Is Religulous Worth Watching?

[WarPhalange]

If you think that a person's religion is rediculous to begin with then why would you expect them produce answers based on their faith that you do not see as rediculous.

Asking a ridiculous question can give you a good answer sometimes.

Other times it could, you know, change your mind about something you thought was ridiculous.

A good example of an answer to the questions Maher asks...
Why doesn't god get rid of the devil?
The devil doesn't exist. The devil is mentioned no where in the bible as far as I know. "Satan"/"Shatan" is mentioned... he is a servant of god, a lesser angel that tests the faith of men at the behest of god.
Many things in mainstream christian beliefs have no basis in their theology.

And what answers does he get from the people he asks?

If a religion can mutate like that simply due to the apathy of its followers (i.e. them not caring to study it deep enough) then I don't see why it should get any respect from me. I mean, it's not like they even had a reason to change their "views". If it was some sort of moment like the split between New and Old Testament that gave you a different outlook on a religion, then sure, but a lot of this has simply been twisted through the years because people don't care to study the original texts or simply lost their context.

And, of course, my fool-proof response to anybody saying God is XYZ and we can't possibly know: "Why don't you just ask him?"

 

[russ_watters]

Of course you don't have to lie.

But really, I would still choose France regardless of the unemployment. I'd feel better off there with a dead end job than a middle income job in the US.

Ok, fine. I don't consider my options quite so limited and I wouldn't be able to face myself in the mirror if I had to take an unemployment check for very long, so I prefer the US.

One thing you may be overlooking though, is that the unemployment in France is heavily concentrated among the youth. It's something like 20% for those under age 25.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Asking a ridiculous question can give you a good answer sometimes.

Other times it could, you know, change your mind about something you thought was ridiculous.

I should hope that no one here believes anything is ridiculous while being ignorant on the subject.

And what answers does he get from the people he asks?

If a religion can mutate like that simply due to the apathy of its followers (i.e. them not caring to study it deep enough) then I don't see why it should get any respect from me. I mean, it's not like they even had a reason to change their "views". If it was some sort of moment like the split between New and Old Testament that gave you a different outlook on a religion, then sure, but a lot of this has simply been twisted through the years because people don't care to study the original texts or simply lost their context.

And, of course, my fool-proof response to anybody saying God is XYZ and we can't possibly know: "Why don't you just ask him?"

Ivan's point was that there are theologians who have 'answered' these questions. Moe points to your average priest/rabbi and says they give ridiculous answers. Maybe this is because he finds the whole paradigm ridiculous or maybe this is because most such people are not theological scholars but people who simply wish to do work for their community.
As to the average believer not being able to answer the question 'accurately' or 'correctly': do you believe that you can answer, accurately and correctly, any ridiculous seeming paradox in science if someone just walked up to you on the street and asked? Would you even put faith in your average high school science teacher to answer them well?

 

[Gokul43201]

There's making people look ridiculous like in Borat*...

*I've never seen the movie but I heard there was a scene like that there. My apologies if that's not actually true.

Yes there was one scene like that, with a person in Amsterdam who believed that getting high on cannabis was a religious experience. Maher decided to have a little fun with that guy.

 

[Gokul43201]

A good example of an answer to the questions Maher asks...
Why doesn't god get rid of the devil?
The devil doesn't exist. The devil is mentioned no where in the bible as far as I know. "Satan"/"Shatan" is mentioned... he is a servant of god, a lesser angel that tests the faith of men at the behest of god.

Maher explores these questions as well: Who is this devil that is rarely mentioned in the Bible? And who is the anti-christ? And how are they related or different?

Most people didn't seem to know.

Are there any good answers that have been given to the question of historical similitude between the key aspects of the Jesus story and those of several preceding religions (Horus, Mithra, Krishna, etc.)? I mean answers other than that those previous stories were also planted as part of the divine plan.

 

[Gokul43201]

I should hope that no one here believes anything is ridiculous while being ignorant on the subject.

You don't need to study all the details of a complex and elaborately designed perpetual motion machine to know that it can not perform as advertised. On the contrary, you would have to know every single detail to assert that some machine does perform as advertised.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Nor can you test religion in a lab. Science has nothing to say about God.

 

[WarPhalange]

I should hope that no one here believes anything is ridiculous while being ignorant on the subject.

Nope, sorry, we're all humans here.

As to the average believer not being able to answer the question 'accurately' or 'correctly': do you believe that you can answer, accurately and correctly, any ridiculous seeming paradox in science if someone just walked up to you on the street and asked? Would you even put faith in your average high school science teacher to answer them well?

Nope. But I use things that still use those concepts, such as CRT monitors, refrigerators, etc. So, it doesn't matter if I can explain it or not, I see it working.

Nobody can see religion working or else there wouldn't be a debate about it. Then you have to fall back on logic and theology. So if you don't understand what you believe and can't show some evidence of it working, then what do you have?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Are there any good answers that have been given to the question of historical similitude between the key aspects of the Jesus story and those of several preceding religions (Horus, Mithra, Krishna, etc.)? I mean answers other than that those previous stories were also planted as part of the divine plan.

If one accepts the notion of a divine plan, then what would be the objection?

Anyway, most religions do not accept the Bible verbatim. People of mature faith recognize that much of the bible is told in parables intended to teach. Theologians teach this. What can and cannot be taken literally is the difference between many religions.

It is common knowledge that many parts of the Jesus story are myth. For example, there was never a census that would require Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem. Theologians know this.

 

[WarPhalange]

Nor can you test religion in a lab. Science has nothing to say about God.

No, but God keeps talking about science (i.e. explanations for phenomena) and being wrong a LOT for something that is an omnipotent being.

Unless you really believe bats are a type of bird. Or that the sun is a burning chariot running across the sky.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No, but God keeps talking about science (i.e. explanations for phenomena) and being wrong a LOT for something that is an omnipotent being.

Where?

Unless you really believe bats are a type of bird. Or that the sun is a burning chariot running across the sky.

You are grasping at nonsense. Do you really think that all Christians or people of faith are that stupid? A burning chariot probably made sense a few thousand years ago, but today we all know better. Do you know of any religions that claim the sun is really a burning chariot?

 

[Gokul43201]

If one accepts the notion of a divine plan, then what would be the objection?

That I could just as easily come up with a new religion, right this moment, that is just as strong in its defense as any you can name that resorts to a "divine plan".

Oh, and my religion requires that we go about killing everyone!

 

[Gokul43201]

Anyway, most religions do not accept the Bible verbatim. People of mature faith recognize that much of the bible is told in parables intended to teach. Theologians teach this.

Who, do theologians say, wrote these parables in the OT?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How does the notion of a divine plan allow you to spontaneously create a new religion?


Besides, people do create new religions, and the Bible warns us about this.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Unless we get back on topic this thread will be closed.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Do you really think that all Christians or people of faith are that stupid? A burning chariot probably made sense a few thousand years ago, but today we all know better. Do you know of any religions that claim the sun is really a burning chariot?

I don't agree with WarPhalange, and I certainly don't think that people of faith are stupid. Many of the people who I've known to be the most intelligent and insightful have been religious. But I think this might touch on one of the central points (or gimmicks, at least) of Maher's movie.

Things like transubstantiation, or the Trinity, or Christ healing Lazarus, or Christ's corpse reanimating and talking to people several days after his execution, then ascending bodily into heaven - many non-Christians regard those aspects of Christianity the way you would regard the miracles and mysteries of the Cult of Apollo. And there are parallels with other religions too, of course.

Even for me - and I've had lots of serious and non-mocking conversations with very devout Christians about their religion - there's a certain degree of incredulity that anyone can believe the things I mention above. I would expect that's what Religulous is playing to, to a large degree.

There's a flip side to it too - people I talk with will know intellectually and technically what it means that I'm an atheist but the mindset is so alien to them that they haven't really absorbed it until they talk to me for a bit, then they say, "Wow - you really don't believe in God, do you?" In fact, I think it would probably be fascinating to see a movie like Religulous made from a Christian perspective, asking atheists questions about right and wrong, afterlife, etc., that would highlight how diametrically different an atheist's mindset can genuinely be from that of a religious person.

⚛​

 

[LightbulbSun]

If one accepts the notion of a divine plan, then what would be the objection?

Anyway, most religions do not accept the Bible verbatim. People of mature faith recognize that much of the bible is told in parables intended to teach.

Teach what exactly? Listen, I didn't need to know what was right and wrong through Bible studies. In fact I never attended Bible school in my entire life. So really if you say you can't take it literally, then what exactly is useful about the Bible?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Nope, sorry, we're all humans here.

There's a difference between ignorant ridicule and doubtful skepticism.

Nope. But I use things that still use those concepts, such as CRT monitors, refrigerators, etc. So, it doesn't matter if I can explain it or not, I see it working.

Nobody can see religion working or else there wouldn't be a debate about it. Then you have to fall back on logic and theology. So if you don't understand what you believe and can't show some evidence of it working, then what do you have?

A religious person will tell you that they see the proof and evidence of their religion everywhere, even in the science that you put so much "faith" in. As CaptainQ pointed out they genuinely have a different mindset and perspective. They will point out the evidence and will be able to explain it to you about as well as you can explain the science you see all around you. Whether or not they are "right" is immaterial to the discussion and not something we can really discuss here anyway.

The point is that the questions that Maher appears to be asking in the movie, what I see in that trailer, are questions with thought out and reasoned answers (within the paradigm of the religion) that these lay persons may not know or understand and may even have grossly ignorant beliefs about. I am quite certain that if we hit the streets and asked people the same sorts of questions about science we would receive equally ignorant or unthoughtful responses and find many who believe things that are grossly unsupported by the science they profess to "believe" in.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I am quite certain that if we hit the streets and asked people the same sorts of questions about science we would receive equally ignorant or unthoughtful responses and find many who believe things that are grossly unsupported by the science they profess to "believe" in.

Amen, brother.

⚛​

 

[LightbulbSun]

They will point out the evidence and will be able to explain it to you about as well as you can explain the science you see all around you. Whether or not they are "right" is immaterial to the discussion and not something we can really discuss here anyway.

Oh, so if they say "just look at the trees" then they've explained their beliefs just as well as a scientific theory?

The point is that the questions that Maher appears to be asking in the movie, what I see in that trailer, are questions with thought out and reasoned answers (within the paradigm of the religion) that these lay persons may not know or understand and may even have grossly ignorant beliefs about. I am quite certain that if we hit the streets and asked people the same sorts of questions about science we would receive equally ignorant or unthoughtful responses and find many who believe things that are grossly unsupported by the science they profess to "believe" in.

Even if he asked a theologian, he would just get claptrap. So what's the difference?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Oh, so if they say "just look at the trees" then they've explained their beliefs just as well as a scientific theory?

Nope. I don't believe I said that. :-)

Even if he asked a theologian, he would just get claptrap. So what's the difference?

Claptrap? You mean the claptrap that was discussed and debated by many of those same scholars and philosophers that helped to formalize science, logic, and mathematics?

 

[kasse]

Science has nothing to say about God.

A God who created gigantic numbers of galaxies, who created light, who created the laws of physics. But he couldn't think of a better way of ridding the world of sin, than having himself tortured and crucified. How pathetic is that!

This shows that religion has nothing to say about the universe. Science definitely has something to say about God, as long as religions keep making scientific claims.

 

[kasse]

I think it would probably be fascinating to see a movie like Religulous made from a Christian perspective, asking atheists questions about right and wrong, afterlife, etc., that would highlight how diametrically different an atheist's mindset can genuinely be from that of a religious person.

⚛​

You should watch this:

 

[LightbulbSun]

Nope. I don't believe I said that. :-)

Hmmm well you said "and explain it just as well as you explain the science you see around you." An educated person would be able to explain the science he sees around him through established laws and theories. So unless you meant something else, that's how I came about that response.

Claptrap? You mean the claptrap that was discussed and debated by many of those same scholars and philosophers that helped to formalize science, logic, and mathematics?

The difference being that they discuss REAL things. Theologians are discussing something that even if it does exist, might as well just non-exist due to the extremely poor quality of evidence in its favor.

 

[Evo]

This thread is closed because it keeps going off track into value judgements about religion.