TIFF: Religulous Review
Religulous
Directed by: Larry Charles
Starring: Bill Maher
As evangelical Christians and other Bible thumpers have thrived under the Bush administration in the U.S. over the past few years, a response has slowly been building from the opposite viewpoint. Recently we’ve seen a striking number of controversial religious documentaries being released, including Jesus Camp, Deliver Us From Evil, Lake of Fire and For The Bible Told Me So. They’ve done a good job of putting some of the issues out there and getting the discussion started, but now it seems like they were all just the opening act for the one biggest and most accessible religion documentary to rule them all: Bill Maher’s Religulous.
While some of those previous docs attempted to be balanced and even-handed, Religulous makes no such claims. As the former host of Politically Incorrect, Bill Maher has never hidden the fact that he is an atheist, and he has always been up there with Michael Moore as one of the biggest left-wing rabble rousers working in entertainment today. When it was announced that he would be doing an anti-religion documentary, with the help of Borat director Larry Charles, I thought it was a brilliant partnership. This is the movie that non-believers have been waiting a long time to see.
The main worry I had about Religulous, however, was that it would go for too many easy jokes and that Bill Maher’s approach would turn off people who might be on the fence about religion. Initially, it seemed that my worries were well-founded. The film starts off at a rapid-fire pace, with Bill Maher asking questions of religious people and intercutting all kinds of funny songs and movie clips to poke fun at their responses. It was very Michael Moore in style, and Maher almost came across as a bit of a bully, pushing one guy early on to simply storm out of the room. It also starts to go into Maher’s own background, which made me think it was going to be a vanity piece.
However, over time the tone of the movie changed for me. Maher’s questions became more earnest, and the interview subjects got more interesting and/or far out. One ex-Vatican priest in particular was very animated and very outspoken. We meet a guy who runs a business helping gay people turn straight. We meet a Spanish preacher who claims he is the descendent of Jesus Christ. We meet a Jewish inventor who came up with all kinds of crazy contraptions to help avoid the things you are forbidden to do on the Sabbath.
Generally speaking, as the interview subjects get progressively more ludicrous, the laugh factor goes up. Maher doesn’t have to do much to make these people look silly. There’s little question that this movie values comedy above all else, assuming that humour will help people swallow the message a little easier. It’s interesting to note, though, that sometimes all it takes to generate laughs is pointing out actual religious beliefs, particularly those of Scientology and Mormonism, for example. Whether or not Christians will notice parallels between their religion and these other wacky ones remains to be seen, but it’s all right there on screen.
I liked the fact that every now and then they inserted shots that showed boom mics and the camera crew behind Maher; it gave the impression that they had nothing to hide. They also took to rolling the cameras early and included some of the footage from before the interviews officially started, which adds to the humour and shows some of the people’s true personalities. Unlike what you might expect from Charles’ work on Borat, there don’t seem to be any elaborate set-ups or ambushes here. The interview subjects were not deceived in order to appear on camera, and although Bill Maher is armed with all kinds of quick quips, he genuinely seems to be trying to understand their point of view, and for the most part just lets them incriminate themselves.
Towards the end of the film, things get a bit more serious. Surprisingly, Islam is the focus of the latter part of the movie, and they pose a pretty ballsy question: is it an inherently violent religion? I feel like this was a bit of a cheap scare tactic, perhaps trying to scare North Americans who are already scared of Muslim fundamentalists and show that all religion is equally as scary, but I don’t think it came out that way.
Overall, I loved Religulous, but my main complaint is that there wasn’t enough actual intelligent debate throughout. I kind of wanted this to be a movie that would cause religious people to rethink their position, and open discussion, but I don’t think it will do that. It’s too blunt and too direct. That said, the massive call to arms at the end of the film was pretty epic and almost made up for it. If you’re already on Maher’s side, this movie will make you feel a lot more confident in your opinion, and if you’re undecided, this may very well convert you. I do think the movie could have stood to be a lot longer, but I understand that they wanted to keep it quick and light and easy to digest.
From an entertainment standpoint this movie is a 4 out of 4 for me, and if you are an atheist, there is no doubt that you will love it. If you are not an atheist, however… well, there’s a good chance you will be offended multiple times during the movie. I think it’s important to note, however, that the movie isn’t mocking for the sake of hurting people’s feelings, it is mocking to make a very serious point. In that regard, Bill Maher and Larry Charles have absolutely nailed it, and Religulous comes across exactly as advertised. — Sean
SCORE: 
Recommended If You Like: Borat, Bowling for Columbine, Gates of Heaven
Comments (89)
Hmm, this certainly looks like it’s shaping up to be a nice suprise this year. I have to say that I am very fed up with the fundementalism and evangelism in the US and elsewhere in the world. I am catholic because my parents are, and imo there might be only a few redeeming qualities for religious practice and beliefs. Like helping people quitting drinking/drugs/whatever or maybe preventing suicides. To me personally it’s a big waste of time.
Posted by Matt on September 8th, 2008Sorry for the rant. Anyway, I’m looking forward to this movie.
I can’t wait to sit my tyrannically christian father down in front of this movie. He’ll randomly preach to strangers in public in some way that could be considered insane.
The title is perfect too…glad its a good film (and finally we see the first film in ages that someone actually thinks is too short).
Posted by Ryan M. on September 8th, 2008As an open-minded agnostic I’m interested in seeing this, but even after your glowing recommendation, I’m kind of wary of how Bill Maher comes off in the movie. He’s always been kind of a smarmy cock on his show, and, like Michael Moore, I don’t think that kind of attitude really helps push the most stimulating kinds of debates. I hope to be proven wrong.
Of course, if his aim is just to make people laugh, I’m sure it’s pretty successful. But I’m always skeptical that these “issue” movies change many people’s opinions about things more than reinforce them.
Posted by Joel on September 8th, 2008“…and he has always been up there with Michael Moore as one of the biggest left-wing rabble rousers working in entertainment today.”
I’m pretty sure Maher is more of a libertarian than a liberal. He really doesn’t fit into either all that well.
I’ve heard the movie isn’t all that great from the Toronto critics, saying its like an atheist version of “Expelled” and not very funny. Then again, as mentioned, Maher is polarizing. He doesn’t particularly care if the way he handles things makes “his side” look good or bad – even his haters have to admit he pretty much says whatever is on his mind. One of the last things I’d call Maher is dishonest.
But I’d actually say Joel, Moore adds to the national conversation better. People seem to forget that in so many of his movies, while Moore has his obvious point of view, he asks actual questions of the audience, whereas Maher doesn’t seem to have any more of an agenda than letting off steam and trying to get some laughs. I’d bet he’s playing more to his audience than trying to convert anyone with this film.
Posted by Goon on September 8th, 2008Sounds a bit like Maher is preaching to the choir. But if it doesn’t change anyones mind it’s probably at least a fun watch.
Posted by Bas on September 8th, 2008Goon–I think that some people are open to Michael Moore, it just feels to me at this point he’s become too much of a personality to really function as much more than a firebrand. I dunno, I do love his earlier movies, and he definitely makes entertaining films, but I guess I’ve just had enough of him at this point. I still haven’t seen Sicko though, so I can’t claim to have the most informed opinion …
Posted by Joel on September 8th, 2008I like Bowling for Columbine, was bored by Fahrenheit 9/11 and turned off Sicko 20 minutes in. Michael Moore is too childish to be relevant.
Bill Maher on the other hand is a comedian, he’s not trying to convince america to stop being religious, he’s just having fun with how ridiculous it is. And his face is funny, and so is his voice. I can’t wait to watch this.
Posted by Henrik on September 8th, 2008Bill Maher was good in House 2.
Posted by Joel on September 8th, 2008I saw Religulous this morning as well and completely agree that it really missed the boat on the opportunity for intelligent discussion on the issues at hand. It was like Rick Mercer segment of “Talking To Americans”, which can be humourous in and of itself but also plays to the lowest common denominator and doesn’t really do a terribly good job of presenting anything but extremist views.
I thought the ending was terrible, though. Maher had made a point throughout the film that although he himself was not a believer and thought that a lot of what people were telling him was bullshit, he was quite willing to admit that he himself didn’t know the answers to a lot of the questions he was asking; he was willing to express doubt. The ending turned this on its head and was an outright condemnation of organized religion and its adherents that I didn’t think fit with the rest of the movie. It’s one thing to try and get people to examine the things they believe, to get them to take a closer look at some of the not-so-logical things they might believe, but the zealous tone the film took at the end really turned me off everything that came before it.
Posted by Liz on September 8th, 2008I forgot the ending, ugh, that was lousy both on a craft level, on an rhetorical level, and it certainly wasn’t funny, it was just tagged on there. I would have been one of the biggest champions of this film if it had made a serious effort to promote the atheist/agnostic argument using comedy as a catalyst for the lesson. But there was no lesson other than to say crazy people are crazy, they believe crazy things, they group together with other crazy people and canonize their craziness.
You are right Liz, its off-putting to have a film so zealous in its own right condemning other people for their zeal. One of the virtues of the atheist position is its ability to look at the evidence in a sober manner. When you make everything zany you sort of lose the higher ground.
An example of this is when Bill is interviewing the Rabbi who thinks Jews deserve what they get, including the holocaust. That interview was so brutally cut up that I could hardly understand what the rabbi was saying, I do not think he actually was given a complete remark in the film, it was the O’Reilly approach of butting in every five seconds and berating the person… until Maher arbitrarily gets up to leave and says he can’t take it anymore… that he couldn’t take? really?
Posted by rot on September 8th, 2008Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens rule all kinds of ass!!! This will rule too.
Posted by Bob the Slob on September 9th, 2008I liked the ending because it came out and said what I had been waiting for him to say the whole time. I do agree it felt a bit out of place and heavy-handed compared with the rest of the flick, but at least it tried to give the movie a focus (perhaps a little too late).
Posted by Sean on September 9th, 2008Hey Sean, I was at this screening too. Sorry I missed you
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30336855@N02/2843905157/
Posted by Graham Smith on September 10th, 2008Lets not forget that Christianity of old is not only Westernized, but has been hijacked by the ulterior motives of the Zionist camps. And as usual, Christianity is portrayed as “bad”….either by those of the “Right” who warmonger or the “Left” who turn the other cheek and are complacent sheep. Jesus would be spinning on the cross, if he isn’t already. As these modern Christians are making a mockery of His teachings.
Boo-Urns!
Posted by Baychuk on September 13th, 2008I don’t approve of theists preaching to others in public or trying to convince atheists. I think religion is a private matter that should be conducted in private. I also believe in freedom of religion or non-religion. If people want a Christmas tree and lights, so be it. It’s really not a religious holiday much any more anyway. It’s a day to get stuff, eat with family and be extra nice.
As much as I don’t like religion affecting the public sphere, I don’t like the attempts to destroy people’s beliefs either. People believe what they believe for all sorts of reasons. It isn’t fair to say one is sillier than the other. There are plenty of smart religious people and planty of stupid athesists.
It isn’t fair to attack people’s beliefs if they are harmless. I know many will say religion can be harmful and they are correct. Athesism can also be harmful, and I don’t want to start the whole “Hitler was Catholic” “Communism” debates again.
I think a great many of first world people have some beliefs and also many doubts. I don’t understand the relish and venom behind atheist’s desire to attack the beliefs of people. I understand the why religious people do it, they are warped or believe they are helping, even when they are not.
I approve of all sorts of mockery; cultural, racial, physical, and religious. It’s supposed to be all in fun. But mocking people with the intent of laughing at them rather than with them can seem mean spirited. I certainly don’t understand mocking people with the alleged intent of “making them think”, mocking beliefs only makes people entrench further. I don’t think this film will initiate any respectful debate.
To say all religious people are crazy is wrong. I know Maher believes this and he is wrong. Yes, religion has many crazy, unbelievable stories and practices that make no sense, but is it any loonier than Maher’s discredited socialist views? A Catholic documentarian could easily go to a Phish concert and find all sorts of loony and disturbed atheists to interview.
Religion is certainly a mixed bag. Some great things were achieved in man’s early history due to religion. Urbanization, astronomy, medicine, architecture, writing, alphabets, trade, history, music, art, archiving, mathematics, and much more was created and furthered due to religious inspiration. And yes, killing, war, torture, and slavery were also at times caused or furthered by religion. Hatred of religion has also been a mixed bag, just ask a victim of Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot.
The movie wasn’t fun for me, and I’m glad I didn’t pay. I don’t care for Maher as a person. I thought the religious mockery in Borat was much funnier. I would have liked it if Maher went to India and mocked the Dali Lama, or taunted the relatives of Martin Luthor King or went to Saudi Arabia and teased people at the mosques….that would be a funny movie!
When someone is so very rabid about a subject it makes people wonder why. Often it is later discovered that there is a reason or it is founded in pure hypocrisy. I remember a vert staunch anti-gay preacher in the news here recently, he wouldn’t shut up about it. It turned out he was gay. There are so many examples of this it makes me wonder about Maher. Is he a closet Pentacostal? Pact with the devil? Did a priest toch his John Thomas? I am watching and wondering.
Posted by Lord Dungbeetle on September 13th, 2008I think people miss the point when they say Religion has done many good things. It has. The real question that I hope this film will raise is, why do people believe what they believe, and is there any real proof for it at all. That’s were people go into denial! I think its healthy to ask questions, unfortunetly many people don’t want to hear any answers! They just need to believe what they learned when they were little children and Im no different. As I got a litle older though, I studied this subject extensively which made me pretty skeptical! I look foward to seeing this film!
Posted by entertainmenttodayandbeyond on September 14th, 2008Here comes Baychuk again with “zionist” lines. Dude, you spend way too much time on the Alex Jones esque PrisonPlanet sites. YOU ARE BATSHIT INSANE. Seriously. You believe stupider shit than any religion.
Moving on:
“As much as I don’t like religion affecting the public sphere, I don’t like the attempts to destroy people’s beliefs either.”
There’s nothing wrong with anyone trying to change anyones mind. There’s nothing wrong with putting any idea out there. If you’re putting out your ideas and people are coming to you and wilfully exposing themselves to it, then don’t try to censor it if you end up disagreeing. I’ve never had an atheist ring my doorbell at 8:30 in the morning on a Saturday, have you?
“It isn’t fair to say one is sillier than the other.”
Sure it is. What’s your reason for believing something? Do you believe it because it feels right? Because it’s rational? Because its Tuesday?
“There are plenty of smart religious people and planty of stupid athesists.”
Yes.
“It isn’t fair to attack people’s beliefs if they are harmless.”
There is no such thing as a harmless belief in anything other than theory. Even pacifism can be harmful. As for atheism, again – atheism is a lack of belief. We can go into semantics but I know what you’re trying to say.
“I don’t understand the relish and venom behind atheist’s desire to attack the beliefs of people.”
Here’s one. Because of Sarah Palin and John McCain’s religious beliefs, Roe vs. Wade may be overturned and women will lose the right to choose. Because of peoples religious beliefs, in around 10 states atheists are forbidden to run for office in the state constitution. Gay people cannot marry, and in fact may even be proscecuted for sodomy. In other nations they will lock you up for being gay. Rent the movie Persepolis and see what religion is directly responsible for in so many lives. Even something as simply as telling people your 4 year old child is a Christian – when you wouldnt say your child is a Marxist, or a humanist, or a member of the Green Party, simply because their parents may be – has its own kind of sick effect on peoples’ minds and society. I make no claim that the end of faith would make society better, I am saying that religion is the only thing I can think of that makes good people do evil things.
“But mocking people with the intent of laughing at them rather than with them can seem mean spirited.”
I agree Maher is mean spirited. So would he. What has he said? he simply doesn’t care. Religious people don’t give a fuck about his opinion, so he’s simply given up giving a fuck about theirs and their feelings. He’s playing to his fanbase, and at most, those on the edge of disbelief.
“To say all religious people are crazy is wrong.”
Define crazy. I think religion is crazy, but you can have that crazy belief and still function like a normal human being. You can also have absolutely paranoid psychotic retarded conspiratorial beliefs like Baychuk has but still be a decent person worthy of company.
“but is it any loonier than Maher’s discredited socialist views?”
I’d say whatever led you to believe Maher is a socialist is loony.
“A Catholic documentarian could easily go to a Phish concert and find all sorts of loony and disturbed atheists to interview.”
Sure could. And I’d watch it and laugh my ass off. I went to a Judas Priest concert last month but it doesnt mean I didn’t laugh at “Heavy Metal Parking Lot”. Funny is funny. I didn’t see Expelled, and I understand even most Christians think its terrible, but I fully believe you could make a movie full of dumb atheists you found on the street. Go ahead, expose them. In fact, if you go through the archives of atheist-experience.com – find the show called “Foolish atheists” they did where they called out some douchebag who was planning on suing Ray Comfort over a bumper sticker making fun of atheists. The atheists running the show took Comforts side in free speech and attacked the dumbass atheist suing him for around 45 minutes. Its great! Go listen to it! Fuck teams, if someone on your supposed “Side” is saying something you disagree with, have at it!
http://atheist-experience.com/archive/AtheistExp-2008-07-27.mp3
“Religion is certainly a mixed bag. Some great things were achieved in man’s early history due to religion.”
Sure, but its not exactly like art and music were given much free reign to do what they wanted without religion. As for shit you list like medicine and astronomy – uh, dude – you need to look at how often, even today, religion still stands in the way of progress in these areas. Two words – stem cells. i’d say religion has hurt progress in these areas far more than it has helped.
“And yes, killing, war, torture, and slavery were also at times caused or furthered by religion.”
The Bible still has those same passages which explains how to slave trade, what they worth, how to treat them. Nothing has changed except for societies tolerance for that bullshit. The worlds interpretation of the Bible has evolved along with our ideas. Anyone who thinks the Bible is a constant is ridiculous.
“Hatred of religion has also been a mixed bag, just ask a victim of Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot.”
Remember when you said you weren’t going to go there? Good job. Religion was an obstacle against their own political “religions”.
“I would have liked it if Maher went to India and mocked the Dali Lama, or taunted the relatives of Martin Luthor King or went to Saudi Arabia and teased people at the mosques….that would be a funny movie!”
I think you miss a point here. There are many people out there who can make a case for their beliefs in a way that may still be bonkers, but will at least sound intelligent. Its regular people on the street who grow up with their beliefs, don’t know shit about their own religions, but still enforce their perceived morality, that are hilarious. I mean seriously, like Sarah Palin, who said “Under god” was good enough for the founding fathers who wrote the pledge of allegience, when those guys neither wrote the pledge of allegience, and under god wasn’t even added till the mid 50s to set the US apart from the Commies. I mean fuck, this lady is the new Mrs. Mom Family Values lady and she doesn’t know shit! THAT’S both scary, and HILARIOUS.
“When someone is so very rabid about a subject it makes people wonder why.”
Imagine arguing with someone who says 2 + 2 = 5, not 4. We have objective standards for measuring these things called “Facts” that are out there. At some point a lot of people who know these “facts” as we call them, will sometimes get frustrated when progress is stalled by someone who can’t do the math. Sorry for losing our cool, but seriously. Come on.
“There are so many examples of this it makes me wonder about Maher.”
I guess you’re saying you’re going to make these assumptions, on faith? LOL
This will be my only post, Dungy. I remember you from before, dodging all the questions we ask and instead demanding like a child, only you have all your questions answered. You’ll get no such satisfaction this time, chump.
Posted by Goon on September 14th, 2008btw Dungy, I saw from your myspace page that youre a Catholic. Why go attacking the Pentecostal minister when you’ve got so many boyfucking Catholic priests of your own running around, with little to no consequence. Fuck a kid? Get moved to a new church! Problem solved!
Didnt like this doc? then rent “Deliver Us From Evil” and explain why you’d still want to be associated with such a horrible institution.
Posted by Goon on September 14th, 2008ah, my long post hasn’t shown up. probably because of the links in it.
LD, when it does show up, you will notice I’ve been quite curt with you. I remember you from before, you were quite curt yourself and I’ve seen your posts on other websites. LIberals are “pro-abortion” rather than “pro-choice” huh? So instead of a complex idea of when life begins, weighing the rights of those already here vs. the unborn, weighing cases of rape, incest.. considering overpopulation, whether the child can find a home, all these complex issues..
they are just ‘pro-abortion’, all murderers? See, this is why I feel justified being a dickhead to you. When you’re going to put things down to such irrational divisive crap I don’t feel very much the need to placate your extremism with nicities. I don’t have to respect that.
Posted by Goon on September 14th, 2008“There are plenty of smart religious people”
This is obviously false. The truth is, that there are no smart religious people. I would welcome religious people to laugh at themselves when watching Religulous, but sadly, it seems they all cry abuse and witchhunt. So what am I going to do, stop laughing because people take it seriously? Of course not, it’s still ridiculous.
I love how saying the truth about religion, quoting actual text and putting into an actual historical context has somehow been morphed into an attempt to “destroy other peoples beliefs”. Scratch that, I don’t love it, I hate it.
Posted by Henrik on September 15th, 2008When its pretty much impossible to get elected without being a white Christian, its funny to hear the dominant religion complain about being oppressed. NO consideration about protecting the minorities from certain whims of the majority that are based on faith and faith alone.
Posted by Goon on September 15th, 2008Goon how did you like Judas Priest? I saw them at Roskilde and I thought it was awesome.
Posted by Henrik on September 15th, 2008Pretty damn good for a nearly 60 year old man. It was fun. Dio & Sabbath together doing their era stuff though stole the show for me. Motorhead and Testament were also on the bill.
Posted by Goon on September 15th, 2008Goon,
You said you weren’t going to post anymore on the subject, and then you made several more posts on the subject.
Make all the assumptions you want and be as big an a-hole as you want. I don’t think you characterized my beliefs correctly, but again who cares? Your just some kid who does drawings and enjoys being a rude little cuss. I have shit to prove to you.
I have wasted my time here, and with you. Being that you are “staff” on this site, I shall trouble you no more with further visits here. Fare thee well my angry Canadian friend and enjoy your life. I’m due to be activated again and I’ll be deploying soon but I’ll keep you in my heart while I’m in the cradle of civilization. The men I command shall know the name, Corey Pierce, as the cunning enemy who eluded my grasp
Posted by Lord Dungbeetle on September 15th, 2008I love how people in the military somehow try and use their callousness and simplicity to impress people. As if ‘being deployed’ is somehow something we should respect. You’re an idiot Dungbeetle, and now, you’re an idiot with a weapon. God bless.
Posted by Henrik on September 16th, 2008yeah I kept posting after that. It happens.
You’re a shitty soldier if you hold your service over the heads of other people, especially when it has nothing to do with the debate over whether religion is true. With so much time to spend on various message boards, I’d bet the only men you command are in MMORPGS anyways.
Henrik: YOWCH. Good one, dude. Your best zinger ever.
Posted by Goon on September 16th, 2008Good work guys, bullying another commenter into submission. High five!
Posted by Sean on September 16th, 2008“I love how people in the military somehow try and use their callousness and simplicity to impress people. ”
I’ve razzed on Baychuk for a lot of things, but he’s NEVER done this as far as I can remember. He’s very humble about what he does.
http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/7272/floridafo0.gif
Posted by Goon on September 16th, 2008LD is not a new poster, and he’s had more than his share of angry baiting posts. I replied to a long post with a long post, and he took his ball and went home playing the victim. yeah Henrik and are are high-fiving for no good reason, but probably because religious discussion is the only time we get along..
And I mean come on, its been a long time since there’s been a big angry debate on here, and this was hardly a war.
Posted by Goon on September 16th, 2008I’m sure he’s just as much to blame but I just think that this place is more interesting when there are people with different viewpoints around, and when you just keep hammering them until they leave I don’t see the point of even having a discussion.
Posted by Sean on September 16th, 2008Sorry guys, gotta go with Sean on this one. Religious debate on this particular post is expected, but sometimes I tune into these comments and it starts to read like some sort of extremist message board. (From BOTH sides of the arguement)
Posted by Jay C. on September 16th, 2008There’s a reason I’ve been banned from other websites, but honesty is all I’ve got. Comments are open to everyone, but you shouldn’t expose your opinion in a public forum if you don’t want people’s honest response.
I feel bad in some sense, because there is a financial element to the website that stuff like this may diminish your income, and I don’t want the site gone, but in the end, I will comment as long as I am allowed.
Posted by Henrik on September 16th, 2008And by the way, I’m not to blame, Lord Dungbeetle himself only expressed concern with Goons comments. I abolish myself of any responsibility!
Posted by Henrik on September 16th, 2008“keep hammering them until they leave..”
Be fair. I have pretty much only been harsh or angry towards posts that were also harsh and angry, and I’m not sure if people should get extra slack just because they’re not as frequent a poster. I’ve seen this guy on other sites. he jumps around, wags his finger, and leaves, just wanting to stir shit up on sites where his opinion is the minority, like Slate. Not exactly a troll, but if he’s actually stopped posting, you didn’t really lose a FJ fan.
I think the tonal content of his posts don’t really merit playing the victim when it didn’t work out his way. :/
And for the record, I think Henrik and I have shown for quite a while now that we’ve gone out of our way not to get into the same unproductive argumentative cycles.
Posted by Goon on September 16th, 2008I can’t identify where anything I wrote is exactly extreme. Disrespectul, minority opinion? Maybe, yes. Extreme? I don’t see it.
Posted by Goon on September 16th, 2008I’m not as much concerned with losing Lord Dungbeetle (although I’m pretty sure he has commented on non-religious stuff in the past) as I am with the impressions of people reading this. Disagree as much as you want, but let’s try to stay respectful (yes, even if the other person is being disrespectful to you).
Posted by Sean on September 16th, 2008Extreme in that you open up a comment section for a movie and there’s about 8 800 word essays on why someone is wrong about some political or religious belief. Extreme in that your posting towards these people starts as a debate, but slowly becomes aggressive and ends up derailing entire comments sections.
I don’t care. We’re not in the business of applying tons of rules to comments or deleting comments. Just, as Henrik said, expect an honest reply to your comments when you post them. Even from your fellow “staff” members!
Posted by Jay C. on September 16th, 2008I think the main concern is new people visiting the site, going in to a comment section with the intent to take part and then being either turned off or intimidated by insanely long rants about politics and religion.
This isn’t a frequent thing, and isn’t really problematic I don’t think. But it does happen, and on occasion, I also find myself avoiding these rants in favour of actual MOVIE discussion.
Posted by Jay C. on September 16th, 2008“Extreme in that you open up a comment section for a movie and there’s about 8 800 word essays on why someone is wrong about some political or religious belief.”
It’s a movie about religious belief that has political overtones. I mean, if a Jurassic Park thread lead to discussion of cloning technology and ethics/morality would that be wrong too? Is that extreme?
“I also find myself avoiding these rants in favour of actual MOVIE discussion.”
Not to rehash old wounds, but I mean sometimes you’d get annoyed with us having long posts on actual movies as well. I don’t know, maybe seeing other people having long winded heated discussion about anything can turn you off sometimes. I don’t particularly feel like some of the ways I’ve defended or attacked a position at length through words is much different than the way you’ve handled a good number of angry letters on the show. :/
Posted by Goon on September 16th, 2008“It’s a movie about religious belief that has political overtones. I mean, if a Jurassic Park thread lead to discussion of cloning technology and ethics/morality would that be wrong too? Is that extreme?”
Yes, I would think you were getting pretty extreme in that circumstance as well. Especially if it spawned from Jurassic Park. Wouldn’t you think someone was being extreme if they took a Harry Potter post and went on an 800 word rant about how it promotes satanism? But as I said, whatever. Type all you want.
As for me getting annoyed in the past, I don’t even recall a specific example of this. However, I do know that after 50 comments of bickering back and forth between two people, my frustration level does rise. It’s not so much to do with the discussion but rather the lack of participation from others. It ends up dominating everything and sometimes I think these arguments simply become too heated for people to get involved in. But again, whatever. Type all you want.
As for how I handle angry letters on the podcast…I think the equivalent would be if I took up 50-70% of the show frantically responding to every counter attack the letter writer threw at me. This would be very frustrating for the listener. Hey…look at it this way. Didn’t you recently complain that Kurt takes up too much time on the Row Three podcast, not letting Andrew get in his two cents? Well I suppose sometimes the comment section here feels like the equivalent to that. I don’t bring it up because I hate your personalities or arguements…I bring it up from an entertainment point of view. I don’t really care to read through 50 posts of bitter banter between two people. And I’m not saying it’s your fault. There’s just not enough people taking part in the discussions. HOWEVER…I wonder how many there would be if they weren’t overshadowed or bullied out of the discussion?
As I stated before, your comments aren’t going to get deleted here, but we can certainly call people on the overall value of certain discussions; just like any other poster.
Posted by Jay C. on September 16th, 2008And again, it’s not like this is some personal attack or anything. I’m just saying that I agree with Sean and that sometimes the comments sections get out of hand. However, sometimes it is entertaining.
Posted by Jay C. on September 16th, 2008“Wouldn’t you think someone was being extreme if they took a Harry Potter post and went on an 800 word rant about how it promotes satanism? But as I said, whatever. Type all you want.”
Jurassic Park was brought up as a ridiculous example, but Crichton has absolutely used a number of his books with the intent of talking about issues beyond pure sci-fi. He’s loved by global warming deniers, for example, through his book “State of Fear”. Ratatouille led to discussions of art and criticism. The issues are there to be picked away at, the movies are simply a jumping off point for the discussion.
recently the discussion about Batman/Bush was somewhat encouraged.
“Didn’t you recently complain that Kurt takes up too much time on the Row Three podcast, not letting Andrew get in his two cents? Well I suppose sometimes the comment section here feels like the equivalent to that.”
I did, but I also put responsibility on Andrew for not interrupting and helping move things along. I can’t help if the ’sexy’ divisive issues lead to longer discussion and nobody wants to dive in and fight over Speed Racer. You guys have a show and can drive where it goes and fill time. I can’t make any commentators balance out what we talk about.
“I wonder how many there would be if they weren’t overshadowed or bullied out of the discussion?”
Well, over the past year I’ve posted a lot less than normal, mostly due to school, partially due to more participation over on Row Three discussing actual movies, I’ve even fallen off the top commentators list a number of times, and thinks aren’t particularly different. Maybe once larger bitter arguments are well under way some people feel unsure about diving in, but if discussion and arguments don’t start anyways I think it’s a bit of a moot point.
I don’t take it as a personal attack. I’ve got a big mouth and have questioned others and deserve responses in kind. If I have the time and feel like I can defend what I’ve said though, I do it. Sometimes I know when to just walk away and leave it be, sometimes I clearly don’t.
Posted by Goon on September 16th, 2008Finally, if you went back and looked at my essay back to LD, and the posts I made before it, I think its clear a good chunk of my responses are directly related to Maher and tying in to other movies relevant to poking fun at certain groups, such as Expelled, Heavy Metal Parking Lot, and Moore’s work.
Posted by Goon on September 16th, 2008“I did, but I also put responsibility on Andrew for not interrupting and helping move things along…You guys have a show and can drive where it goes and fill time. I can’t make any commentators balance out what we talk about.”
Ok, well I guess you could look at it this way; there’s probably readers out there that put the responsibility on Sean for not interrupting and helping move things along in some of these comment sections.
“Well, over the past year I’ve posted a lot less than normal, mostly due to school, partially due to more participation over on Row Three discussing actual movies”
Well maybe that’s part of what’s frustrating. Me and Sean have discussed this in the past and I think it’s fair to speak on Sean’s behalf by saying even WE don’t feel like jumping in to some of the raging debates you guys have had. But that’s fine. The only shitty thing is we end up with the ‘ranting and raving by people who simply love to argue’ form of comment participation rather than the exploration and analysis of film by film lovers. I think it’s our own lack of participation that may have turned our comments sections into the internet equivalent to Waterworld. A world of complete, uncontrolled chaos where everyone’s drinking their own piss to survive. (Maybe a little dramatic and not exactly relevant, but you know what I mean.)
Posted by Jay C. on September 16th, 2008“There’s probably readers out there that put the responsibility on Sean for not interrupting and helping move things along in some of these comment sections.”
Readers out there, if this is true please come forward. Also, please start posting more often and make the less controversial threads more successful. Start digging articles like the one Adam just wrote and bring even more new names in here. I can also hold myself responsible for avoiding talking on some of those very threads, not giving it a better try.
“Me and Sean have discussed this in the past and I think it’s fair to speak on Sean’s behalf by saying even WE don’t feel like jumping in to some of the raging debates you guys have had.”
I don’t know. I’ve seen you jump in and join some pretty harsh debates on RowThree, for one. But more than anything from the very beginning, long before Henrik, and you’ve admitted this to me, that you guys have faulted yourself for not being as involved in the threads. But even then you’re being too hard on yourself. Fact is, RT, TheMovieBlog, etc have way more posts, and more reviews, more chances for people to involve themselves, and more staff, in TMB’s case more reactionary staff. More posts equals more discussion.
I’d also partially fault that for a while it was tough to see what any of the recent posts were on here, and that RT is still better in this regard.
Look, also, you guys have full time jobs, and i don’t expect you to invest so much of your free time into handling every piece of mail and every post that comes your way. Avoiding the threads earns no scorn from me whatsoever. But at the same time its a bit hard to hear complaining when nobody posts, and complaints when people try to spice it up, and feel a finger wave as if you’re the cause of both. Things are more complex than that. I’d say the FJ podcast is the biggest draw here, not the blog, and that people who want to be heard have opted for emails and the show instead. Why? People like hearing their posts heard and read aloud, not being ignored on a thread, they feel more involved. the FJ podcast and to a lesser extent Filmspotting thrive on this.
Also, if a lack of posts continues, its not like FJ is alone in this regard. Cinemablend’s forum has for years been the same 12 people on every thread, and there’s nobody there you can really single out as a bully. Look at RowThree, there’s a very healthy mix of polite and argumentative discussion, but its still the same 12 people. Simply the fact that the posters know and are used to each other can be more intimidating than the tone they take with each other.
Posted by Goon on September 16th, 2008Wait, when you say ‘you guys’, are you talking about me and Goon? I can’t even remember the last time we fought on a comments section. Is all this really an issue?
As for RowThree.com they do have Kurt nursing most of the conversations with his daddystyle comments, but I don’t think it enhances anything.
Posted by Henrik on September 16th, 2008“Ok, well I guess you could look at it this way; there’s probably readers out there that put the responsibility on Sean for not interrupting and helping move things along in some of these comment sections.”
Also re: this, the big difference is that if you and Sean and Greg are directly in front of each other and investing time in each other and producing something, thats inherently different from Sean having to play moderator and keep an eye on everything that is said here. On top of all this he produces the majority of the site content, produce the show, make time for the Mrs. and Chopper, watch movies, and plug through and delete/edit spam. he’s got the toughest overall job on anyone from FJ or RT, and I doubt any frequent reader would dare come forward and say he’s not doing enough to make their FJ experience more pleasant.
Posted by Goon on September 16th, 2008Goonie, I just want to make it clear that your participation in the site has always been valued, and you’ve started plenty of great discussions. If you find it more rewarding to comment over at Row Three then that’s understandable, but we’re not asking you to stop posting here.
It’s just that when someone says they’re feeling attacked and not coming back again, it tells me that the discussion has gotten personal. I know you’re very passionate about some of the topics, and all I ask is that you remember that tone of writing is all too important on the internet.
The number of people commenting on the site has been steadily increasing, and we’re also working on some things to increase interaction and discussion on the site, so this is another reason why I want to keep things friendly. WORD
Posted by Sean on September 16th, 2008“It’s just that when someone says they’re feeling attacked and not coming back again, it tells me that the discussion has gotten personal.”
That’s going to happen when people take their religion so personally. A positive review for Religious itself may strike a lot of Christians as a personal affront to their beliefs. LD’s own first post is loaded with enough attacks and unfriendliness that crying foul and saying he’s leaving when he gets it back at him, again, feels like he’s getting undue deferential treatment simply by virtue of being an infrequent poster. If you actually are that concerned about keeping things friendly, stepping in and letting the new guy know rather than waiting until another regular steps on them, would send a better message.
Posted by Goon on September 16th, 2008Reading back, I can see how my question regarding Judas Priest made it seem more like a buddy-team-up kind of thing. Wasn’t my intention. Goon and I don’t even agree on religion, note how he says there are smart religious people while I say the opposite, and I certainly didn’t feel any sort of comraderie in challenging the points of view put forth in the comments. I did it on my own accord, but maybe I should have reserved my curiosity regarding the Judas Priest concert.
As for being respectful when people are being disrespectful to you, this may be beneficial for staff members, but since I’m here on my own volition, I will answer as I see fit. I mean, just because I (or we) are regular commenters, doesn’t mean I (or we) have to be held to any sort of higher standard (at least I hope not). You could argue that by our nature of thinking human beings I (or we) should take the high road towards religious people, comparable to the treatment of children, but not only is that condescending to them, it’s also a betrayal of my (or our) personality.
I’m trying to not speak for anybody but myself.
Posted by Henrik on September 16th, 2008Well, do I have to put up some “Posting Policies and Guidelines” like The Movie Blog? I really didn’t think that was necessary, but if you’re telling me you have a right to insult anyone you want on our website, you don’t.
Posted by Sean on September 16th, 2008It comes across that you’re saying that the solution to the ‘not enough posters’ question is to not question their views, even when they are controversial/picking fights. And that if we do, simply because they are new we are required to treat them with more respect than they treat us.
I have never expected to get away with insulting whoever I want, but I do hope not to be held to a different standard, both in regards to other posters, as well as vs. the tone of responding to the shows’ listeners questions.
Even if you’re saying “just don’t do it so often, okay?” I think its absolutely provable that we have done just that over the past significant period.
Posted by Goon on September 16th, 2008“If you actually are that concerned about keeping things friendly, stepping in and letting the new guy know rather than waiting until another regular steps on them, would send a better message.”
What are the examples of him getting unfriendly in his first post? I’ve read through it and I seriously don’t see it.
Posted by Jay C. on September 16th, 2008If you want to diminish free speech in comments sections, I think it would be proper to let people know.
Posted by Henrik on September 16th, 2008Well I’m letting you know right now because you’re the only one who cares.
Posted by Sean on September 16th, 2008“I have never expected to get away with insulting whoever I want, but I do hope not to be held to a different standard, both in regards to other posters, as well as vs. the tone of responding to the shows’ listeners questions.”
The problem here is Lord Dungbeetle refers to you as “staff”. You are listed on the site as staff. This is where the ‘being held to a different standard’ could come in to play. This is where we, as staff, can also speak up and make it known that you’re not representing our views…even though you sort of are.
But you MUST be at least SOMEWHAT understanding of where Sean is coming from.
Posted by Jay C. on September 16th, 2008I understand where Sean is coming from. I just want to make it clear he understands where WE are coming from.
I think LD is being silly if he sees one supposed member of “staff” as representative of all others, and could speculate it’s just a sympathy excuse. If you want a disclaimer on the staff site, I think it should go without saying, but go ahead. If there’s a concern about how I make FJ look, well I’m surprised TMB readers haven’t burned down your studio yet.
As for ‘different standard’ as I said earlier, if I’m ’staff’, hope for no different expectations of tone than is shown in responding to shows listeners questions. I could go into explaining instances how angry or combatitive you’ve came across in some mail segments, but I obviously have no problem with how you handled them, otherwise I wouldnt treat arguable/controversial posts the same way I feel you defend yourself.
All I want is to occasionally be able to argue controversial topics sharply and honestly without having to count the number of posts the other people in the thread have made.
Posted by Goon on September 16th, 2008“All I want is to occasionally be able to argue controversial topics sharply and honestly without having to count the number of posts the other people in the thread have made.”
And you do. And we commented on it, and that’s that. The posts are still up, and I’m sure there will be more in the future. And perhaps, we may comment on it again.
I’m responding to these comments in the same way I respond to reader emails. Believe me, I’ve never been truly mad or hostile during the show. I love negative junk mail.
Posted by Jay C. on September 16th, 2008I was going to go on explaining with several examples at how I was never truly mad but mixing sarcasm with barbs and actual argumetns, and blah blah misreading tone on the Internet, but its kind of pointless and well overdoing it at this point.
Posted by Goon on September 16th, 2008Goon’s on “staff”? Have I met him/her?
I have nothing to say about Religulous. I find Bill Maher kind of “too full of himself.” (I know. That’s ironic coming from Reed Farrington.)
Did we lose Lord Dungbeetle? Henrik, if you want me to beat up Goon, let me know. I wouldn’t want to lose half of Cantankerous and Treknobabble’s audience. Oh, wait. Maybe I should find out who Goon is first.
Posted by Reed Farrington on September 16th, 2008I think Reed & Goon would look something like this: http://gamerscircle.org/ebay/kirk_gorn.jpg
Posted by Bas on September 16th, 2008Reed, I was more involved on the site back when I mostly worked from home and we covered music as well as movies, back when it was spacejunk. I made those drawings of the guys in the staff section of the site. I think all of that shit happened before Jay even finished at Niagara College.
Posted by Goon on September 16th, 2008Reed, I am a pacifist and wish violence on nobody.
Posted by Henrik on September 16th, 2008I took the time to re-read Sean’s review and all the subsequent comments. While I contemplated whether or not to comment further, some questions arose that I have no answers for.
Is it possible for a movie to change a person’s belief or non-belief in God?
Is it possible for a conversation to change a person’s belief or non-belief in God?
In general, if religious people are “happier” than non-religious people, isn’t it kind of stupid to be non-religious? (In case anyone is wondering, I am non-religious.)
BTW, I have a Moses action figure that bears a striking resemblance to Charlton Heston. By pressing a button on its chest, it utters religious sayings like the Ten Commandments and other morals. And it never says the same thing twice.
Posted by Reed Farrington on September 17th, 2008Hello, first time poster. I heard about this site from MovieBlog, they recommended it in one of their articles. I checked out the podcast and thought it was good. The site is pretty good also, but I have to say, the posting here does seem intimidating. I looked at the start of this thread and the past Religious one and in my opinion, that dung beetle person wasn’t rude.
The goon guy said he was rude before and yes he did use profanity but I saw that goon used it on him first and told him to stick it up his ass. The guy was debating like three people and some of his positions were okay. The goon person broke the debate first and went to name calling. To me the whole post looked like two regulars tearing up a newbie.
In this post he made a long comment and it didn’t seem out of line. I can see where someone’s opinion may differ but it appeared as if the same two guys jumped his shit again without provocation and the attacks became very personal. I don’t know if there is a personal history or bad blood between these guys. These were the only two flame war posts I could find with dung beetle. I saw where he made other posts and they were fine, I actually agree with hsi Batman and Iraq movie one. Maybe he’s a troll but I googled him and saw he posted on a couple of news-political sites but it didn’t deem trolly.
James
Posted by Jimmy Mack on September 17th, 2008Thanks for the feedback James. We’ll try to make it a less intimidating place in the future.
Posted by Sean on September 17th, 2008With a day to look back, I have a couple apologies for a couple people:
hi James,
at least from my POV there is enough history of bad blood to color my
tone from the get-go. LD isn’t exactly a regular, but not a newbie
either, and I’m familiar with him on a few other sites where he’s said
a few things that absolutely infuriated me. I understand how someone
may see his post and see nothing objectionable. Someone like me
though, I guess I read between the lines and see it a different way
based on past posts.
I have no apologies for my views, however it was wrong to try and skip
to the end of the debate where we would have inevitably gotten
personal. I wanted to have my cake and eat it too, get my digs in
without investing my time in a debate with someone who almost always
ignores all my points. I should’ve ignored it, couldn’t and didn’t.
I am sorry to you if I’ve said/done things not related to my actual
opinions that have kept you away. Sorry Reed if I cost him a reader,
sorry to Baychuk for getting caught in the crossfire (Didnt like what
you wrote but I went too far, even if I was partially joking) and I am
sorry to Sean and Jay for wasting their time having to play referee.
And if it makes anyone feel better, I severely sprained my ankle today and am in a lot of pain.
Posted by Goon on September 17th, 2008Holy crap! Voodoo works!
Posted by Reed Farrington on September 17th, 2008Thank you Mr. Dwyer, maybe I’ll join the conversation here too.
Sorry to hear about your ankle!
I looked myself at LD’s posts elsewhere and it didn’t seem to bad either. It looks like he might even be a pro choice, conservative person. I found some of his stuff is actually funny…I think he was being funny? You gotta remember, there is a big election in America going on and people are crazy! Americans tend to be conservative for the most part. Most of them. I won’t get into any political arguments on this site that is for sure! Well, I hope he comes back I like all points of view on blogs. Is anyone gonna see American Carole?
Posted by Jimmy Mack on September 18th, 2008i think this movie is very offensive to all religions, especially Christianity. all of you will see the truth when the future comes and you will all be sorry. this movie is very stupid and the director is a piece of shit. all of you better rethink your life after this and think about the people u hurt and offended. so all of you can burn in hell for all eternity.
Posted by person on September 20th, 2008Wow! Looks like I missed a barn burner!
Thats what happens when you only use the internet on the weekends. Anyways, I can’t let this go without a comment:
Goon said “Here comes Baychuk again with “zionist†lines. Dude, you spend way too much time on the Alex Jones esque PrisonPlanet sites. YOU ARE BATSHIT INSANE. Seriously. You believe stupider shit than any religion.”
Well, if you reacted (predictably) this way, then I know what I’m saying is on the right path. If you aren’t a Christian or sympathize with the ideology, then you are an instigator or disinformationalist at best.
Posted by Baychuk on September 20th, 2008Okay, I have to say these two things as nicely as I can
person: Do you understand how hard it is to feel sorry for how offended you are, when you threaten those who disagree with you with eternal hellfire?
Baychuk: If I yell fire in a theater and everyone reacts as if there is a fire, that doesn’t mean there was a fire. Your case should stand by the strength of the argument, not by how people react to them.
Posted by Goon on September 20th, 2008Some people are just more “sensitive” to any given argument. I gauge emotional outbursts as one form of disagreement then try to figure out why they react that way.
Maybe I read in to it too much, but I still look at both sides of the discussion. If I present “Fact A” and you call me a “$%%*%^%” as a rebuttal, and continue using such tactics, well….
Posted by Baychuk on September 21st, 2008Well I did explain later that I was partially joking, and partially just looking to vent without going into a long argument.
Let’s just leave it at me openly saying when you out of nowhere refer to things like ‘zionism’, given other things you’ve said in the past, it sets off my Alex Jones alarm, as prisonplanet-esque conspirary theories and terms are among my top pet peeves. Those issues aren’t really relevant to this thread, if it comes up in the future we can (politely I hope) bash the crap out of each other then, K?
Posted by Goon on September 21st, 2008Crossposted at Rowthree.com, and adjusted for Filmjunks ratings system – this should be easy to put out there without starting a religious debate:
I saw Religulous this evening
Meh.
Basically, it’s like this. Most of the things this film does well, is giving me information I already knew. Even the weird examples Bill was trying to show the world, like Ken Ham, are people I’m already familiar with. Richard Dawkins already did this film on BBC through a couple specials, and its better than this film. I just wanted this movie to be a funnier, more sarcastic, assholeish version of the same thing. It’s somewhat funny, its smug but I think Bill is honest. It’s just not enough of what I wanted.
And the real flaws I’d have to lay on Larry Charles’ end. The little cutaways and sound effects were used to replace humor from the people being spoken too far too often, and I’m sorry, I’ve gotta side with whoever rags on the ending. I’m betting there’s a lot of reviews out there that went from 3/5 to 2.5 or 2/5 from it alone. It wasn’t anything Maher said that was particularly wrong, it wasn’t the seriousness of it, but the zillion cutaway there, the angles into Maher’s face, which looked awful, it was just too much, it played like a negative political ad.
If that whole thing had been a setup to a one liner or final joke, you could have maybe gotten away with it. if you had lined the credits with further joking interviews you could have probably gotten away with it. You could have put that in the middle of the film and people may have gotten over it by the end. but ending like that, its the only part of the film that feels preachy, and people don’t like that. Moore is preachy but even he knows to end on a more hopeful or jokey note.
The film in general is a whole lot less mean spirited and preachy than most people would have you believe. Maher is blunt and argumentative but gets along fine with most of the people he’s accosting, and he goes out of his way to claim the whole thing is about doubt, but the ending – the ending itself – can lead reasonable people to accuse this movie of being the same thing as “Expelled†when it is most certainly not.
2.5/4 for me
3 without the ending
3.5/4 maybe if most of the stuff in the film was news to me
if i had walked in with higher expectations, like at say, TIFF, i may have even given this a 2/4 as it is. mixed reviews had me not expecting anything grand.
btw, a lot of reviews were saying that this was just Maher talking to rubes trying to ridicule them. This is not “talking to americans with rick mercerâ€. Maher allows these people to make their points and explain themselves. There’s only like two scenes with what you would call “Joe Sixpacksâ€, and most everyone else is at least considered somewhat of an authority somewhere, who can defend themselves without falling into most of the same traps you can get in a religious argument.
Posted by Goon on October 5th, 2008I’ve read two reviews already about the movie, and there seems to be conflicting reports about Maher’s take on the existence of an ultimate entity. Is he an atheist or agnostic?
If he’s a atheist, then it makes sense for him to have made it; if he’s agnostic, then the movie’s “tone” definitely doesn’t portray that of an agnostic, broadly, one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god….for it seems as though he had a strong leaning to believing in the non existence of God.
Posted by DH on October 10th, 2008I saw this again last night and liked it just as much the second time.
Regarding the atheist/agnostic question, I guess it’s a bit of a grey area but throughout the movie he insists that he doesn’t have the answers and that he’s primarily promoting doubt. So I guess he’s an agnostic. I think he’s been quoted as saying he believes in some unknown force. I do wonder though if he’s just clinging to that because it’s easier for some people to swallow and because the word “atheist” has such negative connotations.
Posted by Sean on October 10th, 2008maher says he’s an agnostic, but for all intents and purposes, he’s an atheist. he apparently doesn’t like the term because to him its a statement of certainty when its really a statement of a lack of theism – agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive terms
Posted by Goon on October 10th, 2008“for it seems as though he had a strong leaning to believing in the non existence of God.”
I just want to parse your phrasing there, i mean this is probably the kind of thing that makes agnostics wary to use the atheist term. People are used to positive statements of belief, that you BELIEVE there is no god, trying to make it just another religion. To many people there’s no difference between “I believe there is no god” and “I don’t believe in god”, however to me the first is a much more active statement, the kind people find arrogant about atheists – and the latter is a lot more nuanced, open to a lot more interpretation, varying levels of agnosticism, openness to other non-theistic belief systems, or simply my general position – I don’t believe in the god of the bible, but make it clear that a zillion other possibilities are out there. You can recognize the many possibilities and at the same time not be subscribed to or believe a single one.
Posted by Goon on October 10th, 2008It’s interesting that atheism has such a negative connotation, and based on the premise of the movie, the above reviewers, as well as secular society, so does being religious. Does that mean that being an agnostic has a neutral or perhaps good connotation?
Posted by DH on October 10th, 2008Goon, zillion of other possiblities…yes and some are probably undiscovered at this time I presume…maybe one day all agnostics will fit into a “religion”.
Posted by DH on October 10th, 2008Did anyone get the sense that Maher has/had put any time, prior to filming the documentary, in researching what the various religions believe? He should have interviewed Reverend Wright too…would have made for an interesting movie in this time in US history.
Posted by DH on October 10th, 2008Agnosticism has a better connotation for most people for the same reason “undecided voters” may have a better connotation – if you pick a side there’s people all set to trash you, if you’re in the middle everyone is fighting for your attention, or more likely not to be an asshole to you… I don’t know. There’s advantages to fence sitting I guess.
You can be an agnostic atheist and an agnostic theist. You can be a gnostic theist and a gnostic atheist. gnosticism deals with what you know, theism deals with what you believe. But first off, the word ‘know’ is kind of relative, because you could say there isn’t anything we ‘know’ for sure, there are others that say ‘know’ when they really mean ‘think’ or ‘believe’, and all points in between. There are people who call themselves Christians who have their beliefs but also say that they also dont know for sure, and there are Christians who ‘know in their heart’ or claim to know for sure by all sorts of means – claiming they had direct contact, etc.
There are atheists who both dont know and dont believe, and there are atheists who ‘know’ using that relative term again – that they are convinced by evidence that the God of the bible could not be true – and also dont believe. There are those that would consider themselves ‘gnostic atheists’ in regards to some claims but ‘agnostic atheists’ towards others.
In other words – the terms are used interchangeably even though they’re not mutually exclusve, and because of the relativity of the defintion of words like ‘know’ to most people, we have a huge mess when it comes down to labels. And I thought the ‘true punk’ and ‘true metal’ discussions out there were annoying…
eh. I call myself an atheist instead of agnostic. although it may seem at times its to provoke more discussion or argument, its more or less to make it clear to people I have thought about this quite a bit and feel convinced enough in my disbelief specifically about the worlds religions to come down on that certain side of the fence. Considering when most people are talking about ‘god’ they usually mean christianity, I thought it would be clear to most people that the label is in response to their beliefs, but often it does get turned into an even bigger accusation that I’ve decided against every supernatural possibility, when its not that at all.
It does get more frustrating, more arguments do happen, but I’m happier being honest about it than I am holding back and tiptoeing around every discussion.
Posted by Goon on October 10th, 2008Goon would you consider an agnostic person to be a skeptic; if so, then do you agree that skepticism would keep them from believing in something false and also, on the other side of the coin, keep them from believing in the truth?
Posted by DH on October 10th, 2008I am an atheist, because the lack of an ultimate authority seems to me as obvious as the presence of astrophysic magneticism and gravity. If somebody brings another understanding of the universe to me, and my brain is able to understand it and it has the same amount of obvious evidence behind it, I will happily accept it. But I call myself an atheist, mainly because I hate all the fucking assholes who aren’t able to cope with the disagreements, or look at the issue with clear eyes, and just realize that agnostic is a term to use to get rid of all the arguments. If there is one thing I want to say to religous people it is: Grow a brain. If there is one thing I want to say to agnostics it is: Grow a pair.
Posted by Henrik on October 10th, 2008“Goon would you consider an agnostic person to be a skeptic”
No.
You can take absolutely ANYONE and call them an atheist or agnostic. Grab some average say, chav, off the streets of London, high off meth and fresh from stealing someone’s shoes, who doesn’t even think about religion – doesn’t believe in anything, and doesn’t know – would fit by definition as an agnostic atheist, but a skeptic? Not really, in this case someone is just passive/apathetic.
I’m sure some self described skeptic out there might disagree, but from where I stand a lot of skeptics are taking an active.
But as it applies to Maher, since he’s following one of the definitions of a skeptic during the movie out there as someone who actively believes that knowing anything for sure is impossible, as I described, maybe. Skeptic has its own negative connotations, people tend to see it as an active snarky disbelief in anything. Yet at the same time I find many skeptics are so inconsistent – I had a 9/11 truther co-worker who was skeptical of anything that debunks the conspiracy theories, but accepts just about any new theory out there, even when they conflict with each other.
…and then there’s cynicism, both in the pop-culture sense and the original Greek meaning, which cloud everything even further.
so i guess it goes back to what i was saying before, there’s overlap here and there with certain people, just as an atheist can be any political affiliation, a secular humanist, etc – beyond what the words are actually supposed to mean, there’s not that much STRICT about it when there’s nothing dogmatic preventing the overlap – the terms are simply not mutually exclusive.
Posted by Goon on October 11th, 2008“because the lack of an ultimate authority seems to me as obvious as the presence of astrophysic magneticism and gravity.”
From where I stand its more like the lack of an ultimate authority is proven by the absurdity of religious claims failing to meet the ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’ test, and that even if there is an ultimate being beyond our dimension or whatever, there’s still a massive jump from it actually existing to it actually caring about our lives and promising us an immortal soul. even when i consider the zillions of possibilities out there, the odds that it has a particular interest in you or i, even for one second let alone eternally, are pretty astronomically small. nothing has made me believe we are any more part of a divine plan than we are the side effect of a god farting and its shit spores distributing itself through the universe.
alright, so i’m being crass, but whatever – its 2 am.
Posted by Goon on October 11th, 2008..The content of the movie nothwithstanding – haven’t seen it yet, but going this Thursday, when “No Intelligence Allowed” used an alternate working title, to intice an unwitting Dawkins to divulge some of his more quirky woldviews, the filmaker was labeled dishonest and unethical by the media. When Bill Maher uses the same tactic, and doesn’t tell his interviewers about the true purposes of his film he is considered by the same media to be oh, so brave, crafty, and ingenious. “Hey! 60 minutes does it, why can’t I…”
Whatever.
Posted by David A on November 24th, 2008I think I heard a collective exhale across the planet when I watched this film. I have been a fan of Bill’s for years and thankfully he got canned from his shit job and decided to do something more substantial with that massive cranium of his. The world is a better place with people like him in it. “Dude your head is on fire”……
Posted by Graham on April 12th, 2009Leave a Reply