheists - "but what if we are right and you are not? we will go to heaven and you won´t"
Here Bill takes that apart brilliantly, pointing out that if you are being good and following these rules just in case they might get you ahead then you are not really good or moral...you are just basically "buying a lottery ticket" because, "hey you can´t win if you don´t play".
this is actually something that comes up quite frequently when you talk with supposedly religious people...that seems to act more as people playing the odds than actual believers.



also the IQ moment for everyone's enjoyment:

this is all very true, but thats because these people dont realise they shouldnt even be answering religious questions by scientific standards.

anyway what i see so far is this

Practice of Religion (defined as by common sense)

A person believes what he is told by the authority of the institute he attends to. He believes what is written in a book (or several books) because it confirms what he sees, is told and believes to be true. He justifies what he sees and believes and is told to be trough by what he read in the book. To question this is frowned upon.

Practice of Science (Not scientific research but can also be called Discours of Science)

A person believes what he is told by the authority of the institute he attends to. He believes what is written in a book (or several books) because it confirms what he sees, is told and believes to be true. He justifies what he sees and believes and is told to be trough by what he read in the book. To ask questions is encouraged.

In the end the mass still buys whatever crap is put on their plate. They only see that they believe in a different system but not that their system of belief is similar.

And even though critical scrutiny is encouraged theoretically, practically both sides will openly or silently call you a madman if you do not believe their evident truth in front of you. Whether they will tolerate your madness or not, is a different question.

[Beskar]

Practice of Science (Not scientific research but can also be called Discours of Science)

A person believes what he is told by the authority of the institute he attends to. He believes what is written in a book (or several books) because it confirms what he sees, is told and believes to be true. He justifies what he sees and believes and is told to be trough by what he read in the book. To ask questions is encouraged.

Wrong.

Practise of Science:

Practise of Science is trying to make sense of the world through empirical knowledge which can be demonstrated and proven, through a process of creating hypothesis. Knowledge which has a good track record of accuracy is passed through the education systems with the original experiments being played out in classlab rooms across the world and disseminated through these education systems and public mediums. These are often discussed and tested independently by people of opposing views and those not conforming to the originals researchers ideals. After many years, a theory may end up getting played by a more accurate version. Critical analysis, Evaluation and synthesis is encouraged greatly in order to expand the shared field of knowledge.

[The Stranger]

Wrong.

Practise of Science:

Practise of Science is trying to make sense of the world through empirical knowledge which can be demonstrated and proven, through a process of creating hypothesis. Knowledge which has a good track record of accuracy is passed through the education systems with the original experiments being played out in classlab rooms across the world and disseminated through these education systems and public mediums. These are often discussed and tested independently by people of opposing views and those not conforming to the originals researchers ideals. After many years, a theory may end up getting played by a more accurate version. Critical analysis, Evaluation and synthesis is encouraged greatly in order to expand the shared field of knowledge.

You already go beyond the point that I am talking about and also like I said I am not talking about scientific research, i am talking about the discours of science. the way science is embedded in our society and the effect it has on the way people think about certain things. Ofcourse science doesnt work the same way as theology, they do not research the same area (physics - metaphysics boldly put), they simply arent the same.

But lets talk about this

Practise of Science is trying to make sense of the world through empirical knowledge which can be demonstrated and proven, through a process of creating hypothesis.

You put this forth as if this is undisputed the best way. That is exactly what i mean. There is indeed critical analysis of certain hypotheses but not of the entire fundamental assumption that the world works such that it is possible to make sense of it through empirical knowledge (that there is objective truth which we can know and that we can understand reality by simulating it in isolated conditions and that this will give us a better understanding of said reality) and that this is done best by demonstrating and proving this with empirical evidence (as opposed to per examble, logical argument) through the process of creating a hypothesis and rejecting or accepting its conclusion.

Not only is there a proper model of justification within the field of science but more importantly the field of science itself cannot be (scientifically) justified.

but anyway i wasnt talking about that, i was talking about why you believe this what you just said to be true and justified. And this works the same way for you as it does for a religious person, even though the result is different the process is the same. And this is in no way refuted by what you just said.

After many years, a theory may end up getting played by a more accurate version.

Another assumption.


=_= i feel like im messing up some terminology somewhere.

[Lemur]

Regarding the film, I never bothered watching it. Militant atheists are just as boring as militant anything-ists. Demagogues bore me.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wrong.

Practise of Science:

Practise of Science is trying to make sense of the world through empirical knowledge which can be demonstrated and proven, through a process of creating hypothesis. Knowledge which has a good track record of accuracy is passed through the education systems with the original experiments being played out in classlab rooms across the world and disseminated through these education systems and public mediums. These are often discussed and tested independently by people of opposing views and those not conforming to the originals researchers ideals. After many years, a theory may end up getting played by a more accurate version. Critical analysis, Evaluation and synthesis is encouraged greatly in order to expand the shared field of knowledge.

Science is based on two metaphysical assumptions, Epistomological realism and an ordered universe. Science cannot tell you anything about these beliefs, because they are prerequisites for scientific enquiery.

They are imports from Christianity (and Islam, but not directly). You may not realise it, but it was theologians who invented the scientific method, and them applied it to Natural Philosophy.

So, actually, you are wrong.

Regarding the film, I never bothered watching it. Militant atheists are just as boring as militant anything-ists. Demagogues bore me.

I'm so glad I'm not alone.