Grow Up or Die

[zsdersw]

From "Religulous", by Bill Maher

The irony of religion is that because of its power to divert man to destructive courses, the world could actually come to an end. The plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live. The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge having in key decisions made by religious people. By irrationalists, by those who would steer the ship of state not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken. George Bush prayed a lot about Iraq, but he didn't learn a lot about it. Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking. It's nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith, and enable and elevate it are intellectual slaveholders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction. Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers to think that they do. Most people would think it's wonderful when someone says, "I'm willing, Lord! I'll do whatever you want me to do!" Except that since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions and limitations and agendas. And anyone who tells you they know, they just know what happens when you die, I promise you, you don't. How can I be so sure? Because I don't know, and you do not possess mental powers that I do not. The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble, and that's what man needs to be, considering that human history is just a litany of getting shit dead wrong. This is why rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. And those who consider themselves only moderately religious really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you comes at a horrible price. If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence, and sheer ignorance as religion is, you'd resign in protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife, for the true devils of extremism draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travelers. If the world does come to an end here, or wherever, or if it limps into the future, decimated by the effects of religion-inspired nuclear terrorism, let's remember what the real problem was. We learned how to precipitate mass death before we got past the neurological disorder of wishing for it. That's it. Grow up or die.

I found the movie very funny. I didn't come to any conclusions or form or change any opinions, though. I suspect it didn't change any opinions for any of you who saw the movie, either.

 

[Lizardman]

I loved the scenes at the Jesus amusement park and the creationism museum. Good movie definitely worth checking out. Its funny how people thing that Scientology is the only crazy religion out there. They obviously never heard of Mormonism.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Shouldn't these callout threads against Red Dawn be locked?

(Love you Red)

 

[Mursilis]

From "Religulous", by Bill Maher

The irony of religion is that because of its power to divert man to destructive courses, the world could actually come to an end.

This is what's annoying about most critics of religion - they (a) focus only on the negative historical aspects of religion ("power to divert man to destructive courses"), and (b) assume ridding the world of religion will somehow rid the world of the problem of evil. Grow up or die? Sorry, but where's the evidence that the world of the rationalists will be any different than the previous version? Odds are likely we'll "grow up" and still die. Maher whines about "religion-inspired nuclear terrorism", but he forgets the first nation to use a nuclear weapon was also among the first to draw a clear line between church and state. There are decent critiques of religion, but Maher's isn't one of them; it's far too simplistic for someone claiming to be a rationalist.

 

[zsdersw]

This is what's annoying about most critics of religion - they (a) focus only on the negative historical aspects of religion ("power to divert man to destructive courses"), and (b) assume ridding the world of religion will somehow rid the world of the problem of evil. Sorry, but where's the evidence that the world of the rationalists will be any different than the previous version? Odds are likely we'll "grow up" and still die.

Maher says religion is a thing that will cause us all to die, not the only thing that will cause us all to die.

Maher whines about "religion-inspired nuclear terrorism", but he forgets the first nation to use a nuclear weapon was also among the first to draw a clear line between church and state.

There is a very clear distinction between our use of a nuclear weapon and "religion-inspired nuclear terrorism".

There are decent critiques of religion, but Maher's isn't one of them; it's far too simplistic for someone claiming to be a rationalist.

I agree it's a simplistic critique of religion, but how many others were made as movies and seen by as many people as this one?

 

[Jaskalas]

Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers to think that they do

The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble, and that's what man needs to be, considering that human history is just a litany of getting shit dead wrong.

Replace religion with government and apply this need to be humble to healthcare and any other such 2,300 page legislation that is the answer to everything.

 

[Mursilis]

Maher says religion is a thing that will cause us all to die, not the only thing that will cause us all to die.

Regardless of our varying interpretations, the idea is still dumb. If religion hasn't killed us in the past several thousand years (in the whole, mankind has thrived like no other species), it's highly unlikely it will.

I agree it's a simplistic critique of religion, but how many others were made as movies and seen by as many people as this one?

That really means little. Rarely have complicated moral and philosophical arguments been condensed into feature films, and still presented a honest treatment of the subject.

 

[HumblePie]

Watched the movie a long time ago and enjoyed it. I'm not religious and he had some good points. He also got many points wrong as well.

To play devils advocate here, Bill analogs the story of Jesus to other previous stories about gods or sons of gods from other pagan religions. While it may have merit that elements of the story of Jesus may have derived from previous stories, the ones he points out are actually wrong. Horus in no way beyond being the son of Isis and Ra has any relating story elements to Jesus. Neither does Mithra. I've read and studied ancient Egyptian, Greek, and Roman mythology for several years for at one point a completely different degree program. The stories are just to dissimilar to be analogous.

Now, are there elements to the story of Jesus found in many previous works of religion and mythology? You betcha. Virgin births, wisemen bearing gifts, hunted by the ruler of the land, being betrayed, sacrifice, resurrection, and all that are found in many many many stories. Let's face it, some story elements always make for a "good story" in terms of plot, antagonist, protagonist, and other story devices. You learn of all these elements if you take enough English, Lit, and Writing classes. This is why 90% of the books you see on the shelves of your favorite bookstore are called "pulp." They are formulaic, derived, and readily mixed from a sprinkling of pre-conceived plot elements. They are done this way because they work, and people like reading what works.

Back to Bill, he does a fairly decent job and portraying his point, even if he did get a couple historical and factual things wrong. The point of the movie was to portray the fallacies and just plain head scratching stupidity of many of the "fervent" religious types out there. Then take those and compare them to others who are also believers but not so "headstrong" in the ways of the exact same religious teaching to show that even in the same sect, beliefs vary wildly. Then he goes on to say many people pick and chose what they want to believe in. He points out by doing so, there is no way anyone can "know" squat as this kind of revisionism has gone on for thousands of years. People cherry pick, chose to believe what they want, rewrite and preach only what they like, and any possible kernels of truth is lost in the "telephone" effect of mankinds previous ways of disassembling information throughout the ages.

After which he gives his own opinions, inserts a few jokes, and viola! you have a decent movie that hopefully makes both the religious and non religious do a bit of thinking about the subject.

 

[Amused]

I'm an agnostic/athiest, and I am struck by Maher's hypocrisy.

He doesn't have all the answers either and is FAR from humble.

It's a bit of the pot kettle thing here and just so funny that he doesn't see it.

Meanwhile, there are far too many people, religious or not, who are far too worried what other people are believing or doing.

MYOB, do your own thing, leave others alone and shut the fuck up.

If more people did this the world would be a happier place.

 

[HumblePie]

This is what's annoying about most critics of religion - they (a) focus only on the negative historical aspects of religion ("power to divert man to destructive courses"), and (b) assume ridding the world of religion will somehow rid the world of the problem of evil. Grow up or die? Sorry, but where's the evidence that the world of the rationalists will be any different than the previous version? Odds are likely we'll "grow up" and still die. Maher whines about "religion-inspired nuclear terrorism", but he forgets the first nation to use a nuclear weapon was also among the first to draw a clear line between church and state. There are decent critiques of religion, but Maher's isn't one of them; it's far too simplistic for someone claiming to be a rationalist.

The problem Mursilis, is you ignore history. Recent civilized world development and the current restraint on religious activities, such as not mixing religion and government, have finally brought out more "peaceful" religious worshipers in modern society finally. However, one doesn't have to look far, such as the middle east, to see how religion ruled in the past EVERYWHERE. Very few religions were "open" in the sense they did not preach basically "us and them" or "convert and kill" as dogma. The only few I can think off the top of my head are Confucius, Deism, and Unitarianism. Every sect of Christianity has killed or abused other humans in the name of "God" from their interpretation of their religion. Thousands of religions being used today and in the past all had wars fought, people killed, slaved, raped, and other abuses done to fellow humans.

I remember reading a few accounts by some people who tried to tally up what is "credited" killings done in the name of religion versus any other death mankind has suffered. Basically it ranks number two right behind disease when one looks at the long history of religious killings. Do not confuse this with YOUR particular religion, although it has more than likely contributed to human suffering. No one religion stands out in history as doing the bulk as they almost all have done their fair share of contributing to human suffering, more so than lifting and alleviating it.

 

[cubeless]

...and this is where our civilization goes... maher is a comedian, not a journalist; historian; theologian; philosopher... he is controversial to make a buck... he's not trying to make you think, he's trying to keep you watching so he stays employed...

 

[HumblePie]

...and this is where our civilization goes... maher is a comedian, not a journalist; historian; theologian; philosopher... he is controversial to make a buck... he's not trying to make you think, he's trying to keep you watching so he stays employed...

... and this is where cubeless goes making assumptions.

If Maher was a comedian looking to only "make a buck" he would do it the way all others do so. Stand up acts, books of jokes, and possibly occasional comedic roles in comedy movies if a comedian gets "good enough."

No, he is actually trying to present a message. He does it HIS way by doing things as he knows how. Does that make his argument into this subject any less valid? Is it any less valid when a painter depicts a scene of war to produce horror in the subject so that the person looking at it feels more compelled to stop war? Is it any less valid when the journalist reports a story on war? Or the photographer, or book writer?

Look, comedy is just a MEDIUM, and as such is not any less of a valid way to present an idea. Bill has a point he wants to get across. His choice of presentation has no bearing on the subject matter he is trying to present. Get off you damn high horse. Humans have a history of expressing what they feel through various medians. Art, poetry, music, film, writing, journalism, and a plethora of other ways. People do these expressions through what they know best.

Now go crawl under a bridge Mr. Troll or learn some sophistication for once.

 

[cubeless]

... and this is where cubeless goes making assumptions.

If Maher was a comedian looking to only "make a buck" he would do it the way all others do so. Stand up acts, books of jokes, and possibly occasional comedic roles in comedy movies if a comedian gets "good enough."

No, he is actually trying to present a message. He does it HIS way by doing things as he knows how. Does that make his argument into this subject any less valid? Is it any less valid when a painter depicts a scene of war to produce horror in the subject so that the person looking at it feels more compelled to stop war? Is it any less valid when the journalist reports a story on war? Or the photographer, or book writer?

Look, comedy is just a MEDIAN, and as such is not any less of a valid way to present an idea. Bill has a point he wants to get across. His choice of presentation has no bearing on the subject matter he is trying to present. Get off you damn high horse. Humans have a history of expressing what they feel through various medians. Art, poetry, music, film, writing, journalism, and a plethora of other ways. People do these expressions through what they know best.

Now go crawl under a bridge Mr. Troll or learn some sophistication for once.

yo, illiterate boy, i assume you meant 'medium'... but your lack of command of the english language doesn't make your post any less dopey...

he is just choosing a MEDIAN that allows him to make more money than any of the others that you listed...

and y'all's definition of sophisticated is most certainly too nuanced for me...

 

[nonlnear]

Not to mention comedy is a genre which exists in multiple media...

 

[cubeless]

Not to mention comedy is a genre which exists in multiple media...

no piling on, please...

 

[Elias824]

While were on the subject of religious documentaries, there was one I saw that was fairly new that followed around a bunch of evangelicals, called bible camp I think. That much more then meher's movie disturbed me about the things religion are capable of, the sheer amount of brainwashing that was going on was just disturbing. Now the problem is people are just stupid, religion is just a way in which the fear of death and uncertainty allows the masses to be controlled. Removing religion will just remove as many things that are holding people back form doing evil things, as are pushing them towards it. Face it people are the problem not religion, its been shown how amazing and great things can be done from religion as much as evil things, power over men can be used for good or for evil.

 

[zsdersw]

Regardless of our varying interpretations, the idea is still dumb. If religion hasn't killed us in the past several thousand years (in the whole, mankind has thrived like no other species), it's highly unlikely it will.

We didn't have weapons of mass destruction for the past several thousand years, nor were we as interconnected and mobile of a human society as we are today.

That really means little. Rarely have complicated moral and philosophical arguments been condensed into feature films, and still presented a honest treatment of the subject.

It means you should judge it for what it is; a movie that uses humor as the medium to get people to at least think about their religion, or their lack thereof... not what it isn't (nor claimed to be); a rigorously documented, researched, and peer reviewed critique of religion geared more for text than the silver screen.

 

[cubeless]

snip...

It means you should judge it for what it is; a movie that uses humor as the medium to get people to at least think about their religion, or their lack thereof... not what it isn't (nor claimed to be); a rigorously documented, researched, and peer reviewed critique of religion geared more for text than the silver screen.

but therein lies the rub... bumblepie and his ilk are now fully informed by studying the collected works of the scholars maher, moore, and stewart... and they're gonna vote to prove it...

 

[Mursilis]

We didn't have weapons of mass destruction for the past several thousand years, nor were we as interconnected and mobile of a human society as we are today.

While we may very well destroy ourselves with our new "toys" (see, science, like religion, is evil! ), I don't blame religion; rather, I see it more as a basic function of human nature, to want to serve a higher cause, or calling. Look at the atrocities commited in the name of gov't - killing off religion doesn't change our basic ability to do unspeakable atrocities on each other in the name of some greater "good".

 

[zsdersw]

but therein lies the rub... bumblepie and his ilk are now fully informed by studying the collected works of the scholars maher, moore, and stewart... and they're gonna vote to prove it...

Given the frequency at which many people do the same with the scholars Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, and their overlord Pat Robertson, I don't see the difference.

 

[cubeless]

Given the frequency at which many people do the same with the scholars Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, and their overlord Pat Robertson, I don't see the difference.

and therein is your problem... wtf makes you think you side is any less automatons than those you deride???

 

[HumblePie]

yo, illiterate boy, i assume you meant 'medium'... but your lack of command of the english language doesn't make your post any less dopey...

he is just choosing a MEDIAN that allows him to make more money than any of the others that you listed...

and y'all's definition of sophisticated is most certainly too nuanced for me...

Thanks Mr Grammar Nazi! I'll make sure I have you proof read everything I type from now on.

/sarcasm off

Look, I knew the word I wanted and typed something different by accident. No different that someone misspeaking a word either. In neither case does it derail the point be put across. But like any good grammar nazi, you are quick to jump on the least relevant portion of a post and use that as the sole reason the entire argument of the other person is wrong. Wow, gee, don't you feel special.

I also high disagree with you on the fact that Bill chose comedy as his mediUM, as a way to make a buck. He did so because that is what he knows best. Do you think Religulous made all that much money at the box office? Did it come across as the next Avatar grossing numbers? No it didn't. It did make some money, but nothing to write home about in the film making industry.

Actually, more famous painters and photographers make more money with one picture than he does with a standup act. So again, go troll elsewhere.

 

[zsdersw]

While we may very well destroy ourselves with our new "toys" (see, science, like religion, is evil! ), I don't blame religion; rather, I see it more as a basic function of human nature, to want to serve a higher cause, or calling. Look at the atrocities commited in the name of gov't - killing off religion doesn't change our basic ability to do unspeakable atrocities on each other in the name of some greater "good".

Indeed it is a basic function of human nature, which is why we would definitely be better served by having fewer things in the name or service of which we can commit unspeakable atrocities.

Religion is another variation of weed that grows from the same evil seed. That doesn't mean it should be spared the herbicide.

 

[zsdersw]

and therein is your problem... wtf makes you think you side is any less automatons than those you deride???

Where did I claim otherwise?

 

[cubeless]

Thanks Mr Grammar Nazi! I'll make sure I have you proof read everything I type from now on.

/sarcasm off

Look, I knew the word I wanted and typed something different by accident. No different that someone misspeaking a word either. In neither case does it derail the point be put across. But like any good grammar nazi, you are quick to jump on the least relevant portion of a post and use that as the sole reason the entire argument of the other person is wrong. Wow, gee, don't you feel special.

I also high disagree with you on the fact that Bill chose comedy as his mediUM, as a way to make a buck. He did so because that is what he knows best. Do you think Religulous made all that much money at the box office? Did it come across as the next Avatar grossing numbers? No it didn't. It did make some money, but nothing to write home about in the film making industry.

Actually, more famous painters and photographers make more money with one picture than he does with a standup act. So again, go troll elsewhere.

i was merely bringing to light that your writing is no better than your thinking... and no, i don't want to be your proofreader, i find it much more amusing to have the whole forum get the full spectrum of your dimwittedness... but it does follow your form that you would want some one else to do the work of proofreading for you... here's an idea for you: get someone else with a brain to write your whole post for you...

and third time's the charm, so when you reply and call me a troll again maybe it will become true!!!