Religulous

by John Doe 15 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  XJW4EVR

  As to why Bill Maher didn't interview some of the "big guns of Christian thought", I'm guessing that he wasn't allowed the opportunity, just as he wasn't able to interview the Pope or the head of the LDS church. (I won't spoil things by saying how that was disclosed in the movie.)

  This is interesting. I know a couple of the people that I mentioned, and all of them have asked for time on Maher's show, and been denied...so again, what's he afraid of? My guess is that since their are intelligent Christians that can not only refute, but embarass Maher he does not want them on his show.
• 

  Gopher

  I know a couple of the people that I mentioned, and all of them have asked for time on Maher's show, and been denied

  That's interesting. Do you have a source where this can be verified? If so, I'd like to write Maher's show and find out what's up with that. Maher is no intelllectual midget, and it seems like he should be able to hold up his end of any such conversation, and it would be interesting to hear such exchanges on his show.
• 

  frozen one

  Did Maher just interview the crackpottiest of the crackpots or did he talk to mainstream religious people? I'd like to think he chatted with Marc Gellman and Tom Hartman. Maybe even Al Sharpton. Did he sit down with Rev. Wright? Too bad he didn't come up here and have a visit with Rabbi Amy Bernstein. I've heard her speak a couple of times. I'm pretty sure she would hold her own with Maher's Jewish half.
• 

  Seeker4

  I think Bill focused on the most extreme, but that isn't the point. It's hardly reassuring to defend religions by using those who take it least at face value, least literally as true, who espouse the most watered down versions.

  But, this statement is ridiculous: "My guess is that since their are intelligent Christians that can not only refute, but embarass Maher he does not want them on his show."

  Hardly. Maher treats Christianity, Judaism and Islam as just what they are, adult fairy tales. I'm sure there is just about as much chance of someone coming on Maher's show and defending belief in the Tooth Fairy as there is of someone coming on and "refuting Maher and embarrasing him" by defending these religions.

  Religions tend to embarrass themselves, with no need for help from outsiders and non-believers.

  S4
• 

  XJW4EVR

  But, this statement is ridiculous: "My guess is that since their are intelligent Christians that can not only refute, but embarass Maher he does not want them on his show."

  Call it whatever you want, Seeker. The fact reamains that Maher picks and choses whom his opponents are, and does not want to have someone that can give it back to him. The reason is simple his, as Hitchens', Harris', and the rest of "brights" have been refuted time and time again. In fact their arguments are not even new. They tend to rely on the old atheist arguments from 100 years ago. They were refuted then, and they will be refuted again. Therefore their new tactic is to take the most extreme elements of religion and attempt to paint it as mainstream.

  Of course I am not surprised that the atheists on this board are all agog over Maher. He is just the next in foul mouthed athist icons that can not argue their way out of a wet paper sack. All I ask is that if he wants to attack Christianity, or anyother religion, then he should have interviewed serious defenders of the respective faiths. This is nothing but a cheap shot by a cheap shot artist.
• 

  Galileo

  The reason is simple his, as Hitchens', Harris', and the rest of "brights" have been refuted time and time again. In fact their arguments are not even new. They tend to rely on the old atheist arguments from 100 years ago. They were refuted then, and they will be refuted again.

  Atheism is a lack of belief. The only way to refute a lack of belief is to prove to a reasonable degree that the thing in question exists. I wasn't aware that god was proven to exist a hundred years ago. Seems like I would have heard of something like that, but please, if you could point me to that finding then I would be grateful. Which god was it, by the way? I hope it was Thor. He always seemed like he would be a fun guy to party with. But if he indeed hasn't been proven to exist, I'm not sure why we need a "new" argument, any more than we need a new argument for the non-existence of the Easter Bunny. Seems to me the old reasons work just fine.

  Therefore their new tactic is to take the most extreme elements of religion and attempt to paint it as mainstream.

  Clearly you haven't seen the movie or read Sam Harris. The review I read of Religulous (I can't remember where but it was a mainstream paper, probably the New York Times, although I'm not positive) said that the movie worked because he didn't pick religious extremists or seem to be making fun of his subjects. Sam Harris in "The End of Faith" and in "A Letter to a Christian Nation" goes to great lengths to show that religious moderates are a big part of the problem that leads to religious extremists. As far as us atheists that are "agog" over Bill Maher, that is far from true. My biggest problem with this movie is that people will see Maher as a spokesman for all nonreligious people. Here is what I posted in the other Religulous thread.

  I can't wait to see this. It looks great. That being said, I hope no one considers Bill Maher any kind of spokesman for us skeptics. Sure, he doesn't believe in god, but he does believe in homeopathy, and that vaccines don't prevent disease but do cause autism (according to him polio was wiped out by better hygiene). He backs up his nutty health claims by quoting "doctors" that say HIV doesn't cause AIDS. I enjoy his take on a lot of subjects, and I'm sure I'll love "Religiulous". Just please don't mistake him for a true skeptic, or as an example of someone that has arrived at their atheism through any kind of scientific thinking.