Religulous

[The Stranger]

Any (intelectual) thoughts about this movie?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0815241/

[Ronin]

the scene with the congressman or senator, where he jokingly mentions the fact that you don´t need to pass an IQ test to serve in political office.
he laughs at his own joke...and a millisecond later you can see the "oh gooseberry" moment flashing on his face when he realizes what he just said.

that scene alone makes the movie more than worth it.

the movie on the whole is funny and has a good purpose, religion needs to be cut down to size...but it's not gonna win any awards....you don´t win fishing prizes by shooting fish in a barrel.

[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?

[Vuk]

religion needs to be cut down to size

That ladies and gentlemen, is the voice of tolerance.

[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]

That ladies and gentlemen, is the voice of tolerance.

if a particular thing is overblown and has an undue level of influence in society..yes...it's tolerance for the entire society

[The Stranger]

No, it is the voice of revolution. Religion has been the fore-runner for the advancement of ignorance and prejudice, more than anything else. We've had this conversation recently, already!

To protect tolerance, you must ensure that people can't smash it with a giant cross.

and ofcourse there is no ignorance and prejudice to be found in your post...

i do somewhat agree, though i would put it this way

Religion is a system which uses amongst others ignorance and prejudice to consolidate and enlarge its power.

[Idaho]

That ladies and gentlemen, is the voice of tolerance.

Since when have you ever been interested in tolerance? Oh yeah, since you're own personal beliefs and practices are under scrutiny.

[Fragony]

That time of the year huh

[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]

if a particular thing is overblown and has an undue level of influence in society..yes...it's tolerance for the entire society

you just ***** the definition of tolerance

[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.

[Vuk]

Since when have you ever been interested in tolerance? Oh yeah, since you're own personal beliefs and practices are under scrutiny.

lol, I forgot that disagreeing with you was intolerant. :P My mistake.

if a particular thing is overblown and has an undue level of influence in society..yes...it's tolerance for the entire society

umm...I am not really sure how to respond to that, because I have no idea what it means.
BTW, who is to measure when something's level on influence is overblown? I could just as easily say the influence of atheism is overblown. You see, while you preach tolerance, you really just want your way or no way. Just like a Jihadist who wants to eradicate everyone who is not muslim, or a Catholic who wants to make their religious practices law. You are no different. You want to make your beliefs law and not allow anyone else to practice theirs.

No, it is the voice of revolution. Religion has been the fore-runner for the advancement of ignorance and prejudice, more than anything else. We've had this conversation recently, already!

To protect tolerance, you must ensure that people can't smash it with a giant cross.

Ah, I see. It is not murder, it is revolution. It is not rape, it is revolution. It is torture, it is revolution. You see GC, those are all things that happen in revolutions, but that does not change the nature of them. You cannot just explain something away by saying you attach some noble/quasi-religious value to it. Murder is still murder, whether part of a revolution or not. Rape is still rape, and intolerance is still intolerance. Look at the French revolution, they too banned religion (and raped, and murdered, etc, etc) as part of their revolution. Does that mean that because it was part of a revolution they were not intolerant?
Religion has and continues to be used by some to control people and restrict free-thought. It also can encourage free-thought and be an enemy of prejudice though. It depends on how people choose to use it. It is no different than science. Science was used to explain eugenics and the entire extermination of races, because that is what the authorities wanted scientists to say at that moment.
Science and Religion but seek to find truth, and both can easily be twisted to say truth is something it is not. Science and religion have been the same thing for much of history, but if you look at the enlightenment onward, science has been as guilty as religion for misinformation, advancing prejudice, etc, etc. Should we therefore eradicate science?
You see GC, in order to get rid of intolerance you are yourself being intolerant. You think that you are right and billions of people around the planet are wrong, and you are so important that those billions of people should be forced to accept your view point because you, in your infinite wisdom and absolute righteousness are right where they are wrong, and will save them from their ignorance. That is exactly the type of thing that advances ignorance and prejudice.
Science and religion can both be used to twist truth, but that does not matter as long as they both (scientific and religious institutions) are kept separate from governmental power. Only when they can influence governments can they have an ability to harm people on a large scale (such as with the eugenics scientists working for German, Dutch, and American (to name a few) governments in the thirties, or the Catholic Church having secular power, or Islamic clerics having power over governments, etc, etc.). The problem isn't Religion or Science (they are just tools that can be used for good (the honest pursuit of truth) or for bad (controlling people), but one man, organization, or group of people controlling others. But in order to stop this wrong, you would become it. The answer is not to take people's freedom away in the name of freedom, but to allow them freedom over themselves and guard that no man seeks to curtail another's freedom (as you, coincidently want to).

[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.

[Ronin]

umm...I am not really sure how to respond to that, because I have no idea what it means.
BTW, who is to measure when something's level on influence is overblown? I could just as easily say the influence of atheism is overblown. You see, while you preach tolerance, you really just want your way or no way. Just like a Jihadist who wants to eradicate everyone who is not muslim, or a Catholic who wants to make their religious practices law. You are no different. You want to make your beliefs law and not allow anyone else to practice theirs.

you have no idea....I just burned down 3 churches last week....you might have heard, made all the news....man I´m tired.

I don´t want to eradicate no one....I don´t go to church on sunday and tell the people they shouldn´t be there...that's their business.
the same way I will not accept they trying to tell me what I can and cannot do in matters that are my personal business, and they try to do this through legislation constantly....that's when it becomes my business.
I live in a country that says in it's constitution that we are a secular nation, however the government constantly breaks this concept by giving the catholic church special treatment, when I´m paying for their tax breaks that becomes my problem.

[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.

[The Stranger]

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.



I'm so glad I'm not alone.

<3! exactly what i meant to say 2nd part of my last post. i got lost in translation XD

[The Stranger]

My post was intended to have a bit of ironic intolerance in it. Unofortunately, a world in which EVERY SINGLE VIEWPOINT is considered valid is pipe dream. However, if you simply ask people to take the course of least tyranny you surely have to place religion pretty low on the totem pole, no?

not really, you cannot make an ought from an is. just because religion happens to be perverted in practice doesnt mean it ought to be or that it cannot be compatible with freedom.

also that depends on your definition of religion. for me there is a difference between faith/belief shared by all people and religion, by my definition a tyrannic system. and in that case i would place religion pretty low on the pole.

[The Stranger]

Now that, is a good answer. So, from the point of view of someone who has non-radical religious beliefs, what do you think the best solution for radical religion is?

I dont really know, it is a difficult problem. I would love to say that a tolerant attitude would be best, he can have his views as long as i can have mine even though we do not see eye to eye. But then the entire point of radical religion is that it will not allow you to maintain your views when they conflict with the validity of theirs. So they are intolerant of you when you disagree.

Then all i can say is that in my opinion tolerance for the sake of tolerance is not a virtue. and I think when threatened you always have the right to defend yourself. The question is then where do you draw the line and when does intolerance become a real threat. I dont think you can decide that for general cases and have to decide for yourself.

[Montmorency]

not really, you cannot make an ought from an is.

In formal logic. We do it informally all the time.

"Religion should not be banned" - see?

[The Stranger]

your point being?

[Montmorency]

your point being?

It would not please you to hear it.

[The Stranger]

i can take a knock :) tell me

[Tellos Athenaios]

i can take a knock :) tell me

How about just because religion is not banned, doesn't mean it ought not to be?

[Papewaio]

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.

I'm pretty sure science has traditions that predate Christianity... unless the likes of Aristole & Plato were Jewish?

Also science would quite quickly tell you if a universe was or was not ordered... those phenomena would cease to be predicatable and hence there would not be a scientific theory to predicte them. Since there is currently > 1 science theory that makes predictions, my prediction is that we live in a somewhat ordered universe... plus Chaos thrown in. Either way the scientific method could tell you that your universe was or wasn't ordered.

As for epistomological realism, meh you're either all figments of my imagination or I can choose to believe you are actual beings worthy of conversation. If I choose not to believe in e.r... then why even bother chatting online... I might as well save time and chat to imaginary beings in my mind rather then waste energy typing.

As for the scientific method, I would have to say it was created despite not because of the religous systems of their day. After all quite a few who validated science were declared heritics. Not exactly an ironclad case for a system of thought that encouraged science. Also Natural Philosophy is to Science what Sports Writers are to Sports. Sure they know a lot about it, but they are rarely found to actually be able to do it with proficiency.

[a completely inoffensive name]

As for epistomological realism, meh you're either all figments of my imagination or I can choose to believe you are actual beings worthy of conversation. If I choose not to believe in e.r... then why even bother chatting online... I might as well save time and chat to imaginary beings in my mind rather then waste energy typing.

If we are all figments of an imagination, how do you explain a serial killer murdering the observer? He is merely imagining being choked?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm pretty sure science has traditions that predate Christianity... unless the likes of Aristole & Plato were Jewish?

Greek thought is essentially cyclical, Christian thought is linear. That is a crucial difference and probably the biggest contribution Christianity has made to the history of thought. Most mythologies have a beginning but Christianity was the first popular religion to not only posit an end but to place that within a rational context.

Also science would quite quickly tell you if a universe was or was not ordered... those phenomena would cease to be predicatable and hence there would not be a scientific theory to predicte them. Since there is currently > 1 science theory that makes predictions, my prediction is that we live in a somewhat ordered universe... plus Chaos thrown in. Either way the scientific method could tell you that your universe was or wasn't ordered.

Actually, the scientific method can tell you if the universe appears to be ordered, not whether it actually is. That's a crucial difference, and one which is ignored by scientists because it is inconvenient, it is however also true.

As for epistomological realism, meh you're either all figments of my imagination or I can choose to believe you are actual beings worthy of conversation. If I choose not to believe in e.r... then why even bother chatting online... I might as well save time and chat to imaginary beings in my mind rather then waste energy typing.

True, exactly the same as believing in the validity of the scientific method. However, the same as is true of Newtonian physics can be applied to scientific "knowledge" as a whole. Just because the scientific story is useful to explain the world we live in, doesn't make it true, any more than capracious gods.

As for the scientific method, I would have to say it was created despite not because of the religous systems of their day. After all quite a few who validated science were declared heritics. Not exactly an ironclad case for a system of thought that encouraged science. Also Natural Philosophy is to Science what Sports Writers are to Sports. Sure they know a lot about it, but they are rarely found to actually be able to do it with proficiency.

Well, you're flatly wrong. The scientific method was created by theologians to test theological propositi0ons. Natural philosophy was the way of testing the proposition "God created an ordered univer that operates according to cause an effect." You are quite correct that many theologians were accused of heresy, including William Occam and Thomas Aquinas, but honestly, that happened an awful lot. Proportionally, "heretics" were only actually convicted as such when they challenged political power. Compare, for example Catholic Galilao with Lutheran Keppler. Keppler's ideas were more radical, and his theology more "heretical" than Galilao, who was a former client of the Pope, but the latter made the mistake of ridiculing his patron in print. Keppler died of natural causes at the Imperial Court.