Just watched this DVD where this chap Bill Maher takes the micky out of Religion. Its not very factual and there are a lot of gaping holes in the arguments, but neverthless he makes some good points, anyone else seen this and if so what are your opinions.
Heres a link for more info and a clip from youtube.
Haven't seen the movie. From the pitch, and the interview there, it seems almost solely intended for humor's sake, and to stir controversy. If Maher wanted to actually posit a credible treatise against religion, he'd do so in a different format. So I'm interested at the reaction from the media, the public, this forum, etc. and intend to watch the movie. But only to be entertained.
Any good atheist would tear him apart on the idea of knowing when to wear the "right lenses". They would be blind to their own hubris and totally incapable of seeing the point, but they would still wreck him in a straight up debate.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
Generalization, and some honestly insulting assumptions about an entire group of people. I think Maher makes the assumption that too many others do about atheism: that being one automatically makes you one of the sterotypical "angry" atheists that command so much attention but actually make up the minority of the group. Just like extremist evangelicals grab Christian headlines but don't represent the majority.
I'm also routinely surprised by the number of people who think atheism means "I know there isn't a God" rather than "I believe there is no God." Few, if any, atheists are the former. It's a position of faith and belief, not of certainty.
And while I can't speak for an entire group of people, all the atheists I know would be in rough agreement with Maher. They, and I, just don't see the need to drop the label, because it doesn't have to automatically mean the dogmatic extremism that Maher and other seem to think it does.
I've seen atheists drop the label for similar reasons though. Some simply don't want to fight the stereotype, so they become agnostic, or non-theist, or some similarly less controversial word.
I'm also not sure how a "good atheist" would wreck Maher in a debate. They'd be essentially in agreement, so there wouldn't be much to argue over.
Though the lenses metaphor that the priest uses is a good one if it's in response to an attack on religious literalism. It's actually a fine response to Maher's methodology and message, though I don't think Maher was trying to cover all of his philosophical bases with the film. It's meant for entertainment. You're right that the priest's argument isn't without further flaws, but the distinction between literal and metaphoric parts of the Bible is the first necessary step to making it resistant to any type of scrutiny. It also makes it easier to swallow.
Flat on its face, I have no problem with it; that is my opinion. Bill Maher, himself, stated that his film is not a documentary, but merely a comedic film. (Not in those exact words, but you know what I mean.) Regardless, with all the nonsense in the world today, I really don't see the need for such a film. That is my opinion, also. It seems to me, that the funds provided for the production of this film, could have gone towards something productive/meaningful. Heck, if the guy had a political statement or something of that caliber to make, more power to him! That would be money well spent!! But, this was merely a comedic film. Still, with all in mind, I can't knock the guy. Once it's available for purchase, consider it mine. Cool post Bicnarok!
KMC Community Forums
Jan 28th, 2009 04:42 PM
