I just watched this movie. As a theist as I seemed to be called so frequently on this site, I still loved the movie and was sympathetic with Maher's critique of modern man and religion's place in this world. What did other people think?
Printable View
I just watched this movie. As a theist as I seemed to be called so frequently on this site, I still loved the movie and was sympathetic with Maher's critique of modern man and religion's place in this world. What did other people think?
I like the movie, but I've never been too keen on Maher, in general.
Yes, I could take or leave some of his self-indulgence soliloquies, but still felt the documentary was provocative. I'm not a huge fan either.
I really liked the movie as well but it definately had a slanted viewpoint, don't get me wrong I like that viewpoint but it seemed like he could have interview a few more people who were better able to discuss religion.
haha, yeah. I complete agree with most everything he says in the movie. I just do not like the biased way it is presented. Bias ruins the integrity of a documentary, easily.Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
Seen it, had a few laughs
If you want a less funny, more serious documentary on the same subject watch The Root of All Evil? by Richard Dawkins.
Liked it, until the end, when he got all preach-y on his own viewpoints. Just because you think other people are wrong, and you don't like them shoving their viewpoint down your throat doesn't mean you should do it to other people. I found he turned face very quickly.
I watched Religulous a few months ago, and liked it a lot, even when he got a bit preachy (definitely an interesting study in behavior psychology), but I did not exactly consider it genius; if Maher were not Maher, despite it having some great interviews, I doubt the documentary would have gotten even half of the publicity and viewership it received. Parts of it seemed a bit desperately-Michael-Moore-ish, neither a virtue nor a vice, and I found a lot of humor in the film as well as truth, but a lot of it seemed to preach nothing new to me from both sides of extreme theism to skepticism to atheism. I call it an above-average film to make that wit-intelligence bond seem so much closer, but its content proved little.
I figured most people would respond this way. I was particularly entertained by the interview with the Arkansas senator.
One particular viewpoint I particularly agree with Maher is his inability to understand some people's faith in creationism. I fail to understand how some disregard all the proof from evolution. That was one of the points he was making by talking to the vatacan astronomer.
Eh, in the faith vs. logic bit of philosophy, some feel a bit strongly in the former than the latter, a one-sided way of thinking that I think harms one's own search for truth more than anything else, not to say that all lies within the scope of empiricism; it seems much easier to comprehend the scope of the world from one book than from millenia of logical study - at least with The Bible, it has remained the same since its composition (provided no one claims to "find" missing chapters, according to popular rumor), but science, such as in evolutionary theory, has changed and evolved in itself greatly even since the times of Charles Darwin.Quote:
Originally Posted by jersea
I would call Maher the best advocate for neither religion nor any branch of science, but he kept a very humanistic perspective, diluted with humor, that could relate to anyone (having a religious background, as well as developing skepticism), and he interviewed both experts in their field of religion and science, as well as Laymen, and individuals who thought themselves experts (such as the Jesus impersonator), which I thought clever. One of my personal favorite scenes took place in the truck-driver chapel - classic! :lol:
The truck driver chapel was awesome.
Yes, it is important to be respectful of all people's faith, but I still don't understand how people can believe in Creationism. In many case, Maher slanted more to the side of science than any other. Although in the end, he did take more of a humanist stand. I do think he was able to expose the fundamentalist biased of the director of the Creationism Museum. He also did a fabulous job of getting people to express their ideas about the second coming at the Christian park in Florida. However, the Vatican astronomer reiterated the idea that the Bible was written much earlier than the era of modern science and that the Bible is not based on scientific fact. It's true people are able to interpret the world from one book rather than on a whole body of research.