Has anyone seen Bill Maher's Religulous?

I saw it last year sometime. Have you?

If you have seen it, what was your opinion?

Bill Maher's take on the current state of world religion.
Watch it here:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-3791007322683758535&ei=dwFDS6yrA5fW-Aa5lfCLBA&q=religulous&hl=en&client=firefox-a#

I saw it some time ago. I think it's just super! really!
Any bible-peddling zealot should go grab a copy now. . . .

My opinion is: it's a wonderfully made film which exposed what is certain to befall man should religion persist. Unfortunately, many Nigerians don't know that though a very large percentage of Africans (Nigerians) are religious, the percentage of this who hold world power is totally insignificant. So, if religious people with power are being counted, hardly any african will feature in that list. And please, don't bore me with Adeboye and his religious zombies who certainly can't feature in that list.
So, if there is a chance that a religious dumb.as.s will nuclear bomb the world and bring an end to it, this dumb.as.s will mostly certainly come from one of the world's superpowers. So, am wondering what have Nigerians got to gain simply helping to support this religious stand??

Interesting movie. . .Thanks for the link sauer. . . .

Religulous. Has some elements of note, but is basically one man's long, bitter, poisonous, acidic rant against religion.

Bill Maher is obviously an intelligent man. But his hatred for all things religion has handicapped him severely from being objective on issues that even slightly branch into religion. We all know there are problems with religion, but to go about heralding death to all of faith reeks of an ailment best addressed to a psychiatrist. I used to listen to him a lot, but he has slowly degenerated into a senile, bitter old man with a microphone who spits curses on anything or anyone that does not conform to his twisted worldview.

Just my small comment on the matter.

^{*walk in, ouch i saw HER and i'll be leaving right away, so she doesnt sentence me to the THREAD OF THE GREAT TITHERS *}

JeSoul:

Religulous. Has some elements of note, but is basically one man's long, bitter, poisonous, acidic rant against religion.

Bill Maher is obviously an intelligent man. But his hatred for all things religion has handicapped him severely from being objective on issues that even slightly branch into religion. We all know there are problems with religion, but to go about heralding death to all of faith reeks of an ailment best addressed to a psychiatrist. I used to listen to him a lot, but he has slowly degenerated into a senile, bitter old man with a microphone who spits curses on anything or anyone that does not conform to his twisted worldview.

Just my small comment on the matter.

This is apparently a very silly review of this movie. Bill isn't even old, so I wonder where you get your "senile" from. Critics naturally have what they are most found of, and they do it their own style. You clearly won't say Dawkins (who is a professor) is handicapped because he "rants" about religion. This guys probably does it more than Bill.
However, religion is a hot topic in america and is so evident in their foreign policy that it has crumbled such a nation as palestine, so if Bill is singly out frea/king religious idiots on their beliefs, why question him

Maher was pandering like a fukn politician, IMO. He went to interview the most wacko religionists he could find. Talking to some "priest" in front of the Vatican makes for a good shot. . . but he should have gone to interview some religious scholars that would have made minced meat out of his propaganda.

I agree with the core of what he is saying though, because he is really beefing superstition, and belief in "silly" stuff. But the arguments in that movie are silly and besides entertainment value, don't do much. I don't know how some truck driver fellowship group, some fundamentalist Jews, and astrologer etc, are the best spokespersons he could find for religion. Like he doesn't know how to get to Harvard Divinity or any of the credible institutions to go have a real debate with a religionist.

sauer:

This is apparently a very silly review of this movie. Bill isn't even old, so I wonder where you get your "senile" from.

Forgive me, I thought it would be obvious that wasn't meant in the most literal of senses. Maher is senile and is slowly becoming as irrational as the very silly "religious" people he campaigns against.

  My take is silly because it disagrees with yours? Here's Krayola's take which I think further elucidates my intial points:

 

Krayola:

Maher was pandering like a fukn politician, IMO. He went to interview the most wacko religionists he could find. Talking to some "priest" in front of the Vatican makes for a good shot. . . but he should have gone to interview some religious scholars that would have made minced meat out of his propaganda.

I agree with the core of what he is saying though, because he is really beefing superstition, and belief in "silly" stuff. But the arguments in that movie are silly and besides entertainment value, don't do much. I don't know how some truck driver fellowship group, some fundamentalist Jews, and astrologer etc, are the best spokespersons he could find for religion. Like he doesn't know how to get to Harvard Divinity or any of the credible institutions to go have a real debate with a religionist.

Please see the bolded parts, is Krayola wrong?

Which religionists did you expect him to interview, BTW? I told you critics have what they are most fond of and use this as their attacking point. Can't you see at all that Bill is a comedian? Okay, school boy, you want him to go about interviewing the pope? (Anyways, he wanted to talk to him! )
If bill singles out the "most wacko guys", that's because he wanted to give his audience a good laugh which BTW is his job, okay?

When Dawkins did his "The root of all evil" (I wont put the question mark), who did he interview? supposedly reputable religionists, some head of the evangelical association who ended up being gay taking di/ck/s with speed. The main point is religion is always silly.

This doesn't distract from the major argument of the doku, which is that "if the world does come to an end or limps into the future decimated by the effect of a religion-inspired nuclear terrorism, the problem would be that we learnt how to precipitate mass death before getting past the neurological disorder of wishing for it"

sauer:

Which religionists did you expect him to interview, BTW? I told you critics have what they are most fond of and use this as their attacking point. Can't you see at all that Bill is a comedian? Okay, school boy, you want him to go about interviewing the pope? (Anyways, he wanted to talk to him! )
If bill singles out the "most wacko guys", that's because he wanted to give his audience a good laugh which BTW is his job, okay?

When Dawkins did his "The root of all evil" (I wont put the question mark), who did he interview? supposedly reputable religionists, some head of the evangelical association who ended up being gay taking di/ck/s with speed. The main point is religion is always silly.

This doesn't distract from the major argument of the doku, which is that "if the world does come to an end or limps into the future decimated by the effect of a religion-inspired nuclear terrorism, the problem would be that we learnt how to precipitate mass death before getting past the neurological disorder of wishing for it"

If Dawkins, Maher,  or anyone wants to debate religionists, why do they find the most conservative, literalists, to debate. Why don't they go and debate religious scholars that actually study this stuff for a living. When you have a scientist going to debate a conservative literalist, how is that a fair debate? And to even suggest that one or a few religious individuals, or groups, can be used to describe all religious expressions is just beyond silly, IMHO.

I'm not asking Maher to interview the pope. I'm asking him to go into the religious studies department of a credible institution, and try and make those arguments against one of the professors there. I dare him to bring a camera with him and post the interview for the world to see. The guy went to the most 'vulnerable' people he could find, made a movie for comic relief, and you are here using that to make assertions about religion as a whole. That is nonsense IMO, and I think you know better.  Dawkin's, Maher, et all are in the business of making money. Not in the "business" of education

I saw religulous over a year ago and thought it was very funny. But it was just entertainment. If that is how u inform or educate yourself then it explains a lot about your position in this debate.

Krayola:

If Dawkins, Maher,  or anyone wants to debate religionists, why do they find the most conservative, literalists, to debate. Why don't they go and debate religious scholars that actually study this stuff for a living. When you have a scientist going to debate a conservative literalist, how is that a fair debate? And to even suggest that one or a few religious individuals, or groups, can be used to describe all religious expressions is just beyond silly, IMHO.

I'm not asking Maher to interview the pope. I'm asking him to go into the religious studies department of a credible institution, and try and make those arguments against one of the professors there. I dare him to bring a camera with him and post the interview for the world to see. The guy went to the most 'vulnerable' people he could find, made a movie for comic relief, and you are here using that to make assertions about religion as a whole. That is nonsense IMO, and I think you know better.  Dawkin's, Maher, et all are in the business of making money. Not in the "business" of education

I saw religulous over a year ago and thought it was very funny. But it was just entertainment. If that is how u inform or educate yourself then it explains a lot about your position in this debate.

Am actually not surprised at your posting. This is expected. What am surprised at is your failure to mention names. Okay, school boy, Dawkins should debate who? Apparently you haven't seen a lot of this. Apparently you don't know Dawkins debated Richard Harris who happens to be a Bishop and I saw this debate. Dawkins also debated Richard Holloway who is a professor of Theology. So?
You see, what is evidently beyond your grasp is that these people you speak glowingly of actually share a lot of views with Dawkins and with Science. I saw the Dawkins-Harris debate so I know what am saying. Harris who is a bishop will of course come on to the pulpit and tell people like you to make sure your belief does not waver, but told Dawkins that he though evolution was an true and okay concept. See? This isn't double standard; it's simply let the religious ones have their daily bread every Sunday.

The way I see it, you are only familiar with the popular dokus and don't know Dawkins actually debate professors of theology, but these are of course usually just like-minded people speaking. And didn't you see Maher talking to Francis Collins?

Just save it. Those "conservative literalist" are the people who provide so much fun!!

No flipping allowed Sauer. You made your entire reply to Krayola's last post only about Dawkins - I thought Maher was the flava of the topic?

sauer:

Which religionists did you expect him to interview, BTW? I told you critics have what they are most fond of and use this as their attacking point. Can't you see at all that Bill is a comedian?

. . . I am so glad you pointed this out.

Therefore think it not strange or out of place that many of us dismiss this so-called "documentary" as ludicrous comedy, not worthy for a nano second of being mistaken as a picture borne out of an ounce of scholarship or erudition.

If all anyone is saying is Religulous is a piece of comedy that contains some truths about some religious fundamentalists but is not meant to be taken seriously as an educated attempt at religious commentary, then I have no qualms with that. Cheerios.

sauer:

Am actually not surprised at your posting. This is expected. What am surprised at is your failure to mention names. Okay, school boy, Dawkins should debate who? Apparently you haven't seen a lot of this. Apparently you don't know Dawkins debated Richard Harris who happens to be a Bishop and I saw this debate. Dawkins also debated Richard Holloway who is a professor of Theology. So?

Here you go again. . .  You can not narrow religion down to the opinions of a few individuals. DO you think Daddy GO or pastor Adeboye are "credible" authorities on religion

I honestly got Christopher Hitchens and Dawkins mixed up. That was my mistake. I haven't seen any of Dawkins debates and the one's I've seen with Hitchens were painful to watch because the people he was debating were just pathetic. I do not form my opinions based on what Hitchens/Dawkins say so their debates are not collectors items for me.

Now, if he has indeed debated some non-fundamentalist religionists, you are obviously aware that there are religionists that do not deny reason, and do not subscribe to a lot of fundamentalist ideas. So why, then, do you come and use religulous, which mostly uses fundamentalists to paint a picture of religionists, to make judgments of religion as a phenomenon?  

In my first post I said i did not disagree with Maher, but that his methods were shitty. I stand by that.

sauer:

You see, what is evidently beyond your grasp is that these people you speak glowingly of actually share a lot of views with Dawkins and with Science. I saw the Dawkins-Harris debate so I know what am saying.

haha. The irony. That is the point I was trying to make. That not all religious people are deluded . . .  But according to you that is beyond my grasp.   U be funny guy

sauer:

Harris who is a bishop will of course come on to the pulpit and tell people like you to make sure your belief does not waver,

I'm not religious. Don't believe in any defined God, or Jesus saving my soul, or whatever else religions say I should. . . I don't know where this ^^ is coming from  

sauer:

but told Dawkins that he though evolution was an true and okay concept. See? This isn't double standard; it's simply let the religious ones have their daily bread every Sunday.

I'll like to see, hear, read, about where this guy that told Dawkins he believes in evolution, went, after that, and preached something different to his congregation. I'll respond to that when I confirm your story.

sauer:

The way I see it, you are only familiar with the popular dokus and don't know Dawkins actually debate professors of theology, but these are of course usually just like-minded people speaking. And didn't you see Maher talking to Francis Collins?

You miss my point completely. . . someone having a Phd does not make them credible. I said he should go to a credible Institution (like Harvard, or any respected academic institution, stanford any mainstream university with a religious studies department, and debate one of the scholars there, and try to make the same arguments he used for the people in that movie. He will leave there feeling like an i.d.iot and won't put that stuff in his film. I can bet my life on that.

sauer:

Just save it. Those "conservative literalist" are the people who provide so much fun!!

Following these celebrity atheists and regurgitate their arguments puts one in the same category as people that go around quoting their pastors and their bible as some for of authority.

BTW I never said i did not agree with the core of Maher's message. I said the arguments and methods in that film were silly, and useful mainly for entertainment.

YOu want names? I would like to see maher go and interview John Dominic Crossan, or marcus Borg. They will chew him up and spit him out.

Krayola what is the point you are trying to put across exactly? How many christians really share the views of Dominic Crossons,  Marcus Borg, Bishop Spong, Willaim Lane Craig etc? What percentage of Christianity do such scholars constitute? How many Christians will willingly throw the bible away just because they want to use reason and political correctness? You can start from nairaland. . . .95 percent of the Christians here believe in a global flood, do these scholars believe in any of these things? Does the bible NOT say that there was a global flood? why are people wrong in believing what the bible says? What makes the view of this so called scholars better than what the bible actually says?. . . .Do you think your avarage christian will accept or agree with Dominic Crossans  on the bible? 99% of the Christians here will label him a heretic and a child of Satan.

Do majority of moslems believe what is written in the Koran? YES they do so why should they accept the views of some politically correct apologist over what is actually written in the koran? What is truly wrong with biblical or koranic literalism? Where is it written in any of the books that any thing that is written in there is NOT supposed to be taken literally? When the bible says that Yahweh came down from heaven fought with men, killed them stained his cloth with their blood and was boasting that he did it alone do you think the writer was not truly writing what he truly felt? Why should people not take that as a literal event? Do you think the person that wrote some of the nonsense in the koran expected people to give it an interpretation and life of its own? Why should people NOT take the bible literally? Do you think the people that wrote it expected others to read it other wise? If you think John Dominic Crossan, or marcus Borg view of the bible or Christianity constitute any reasonable precentage of Christians then you really do not know what you are talking about. . . . .By the way on what basis do you declare that Adeboye is not a credible authority on Christianity?

JeSoul:

No flipping allowed Sauer. You made your entire reply to Krayola's last post only about Dawkins - I thought Maher was the flava of the topic?
. . . I am so glad you pointed this out.

Therefore think it not strange or out of place that many of us dismiss this so-called "documentary" as ludicrous comedy, not worthy for a nano second of being mistaken as a picture borne out of an ounce of scholarship or erudition.

If all anyone is saying is Religulous is a piece of comedy that contains some truths about some religious fundamentalists but is not meant to be taken seriously as an educated attempt at religious commentary, then I have no qualms with that. Cheerios.

It's certainly worth many hours for me. It provided me with enough laugh which of course is the only use religion truly serves!

mazaje:

Krayola what is the point you are trying to put across exactly? How many christians really share the views of Dominic Crossons,  Marcus Borg, Bishop Spong, Willaim Lane Craig etc? What percentage of Christianity do such scholars constitute? How many Christians will willingly throw the bible away just because they want to use reason and political correctness? You can start from nairaland. . . .95 percent of the Christians here believe in a global flood, do these scholars believe in any of these things? Does the bible NOT say that there was a global flood? why are people wrong in believing what the bible says? What makes the view of this so called scholars better than what the bible actually says?. . . .Do you think your avarage christian will accept or agree with Dominic Crossans  on the bible? 99% of the Christians here will label him a heretic and a child of Satan.

My point is that if u want to make an argument against fundamentalists, make it. You can't just label all Christians as fundamentalists.  Your argument above doesn't mean much. A lot of Nigerians are criminals, does that make most Nigerians criminals? Bill Maher made a case against fundamentalists, and labelled it, presented it, and marketed it as a case against religion as a whole. If not that he is a comedian, that would be straight up deceit.

The dynamics of most people groups tell us that they are hardly ever homogeneous. For any intellectual to come and try to paint any group as such is an insult to our intelligence, and I'm disappointed at the way a lot of people subscribe to, and endorse such gross over-generalizations. It does too much to hurt your credibility. Make your case against fundamentalists. . . stop trying to label every religionists as silly. That is dishonest.

Krayola:

Here you go again. . .  You can not narrow religion down to the opinions of a few individuals. DO you think Daddy GO or pastor Adeboye are "credible" authorities on religion

I honestly got Christopher Hitchens and Dawkins mixed up. That was my mistake. I haven't seen any of Dawkins debates and the one's I've seen with Hitchens were painful to watch because the people he was debating were just pathetic. I do not form my opinions based on what Hitchens/Dawkins say so their debates are not collectors items for me.

Now, if he has indeed debated some non-fundamentalist religionists, you are obviously aware that there are religionists that do not deny reason, and do not subscribe to a lot of fundamentalist ideas. So why, then, do you come and use religulous, which mostly uses fundamentalists to paint a picture of religionists, to make judgments of religion as a phenomenon?  

In my first post I said i did not disagree with Maher, but that his methods were shitty. I stand by that.


haha. The irony. That is the point I was trying to make. That not all religious people are deluded . . .  But according to you that is beyond my grasp.   U be funny guy

I'm not religious. Don't believe in any defined God, or Jesus saving my soul, or whatever else religions say I should. . . I don't know where this ^^ is coming from  

I'll like to see, hear, read, about where this guy that told Dawkins he believes in evolution, went, after that, and preached something different to his congregation. I'll respond to that when I confirm your story.

You miss my point completely. . . someone having a Phd does not make them credible. I said he should go to a credible Institution (like Harvard, or any respected academic institution, stanford any mainstream university with a religious studies department, and debate one of the scholars there, and try to make the same arguments he used for the people in that movie. He will leave there feeling like an i.d.iot and won't put that stuff in his film. I can bet my life on that.


Following these celebrity atheists and regurgitate their arguments puts one in the same category as people that go around quoting their pastors and their bible as some for of authority.

BTW I never said i did not agree with the core of Maher's message. I said the arguments and methods in that film were silly, and useful mainly for entertainment.

YOu want names? I would like to see maher go and interview John Dominic Crossan, or marcus Borg. They will chew him up and spit him out.

It is only obvious that Maher didn't go about doing some scientific exposition. For christ's sake he isn't a scientist, but a comedian!! His aim was to make people laugh, and on that the movie was a success. You didn't get that??

I think the moderator has to devise some way of displaying age here. Are you 16? This nairaland sef wey pikins go dey grab username
John Dominic? Are you sure at all?

Just read mazaje up above please, or school boy, you want me to start wasting texts?

sauer:

It is only obvious that Maher didn't go about doing some scientific exposition. For christ's sake he isn't a scientist, but a comedian!! His aim was to make people laugh, and on that the movie was a success. You didn't get that??

I think the moderator has to devise some way of displaying age here. Are you 16? This nairaland sef wey pikins go dey grab username
John Dominic? Are you sure at all?

Just read mazaje up above please, or school boy, you want me to start wasting texts?

haha. E be like say u don run out of stuff to say. 

Let's say I was 16, then what? Then you necessarily have a more informed opinion than I do? Please explain how that works,  sir!

Your earlier posts, before people pointed out that that film was only uselul for entertainment, suggested that you took it to be more than comic relief.

sauer:

I saw it some time ago. I think it's just super! really!
Any bible-peddling zealot should go grab a copy now. . . .

My opinion is: it's a wonderfully made film which exposed what is certain to befall man should religion persist. Unfortunately, many Nigerians don't know that though a very large percentage of Africans (Nigerians) are religious, the percentage of this who hold world power is totally insignificant. So, if religious people with power are being counted, hardly any african will feature in that list. And please, don't bore me with Adeboye and his religious zombies who certainly can't feature in that list.
So, if there is a chance that a religious dumb.behind will nuclear bomb the world and bring an end to it, this dumb.behind will mostly certainly come from one of the world's superpowers. So, am wondering what have Nigerians got to gain simply helping to support this religious stand??

The "wonderfully made film" is a joke, and nothing more. To suggest that it has much pedagogical value says more about you than it says about fundamentalists. You might as well post an episode of South-Park next time you want to make a point.

Krayola:

My point is that if u want to make an argument against fundamentalists, make it. You can't just label all Christians as fundamentalists.  Your argument above doesn't mean much. A lot of Nigerians are criminals, does that make most Nigerians criminals? Bill Maher made a case against fundamentalists, and labelled it, presented it, and marketed it as a case against religion as a whole. If not that he is a comedian, that would be straight up deceit.

The dynamics of most people groups tell us that they are hardly ever homogeneous. For any intellectual to come and try to paint any group as such is an insult to our intelligence, and I'm disappointed at the way a lot of people subscribe to, and endorse such gross over-generalizations. It does too much to hurt your credibility. Make your case against fundamentalists. . . stop trying to label every religionists as silly. That is dishonest.

Why do you keep labelling the people in the video as fundamentalist?. . .These are your average Christians. . .MAJORITY of Christians believe what these people believe. . .Do your think an avarage Christian will agree with Dominic Crossan?. . . . . . .The people he interviewed in those vidoes are your average Christians. . . .An average Christian believes that homosextuality is a sin, An average christian believes in the virgin birth, an average christian believes in talking donkey, talking snakes, global flood, and the allaged miracles of jesus, does an average christian believe in the second coming of jesus and that the bible is the word of god? YES so what EXACTLY are you saying? Is it an average christian that you are labelling a fundamentalist? . . . .Does an average muslim believe that homosexality is a sin? YES . . .does an average moslem believes that all Jews deserve to die?YES. Why? because that is what Islam teaches so what the heck are you saying? .

mazaje:

Why do you keep labelling the people in the video as fundamentalist?. . .These are your average Christians. . .MAJORITY of Christians believe what these people believe. . .Do your think an avarage Christian will agree with Dominic Crossan?. . . . . . .The people he interviewed in those vidoes are your average Christians. . . .An average Christian believes that homosextuality is a sin, An average christian believes in the virgin birth, an average christian believes in talking donkey, talking snakes, global flood, and the allaged miracles of jesus, does an avarage christian believe in the second coming of jesus and that the bible is the word of god? YES so what EXACTLY are you saying? Is it an avarege christian that you are labelling a fundamentalist? . . . .Does an average muslim believe that homosexality is a sin? YES . . .does an average moslem believes that all Jews deserve to die?YES. Why? because that is what Islam teaches so what the heck are you saying? .

haha. . The majority of Christians in my neck of the woods are not fundamentalists.

I didnt use Dominic crossan, borg etc as the standard for Christianity. I said if Maher, or Dawkins, or whoever wanted to debate religion with a religionist, they should go and try those stunts they pull with people like that and see what happens. Those are people that know the bible inside out, and will rip all those sensationalist arguments  to shreds.

What is the average Christian?
What is the average Nigerian?
What is the average American?
What is the average child?
What is the average doctor?

I hope u see how ridiculous these your categories are? 

Krayola:

haha. . The majority of Christians in my neck of the woods are not fundamentalists.

I bet the majority of christians in your neck of woods believe in the second coming of jesus, they also believe in the alleged magical miracles attributed to jesus, they believe that jesus was born of a virgin, they believe that they will go and be with jesus when they die, the believe in the stories of the bible and they also believe in its moral teachings. . . .if they do then they are no different from the people bill maher interviewed in the documentary. . . . .If they don't then they have no need calling themselves christains because that is what christainity is all about. . . .

I didnt use Dominic crossan, borg etc as the standard for Christianity. I said if Maher, or Dawkins, or whoever wanted to debate religion with a religionist, they should go and try those stunts they pull with people like that and see what happens. Those are people that know the bible inside out, and will rip all those sensationalist arguments  to shreds.

What do you mean by the know the bible inside out? . . . .I know what you are trying to say but as far as I am concerned Dominic Crossan is NOT a christian, What kind of person will call himself a Christian and not believe that Jesus was not born of a virgin? . . . .

What is the average Christian?

The average christian is some one that believe in what the bible really says and these are that all life was created by god, that sin came into the world because some serpent decieved some woman to eat from a tree of knowledge, that jesus died and rose again from the dead to save mankind from  the biblegod's wrath and eternal punishment and that if they die they will go to heaven to be with jesus. . . .How is that different from the view which the people in the video hold?. . . .Are the people that hold these views what you can fundamentalist?. . .You call the christians he interviewed in the documentary fundamentalist because of what exactly?. . . . .

I know he did interviewed some crazy wackos like the jewish rabbi that went to Iran to meet with the Iranian preseident and the deluded guy that believes he is jesus. . . 

mazaje:

I bet the majority of christians in your neck of woods believe in the second coming of jesus, they also believe in the alleged magical miracles attributed to jesus, they believe that jesus was born of a virgin, they believe that they will go and be with jesus when they die, the believe in the stories of the bible and they also believe in its moral teacjings. . . .if they do then they are no different from the people bill maher interviewed in the documentary. . . . .If they don't then they have no need calling themselves christains because that is what christainity is all about. . . .


What do you mean by the know the bible inside out? . . . .I know what you are trying to say but as far as I am concerned Dominic Crossan is NOT a christian, What kind of person will call himself a Christian and not believe that Jesus was not born of a virgin? . . . .

The average christian is some one that believe in what the bible really says and these are that all life was created by god, that sin came into the world because some serpent decieved some women to eat from a tree of knowledge, that jesus died and rose again from the dead to save mankind from  the biblegod's wrath and eternal punishment and that if they die they will go to heaven to be with jesus. . . .How is that different from the view which the people in the video hold?. . . .Are the people that hold these views what you can fundamentalist?. . .You call the christians he interviewed in the documentary fundamentalist because of what exactly?. . . . .

I know he did interviewed some crazy wackos like the jewish rabbi that went to Iran to meet with the Iranian preseident and the deluded guy that believes he is jesus. . . 

hahaha. That is what u would love so u can just throw those your arguments and make them look silly, abi? You want all christians to fit into your box labelled "silly, unreasonable and straight up ignorant" abi?

WHen I say "know the bible inside out " I don't just mean memorizing the bible, but understanding it's origin, how it came together. understanding the Hebrew culture and what a lot of those stories represent. Understanding the context in which those things were said. So when u throw stuff like the virgin birth, or the flood etc at them, they will make u feel silly for even suggesting that that discredits the christian faith. Because an ancient audience would have understood the symbolism of that story, and not taken it literally. when u use arguments like that to try to discredit Christianity, you are basing your argument on the same premises you call the fundamentalists silly for subscribing to.

Any educated adult, IMO, that believes a virgin had a child, or some guy lived in the belly of a fish, or that someone walked on water, the earth was created in 6 days etc, has serious mental issues. Whether Christian Muslim Shango worshipper, whateva. So, if rather than trying to contextualize these stories, people seek to spend all their energy defending fantastic stuff, that is infantile religion, IMO.    A lot of people do not believe in that stuff, but they are not vocal about their faiths. . . they don't go around screaming Jesus this and Holy spirit that every chance they get. . . they just practice their faith quietly. I'm sure u know that empty barrels make the most noise. The loudest religionists are usually the most clueless.

BTW that applies to atheists too 

Krayola:

hahaha. That is what u would love so u can just throw those your arguments and make them look silly, abi? You want all christians to fit into your box labelled "silly, unreasonable and straight up ignorant" abi?

WHen I say "know the bible inside out " I don't just mean memorizing the bible, but understanding it's origin, how it came together. understanding the Hebrew culture and what a lot of those stories represent. Understanding the context in which those things were said. So when u throw stuff like the virgin birth, or the flood etc at them, they will make u feel silly for even suggesting that that discredits the christian faith. Because an ancient audience would have understood the symbolism of that story, and not taken it literally. when u use arguments like that to try to discredit Christianity, you are basing your argument on the same premises you call the fundamentalists silly for subscribing to.

Any educated adult, IMO, that believes a virgin had a child, or some guy lived in the belly of a fish, or that someone walked on water, the earth was created in 6 days etc, has serious mental issues. Whether Christian Muslim Shango worshipper, whateva. So, if rather than trying to contextualize these stories, people seek to spend all their energy defending fantastic stuff, that is infantile religion, IMO.    A lot of people do not believe in that stuff, but they are not vocal about their faiths. . . they don't go around screaming Jesus this and Holy spirit that every chance they get. . . they just practice their faith quietly. I'm sure u know that empty barrels make the most noise. The loudest religionists are usually the most clueless.

BTW that applies to atheists too 

So what you are saying in essence is that a person that believe in the virgin birth or that johnah survived in a fish for 3 days is a fundamentalist eh?. . . . . . .I've gat news for you. . . That is what MAJORITY of christians believe. . . . .Do you really think that the writers of the bible really do not think that those things happened? Why are you labelling people as fundamentalist for believing in the virgin birth or that dead rose from the dead and walked the street of jerusalem  when jesus was allegedly killed? is that not what the bible ACTUALLY says?. . . . does the hadith not say that mohammed flew into heaven on the back of a white horse from jerusalem? Is that not what their religion teaches? Why do you keep calling people that actually believe in what their religion teaches them fundamentalist?. . . . . . . .So dominic Crossan is your example of a religionist eh? . . . .Karyola my man. . . .nothing do you. . . .

Now u sound like a fundamentalist. A Christian fundamentalist is one who takes everything in the bible literally. A lot of the stuff was never supposed to be taken literally. 2000 years ago stories were not told for facts and historicity of events, but to teach lessons.

Krayola:

Now u sound like a fundamentalist. A Christian fundamentalist is one who takes everything in the bible literally. A lot of the stuff was never supposed to be taken literally. 2000 years ago stories were not told for facts and historicity of events, but to teach lessons.

I understand what you are saying but do most of the people that practice these religions see things like you do? The answer is NO. . . .You call them fundamentalist but I call them believers. . .  . . . .Again I understand what you are saying and I agree very much with it. . . .

I said "it's a wonderfully made film which exposed what is certain to befall man should religion persist." which you quoted
and what did the movie expose as certain to befall man should religion persist?

I said, "This doesn't distract from the major argument of the doku, which is that "if the world does come to an end or limps into the future decimated by the effect of a religion-inspired nuclear terrorism, the problem would be that we learnt how to precipitate mass death before getting past the neurological disorder of wishing for it"

and what did you say to this?:

Krayola:

BTW I never said i did not agree with the core of Maher's message. I said the arguments and methods in that film were silly, and useful mainly for entertainment.

So, what's the prob, school boy?

I don't know why you refuse to accept that all the peeps in the movie are really just your normal everyday christian; nigerian christians are perhaps even worse than those are. And the woman at the end of the movie saying so gleefully that she'll fly with jesus on a white horse at the end of the world is a fundamentalist? The calm guy with hands crossed saying "it was a big fish" is also a fundamentalist?

Krayola:

Now u sound like a fundamentalist. A Christian fundamentalist is one who takes everything in the bible literally. A lot of the stuff was never supposed to be taken literally. 2000 years ago stories were not told for facts and historicity of events, but to teach lessons.

95% of the world's christian will not agree with you on this. . . u know?
Anyways, from your definition, anyone bill argues must be a fundamentalist since they all believe in the white horse. . . .so on that basis the movie is crap QED, isn't it?

sauer:

95% of the world's christian will not agree with you on this. . . u know?
Anyways, from your definition, anyone bill argues must be a fundamentalist since they all believe in the white horse. . . .so on that basis the movie is crap QED, isn't it?

hahaha. How far will you go in your effort to equate being religious with being silly. Do you really think you are making sense?

Where did you get that 95% figure from?  hahaha. It's kinda sad that a 16 year old child gets to teach you one or two things about honesty, credibility, and how not to let your ego and pride push you to blatantly distort information, or even make stuff up, in the name of winning a petty debate on Nairaland. This is truly sad. 

Professor Maher, your educator, apparently, shot his movie mostly in America. Abi? How you got stats for the whole world, I wanna know 

Here is a paper from Berkely addressing the CRISIS of fundamentalism (literalism). Even they, people who are tasked with dealing with the problem, don't make up such outrageous stats. But we can trust the straight A  students of Professor Maher to get their numbers right from the source  . I'm waiting for where you got that figure from. 

Heliocentrism, as Galileo discovered, was once considered a challenge to religion, because it was thought to conflict with the Bible. The Bible, read literally, assumes the ancient view of the cosmos that the earth is the center of the solar system and the sun revolves around it. Few Americans these days interpret the Bible as a geocentric document, but a healthy percentage still accept a literal reading of Genesis regarding the separate creation of plants and animals as independent "kinds". This belief contrasts starkly with the scientific concept that living species are descended with modification from ancestors that differed from then. Thus evolution, and not theologically-acceptable heliocentrism, is vigorously opposed by an active segment of modern American society.

Antievolutionism extends beyond mere Biblical literalism, however, as shown by comparing survey data on American religious opinions with survey data on attitudes towards evolution. Polls of adult Americans have consistently shown over the last fifteen years or so that a substantial proportion of us do not think humans evolved (whether other creatures evolved is usually not part of the standard query.) In May of 1996, the National Science Foundation released results from a telephone survey of 2,006 individuals who were asked questions about basic science literacy (Petit, 1996.) One question was, "Human beings as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals." Only 44% of Americans answered "True". In 1994, the American Museum of Natural History asked "Human beings evolved from earlier species of animals, true or false" and only 45% agreed — results virtually identical to the NSF study.

Defining religious conservatism is tricky, as there is no uniform agreement on terms. One term for conservative Christians is "evangelical." Evangelicals are Christians who believe the Bible is inerrant, and that salvation is achieved only through Christ (Hunter, 1983.) According to Marsden (1987), about 20% of Americans are evangelicals, far fewer than the 44% of Americans who reject evolution.

In a nutshell, there is more antievolutionism than there are religious conservatives ( <--- hope you didn't miss that): antievolutionism appeals both to evangelicals as well as Americans who adhere to religiously-moderate faiths. There is an irony here: the "official" theologies of Catholic and mainstream Protestant Christianity are not literalist, and have accommodated evolution as the way God created (Scott, 1995.) NCSE's book, Voices for Evolution (Matsumura, 1995), includes a collection of statements from the Roman Catholic Pope, the Episcopalians, Methodists, United Church of Christ, Presbyterians, and the Lutheran World Federation (and several Jewish groups) all expressing respect for science and for evolution as part of science. Nonetheless, even if the ministers, priests and rabbis accept evolution, many people on the other side of the pulpit appear largely ignorant of their own theology!

It is important for those of us trying to teach evolution to recognize that many of our fellow citizens find evolution profoundly disturbing. They have been told or have somehow acquired the belief (sometimes from scientists, unfortunately) that evolution "proves" that there is no purpose to life, that life has no meaning, that they must give up their sense of the divine. According to a respected City College of New York poll, 90% of Americans describe themselves as religious (Goldman, 1991.) If evolution is presented as antithetical to religion (which is precisely how organizations such as the Institute for Creation Research present it), it is no wonder that a high percentage of Americans reject it. Actually, as suggested by the selections in Voices for Evolution, mainline Christianity can accommodate evolution, though it is doubtful that Biblical literalism can. As teachers and scientists, we need to leave an opportunity for the religious individual to work out the accommodation according to his or her beliefs, and not slam the door by inserting extra-scientific philosophical statements about purpose and meaning into our discussions of evolution. I will discuss this in greater detail below.

Full article available here http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/Scott1.html


Another article from the Florida State University office of research . .(hopefully you consider that a better source of data that your imaginition, or that of Professor Maher's) showing that in Great Britain, for instance, the rate of Biblical literalism is FIVE TIMES LESS than in the USA!!

Recent Gallup Polls consistently report that almost half of all Americans continue to believe in a God who created humans pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. A far greater percentage refuses to accept our common ancestry with apes. Even among scientists, the polls find that only 56 per cent rule out divine intervention in its entirety. Well over four in 10 are willing at least to leave open the possibility of a greater power's hand in the affairs of men.

Faith in the Bible as God's literal word runs five times higher in this country than in Great Britain, those same polls show. So-called creation research groups in California and Missouri have their own web pages, peer-reviewed journals and weekly radio programs. A Creation Museum and Family Discovery Center with a sculpted, 10-foot stegosaurus out front is scheduled to open in Cincinnati late next year.

  read entire article here http://www.rinr.fsu.edu/issue2001/darwindivide.html

SO unless 40% of American christians all of a sudden became fundamentalist in the last decade, along with 75% of the ones in Great Britain you, my dear friend, are full of igbe (sh.i.t)  .

It is just funny to watch you try to pass off a comedy by Bill Maher, aimed at making a buck, as evidence against Christianity. It's painfully funny. I think people like you, and your approach, is why we have such a hard time getting through to people. You destroy the credibility of people that really, sincerely, try to improve the situation. You seem to just want to ridicule people at all costs, and nothing else. It's really sad 

I'll rather be a 16 year old school boy that gets schooled by credible educators, than a student of sensationalist propagandists, on a crusade against stuff he knows little to nothing about.


I'm still waiting for the source of your stats on what the whole world and what 95% of Christians believe . . Also, don't forget evidence of the priest that told Dawkins he believed in evolution, and then went to preach against evolution to his congregation (Now that is multiple claims you seem to have made up just to attempt to make a mockery of Christians)  . . Until then, signing out,   . your's truly. . "SCHOOL BOY!!" 

Krayola:

hahaha. How far will you go in your effort to equate being religious with being silly. Do you really think you are making sense?

Where did you get that 95% figure from?  hahaha. It's kinda sad that a 16 year old child gets to teach you one or two things about honesty, credibility, and how not to let your ego and pride push you to blatantly distort information, or even make stuff up, in the name of winning a petty debate on Nairaland. This is truly sad. 

Professor Maher, your educator, apparently, shot his movie mostly in America. Abi? How you got stats for the whole world, I wanna know 

Here is a paper from Berkely addressing the CRISIS of fundamentalism (literalism). Even they, people who are tasked with dealing with the problem, don't make up such outrageous stats. But we can trust the straight A  students of Professor Maher to get their numbers right from the source  . I'm waiting for where you got that figure from. 
Full article available here http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/Scott1.html


Another article from the Florida State University office of research . .(hopefully you consider that a better source of data that your imaginition, or that of Professor Maher's) showing that in Great Britain, for instance, the rate of Biblical literalism is FIVE TIMES LESS than in the USA!!
  read entire article here http://www.rinr.fsu.edu/issue2001/darwindivide.html

SO unless 40% of American christians all of a sudden became fundamentalist in the last decade, along with 75% of the ones in Great Britain you, my dear friend, are full of igbe (sh.i.t)  .

It is just funny to watch you try to pass off a comedy by Bill Maher, aimed at making a buck, as evidence against Christianity. It's painfully funny. I think people like you, and your approach, is why we have such a hard time getting through to people. You destroy the credibility of people that really, sincerely, try to improve the situation. You seem to just want to ridicule people at all costs, and nothing else. It's really sad 

I'll rather be a 16 year old school boy that gets schooled by credible educators, than a student of sensationalist propagandists, on a crusade against stuff he knows little to nothing about.


I'm still waiting for the source of your stats on what the whole world and what 95% of Christians believe . . Also, don't forget evidence of the priest that told Dawkins he believed in evolution, and then went to preach against evolution to his congregation (Now that is multiple claims you seem to have made up just to attempt to make a mockery of Christians)  . . Until then, signing out,   . your's truly. . "SCHOOL BOY!!" 

Wow! U can go on such tirade?? and you gave me Michael Ruse to read?? I mean, I don't get it!

Where do u get 95% from? Because from every source i have looked up that is nonsense
Where is the priest that told Dawkins he believed in evolution and then went to preach creationism to his congregation?


Please mehn. . . hurry up with that info. I ain't got all day.

Bill Maher, imaginary stats, false accusations against some priest. . . that is what you bring to the table? How disappointing 

Holla back with that info . . .u sabi start thread to yab christians u no fit defend your data.   

Krayola:

Your earlier posts, before people pointed out that that film was only uselul for entertainment, suggested that you took it to be more than comic relief.
The "wonderfully made film" is a joke, and nothing more. To suggest that it has much pedagogical value says more about you than it says about fundamentalists. You might as well post an episode of South-Park next time you want to make a point.

Lol.

Krayola, lef am jare. The point has been made for all to see.

@ JeSoul

Do you believe in the virgin birth story?