RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceReader Comments
Maher mostly makes himself look ridiculous in 'Religulous'
Published: Thursday, October 9th, 2008
Within the first five minutes of the documentary "Religulous," audiences will know whether they want to follow comedian Bill Maher on his global odyssey to question the function of religion. In the opening narration, Maher nonchalantly mentions his view that ...(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
Craig Hazen, an evangelical comparative religion professor at Biola University reviews "religulous."
"Maher is pitching this film as mavericky—telling the truth about religion that everyone else is afraid to address. But Religulous is nothing more than filthy, nudie, druggie, and obtusey. There is little to laugh at and nothing to learn (except maybe that if you quit being religulous you get to act like Caligulous)."
http://www.biola.edu/news/articles/2008/081007_...
Pluto Animus: Although I respect your decision, you must understand trying to debunk faith, which believe it or not has helped out society despite mainstream belief, is both mean-spirited and unnecessary. It's just as imposing as when a Christian forces his views on an atheist. So instead of seeing the negative in having faith, remember that it is not the faith itself that is morally incorrect, it is belief that one's faith should be imposed on others. After all, the main engine behind Christianity is free will. And if any Christian disagrees and practices otherwise, then they are not Christians. Christianity professes love, and wants the world to seek truth, something all moralists agree is what defines a society itself. Although there may be no universal morality discovered yet, the existence of morality itself in each society shows a consistent pattern which cannot be ignored, according to Desecrate. And to ignore this pattern is to ignore quite glaring evidence. And as for the "invisible friends", a real Christian does not see God as a ghost of sorts, but as an essence not empirically perceivable by the laws of our universe. Does that mean God does not exist? Not at all. Just like we cannot see or perceive energy (but rather it is a theory, a rather strong theory at that) but can only see its effects, God is. We cannot see nor perceive God, but we can see his effects. Existence, essence, being, love, compassion, humility, these are all effects of God. Can Christians truly prove this claim? Of course not. Without faith it is impossible to please God. So to prove God would guarantee our ticket to oblivion. But it is illogical and downright unscientific to believe religious questions can be answered through scientific means, because the two subjects ask fundamentally different questions. Science asks how, religion asks why. So, if God cannot be disproved (seeing as how we cannot even truly prove our own existence since our only mean for knowing offers simply a subjective view and not an outside, objective one no matter how hard we try [and if you think that's baloney, know it's a philosophical view that's called empirical skepticism]) and science can't be proven, why not simply let people believe what they want to believe?