Religulous (Bill Maher Documentary)

[Mr Skeptic]

It is an argument by induction. It goes like this:

 

Person A has been making far more biased/deceitful statements than truthful and unbiased ones.

Person A makes a statement.

Therefore, that statement is likely to be biased/deceitful.

 

It is a sound, logical argument.

[Pangloss]

And Maher DOES have a reputation for lies, spin and hypocrisy on this subject. That was the point I was trying to make earlier.

[bascule]

Ok, so if Rush Limbaugh comes out with a "movie" on Global Warming, you're not going to comment on its credibility or content based on his reputation right?

 

I'd at least withhold judgment on the movie itself until I've seen it.

 

You're going to patiently wait until you've seen it before even remotely suggesting it could be tainted with his previous outspoken tendencies? After all, it would be a movie on GW, not Rush...

 

So basically what you're saying is it's okay for Pangloss to pass judgement and cast suspicion on a movie he's never seen (and equate it to a movie which likens a belief in evolution with Naziism) because hypothetically bascule would do the same, based on his previous outspoken tendencies? Sounds like you're judging me the same way Pangloss is judging this movie.

 

Who cares about substance? Let's debate the hype.

[ydoaPs]

I thought it was supposed to be a comedy. I guess I'll watch it tomorrow while the rest of Virginia is at church.

[Pangloss]

So basically what you're saying is it's okay for Pangloss to pass judgement and cast suspicion on a movie he's never seen (and equate it to a movie which likens a belief in evolution with Naziism) because hypothetically bascule would do the same, based on his previous outspoken tendencies?

 

For the record, I have not "passed judgment" on this movie. I've asked a question and commented on Maher's stated position on the same subject. My point was not to stop people from seeing the movie; on the contrary, I strongly encourage people to see all controversial documentaries. I am Michael Moore's biggest defender, at least in so far as his right to create them is concerned.

 

 

I thought it was supposed to be a comedy.

 

It is comedy. It's also a message. That's what Bill Maher says, anyway. (Discussed earlier in thread.)

Edited October 19, 2008 by Pangloss

[npts2020]

I thought it was supposed to be a comedy. I guess I'll watch it tomorrow while the rest of Virginia is at church.

 

Well this part of Virginia was in church then. I shot a great round of disc golf with the rest of the First Frizbyterians attending.

[ydoaPs]

It was pretty good, imo. They really hung themselves more than anything he did.

[bascule]

For the record, I have not "passed judgment" on this movie. I've asked a question and commented on Maher's stated position on the same subject

 

And asked what the difference is between it and a movie which likens evolutionists to Nazis. Perhaps I should ask a question: what's the difference between Pangloss and Hitler?

 

What you did was blatant spin.

[Pangloss]

So what? The difference between me and Hitler is that I asked a question. Asking a question opens the door to discussion, which can shape opinion. Discussion is what we do here. And you should know me well enough by now to know that my opinion is an open and malleable thing.

 

My opening post:

 

Anybody see this yet? I think it's only out in New York and LA this weekend. It's Bill Maher's documentary about the idiocy of religion. Here's the Wikipedia entry:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religulous

 

I guess the thing I wonder is, why is this better than the same stuff from Ben Stein on Creationism? Isn't intolerance a far greater problem facing society than religion?

[bascule]

What you did was blatant spin.

 

So what?

 

Well, given your long history of criticizing me and others for "spin" I thought you were against that sort of thing.

 

Remind me to respond "so what?" the next time you accuse me of spin.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, given your long history of criticizing me and others for "spin" I thought you were against that sort of thing.

 

Remind me to respond "so what?" the next time you accuse me of spin.

 

I too will keep that in mind, but I usually avoid the threads where such accusations are flying anyways.

[Pangloss]

Bascule, I don't mind when you give your opinions, I mind when you hide them behind hints and innuendo. Or to rephrase bascule-style: "I don't mind when you give your opinions.........."

 

Although in all honesty it's become a point of amusement more than anything else, especially since when I ask you your opinion you're never afraid to come out and give it then.

[I_Pwn_Crackpots]

I guess the thing I wonder is, why is this better than the same stuff from Ben Stein on Creationism?

 

You haven't actually seen the movie yet, so how can you possibly make that comparison? Just because there are elements of ridicule in it doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

 

The real question you should be asking is whether or not it employs the same logical fallacies and outright made-up "facts". Ben Stein does both of that in his movie, and then tries to make it a satire. This is why he and the rest of the people who actually buy into it look like a total idiots.

 

When you go see it, let me know, so that I'll know if it is worth the money.

 

Isn't intolerance a far greater problem facing society than religion?

 

Religion is a system of intolerance. By believing and demanding that x,y, and z are true without any evidence or logic and reason whatsoever, you are proclaiming your intolerance of anybody else who happens to believe in something else. Not a lot of people like to hear that, but that's what it is.

 

Note that religion isn't just a set of assumptions, but that it is also a set of instructions for what an "ideal" society should be like, or how an "ideal" person should behave, all based on unproven conjecture. That is the major problem of society today.

 

Besides which, religion is inherently irrational. Why can't irrational beliefs be ridiculed? Why must they be respected, especially since I can just as easily replace "God" with "Invisible Pink Unicorn"? How can you possibly verify anything using an irrational belief set? How exactly do you define what reality, truth, and morality is, using a set of axioms that have absolutely no basis in rationality, logic, or reality???

Edited October 22, 2008 by I_Pwn_Crackpots