Religulous

[Brian in Mesa]

Religulous

Release Date: October 1, 2008 (NY; wide release: October 3)
Studio: Lionsgate
Director: Larry Charles
Screenwriter: Not Available
Genre: Documentary
MPAA Rating: R (for some language and sexual material)
Website: Lionsgate.com/Religulous | Disbeliefnet.com

Starring: Bill Maher

Plot Summary: The documentary "Religulous" follows political humorist and author Bill Maher ("Real Time With Bill Maher," "Politically Incorrect") as he travels around the globe interviewing people about God and religion. Known for his astute analytical skills, irreverent wit and commitment to never pulling a punch, Maher brings his characteristic honesty to an unusual spiritual journey. Directed by Larry Charles ("Curb Your Enthusiasm"), "Religulous" will mark Charles' first feature project since the critically acclaimed, wildly successful "Borat."

You must be registered for see images

 

[DeAnna]

Went to see this since I am a big fan of Bill Maher and his irreverent humor. Warning: if you are moderately religious person, you will probably be offended. But since I'm not, I thought it was great! Everything he says makes sense to me. A virgin birth? A talking snake? parting the sea? C'mon ... yet people blindly believe this.

The tone becomes more serious at the end, complete with apocalyptic images of war and death while Bill pontificates (pun intended) about how religion is the root of most evil (greed, war, etc).

In between, though, there are some funny moments - I especially liked the blank look on some of the interviewees faces when he questions their beliefs. Like the Arkansas senator who says "You don't have to pass an IQ test to be a senator."

 

[Bada0Bing]

Recently watched it. I thought it got a little dull there in middle, but overall it was about what I expected. If you like his show you'll probably like this.

In between, though, there are some funny moments - I especially liked the blank look on some of the interviewees faces when he questions their beliefs. Like the Arkansas senator who says "You don't have to pass an IQ test to be a senator."

Yeah, that was good. I had to watch that twice.

 

[DWKB]

Hey, that's my Senator you're talking about there

 

[Dr. Jones]

I really liked the part where he showed the origins of the Bible "Story" and how they stole pieces of prior religions to make up the bible.

I will always contend that religions main purpose is to be used as a way to cope with death.

Great stuff.

 

[Pariah]

I really liked the part where he showed the origins of the Bible "Story" and how they stole pieces of prior religions to make up the bible.

I think it's interesting that people use this to discredit religious origin stories. To me, it's corroborating evidence.

Not that I buy it, but still...if every major religion since the dawn of time is telling a similar story that to me speaks to that story's strength, not weakness.

JMHO

 

[CaptTurbo]

I think it's interesting that people use this to discredit religious origin stories. To me, it's corroborating evidence.

Not that I buy it, but still...if every major religion since the dawn of time is telling a similar story that to me speaks to that story's strength, not weakness.

JMHO

How so?

Because Christmas was decided to be on Dec 25 bevause it was apagan holiday b4 and the church just didnt want to confuse people corroborates christmas?

Because Adam and Eve was a lore froma tribe in the mountians of Ukraine 2000 years before jesus corraborates adam & eve?

I cant put that 2 and 2 together.

 

[Pariah]

How so?

Because if every origin story was 100% different, then at best all but one are made up. But if they all have the same essentials, then it's not so unbelievable that the stories sprang from the same event (or tale).

Again, I'm not saying it's definitive ((or even that I believe it), but if I'm looking to confirm a story, I'd need all my witnesses to be telling me basically the same thing.

 

[CaptTurbo]

Because if every origin story was 100% different, then at best all but one are made up. But if they all have the same essentials, then it's not so unbelievable that the stories sprang from the same event (or tale).

Again, I'm not saying it's definitive ((or even that I believe it), but if I'm looking to confirm a story, I'd need all my witnesses to be telling me basically the same thing.

What peopel forget is that 2000 years ago and beyond (older times) the people were extremely uneducated. if one did manage to travel farther than 20 miles from their home they woul dpass oral lore. These stories were pretty much regurgitaed with some minor changes to make it more "home grown".

 

[Pariah]

What peopel forget is that 2000 years ago and beyond (older times) the people were extremely uneducated. if one did manage to travel farther than 20 miles from their home they woul dpass oral lore. These stories were pretty much regurgitaed with some minor changes to make it more "home grown".

That's not a contradiction of what I said.

SWD, you're going to rail against everything religion. I'm not trying to make a case for it. I'm just saying that claiming because so many religions have similar stories is a tick against the validity of those stories is flawed logic. If there is an absolute truth, don't you think that it makes sense that that truth would be found in many cultures?

 

[Dr. Jones]

I think it's interesting that people use this to discredit religious origin stories. To me, it's corroborating evidence.

Not that I buy it, but still...if every major religion since the dawn of time is telling a similar story that to me speaks to that story's strength, not weakness.

JMHO

I just take issue with it being an original work written by the apostles. If it is Jesus's story.... How in the heck is his so similar to some dude from Egypt or wherever.

I just dont have the faith to believe it.

 

[FischerKing]

I just take issue with it being an original work written by the apostles. If it is Jesus's story.... How in the heck is his so similar to some dude from Egypt or wherever.

I just dont have the faith to believe it.

At most, only two of the gospels can claim apostolic authorship (Matthew and John). Mark was written by Mark, who was Peter's (an apostle) scribe. Luke was a historian and traveling companion with Paul.

however, whether they were written by the apostles or not speaks nothing about whether they are true narratives or not. those are two separate issues: authorship and historicity.

shawn

 

[FischerKing]

oh, and i saw the movie in the theater and found it ridiculous, but for entirely different reasons.

shawn

 

[CaptTurbo]

That's not a contradiction of what I said.

SWD, you're going to rail against everything religion. I'm not trying to make a case for it. I'm just saying that claiming because so many religions have similar stories is a tick against the validity of those stories is flawed logic. If there is an absolute truth, don't you think that it makes sense that that truth would be found in many cultures?

Yes I would agree IF it started with a reasonable telling then went of in wild directions. Unfortunately most of our stories started with crazy stories then was refined to a somewhat more watered down version to attempt to make it more believable.

 

[Pariah]

Yes I would agree IF it started with a reasonable telling then went of in wild directions.

I'm not saying a thing about the story itself, just that I think it's interesting that corroborating stories are cited as reasons it shouldn't be taken seriously by detractors. I simply disagree with that reasoning.

 

[Dr. Jones]

At most, only two of the gospels can claim apostolic authorship (Matthew and John). Mark was written by Mark, who was Peter's (an apostle) scribe. Luke was a historian and traveling companion with Paul.

however, whether they were written by the apostles or not speaks nothing about whether they are true narratives or not. those are two separate issues: authorship and historicity.

shawn

Whatever.... I'm not going to say that I am an expert.

The story is shockingly ludicrous to me. And I find the energy some people spend defending it to be amusing.

No disrespect, I just don't have the faith that others do.

 

[FischerKing]

Whatever.... I'm not going to say that I am an expert.

The story is shockingly ludicrous to me. And I find the energy some people spend defending it to be amusing.

No disrespect, I just don't have the faith that others do.

funny, i don't have that sort of faith either.

shawn

 

[Dr. Jones]

funny, i don't have that sort of faith either.

shawn

 

[conraddobler]

I'm not saying a thing about the story itself, just that I think it's interesting that corroborating stories are cited as reasons it shouldn't be taken seriously by detractors. I simply disagree with that reasoning.

They really aren't corroborating stories though, they're all based in some part on the sun.

Case in point, Christmas is based around the winter solstice, it's the turning point where the sun stops going down earlier and earlier and the day starts getting longer and longer and Easter is based on or around the vernal equinox, which is when spring comes ala the resurrection.

It's pagan symbols remixed with a theme around Jesus, and it's been retold about a dozen times but the themes are all the same, it revolves around the sun / son, which was a big deal back in the day when crops were life and one bad year meant mass starvation.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

You can google it on google video I think it's still on there free, it's all in there.