Outside of poor reviews for the film there isn't much critique, and the critique that is there focuses mainly on the fact that Maher lied to people as you have clearly articulated. Unfortunately secularists will likely praise such dishonesty as exactly the kind of clever attack Christian ignorance invites.
As for whether or not it constitutes a documentary you mistake it's purpose. It is meant to give the impression of honesty. Real Bill Maher + real locations +real religious interviewees = the real deal on Religion. Editing? Pfft! Editing shmediting. People are conditioned to ignore that.
You have to love the irony of a supposed documentary being shown in an establishment where people are told to suspend their disbelief. The only way this could possibly be more deceitful is if they only used the audio from the interviews and made it a cute CG movie for children.
(love the blog btw I'm new to Christianity and seeing people who give the notion of God a fair shake serves to strengthen my faith)
Thank you Paul, my new brother. Check out the "List of My Home Pages" and see if there is anything else to your liking. “Life and Doctrine” is Christian apologetics. Hope to hear (or read) from you again. aDios, Mariano
It is always interesting to me that both sides of the "God" debate think they are discrediting the other side, when in reality, neither can truly be credited. A good debate to get people thinking is lovely, but to say that atheism is discredited by "How do you know?" would be like asserting Christianity is discredited by the same question. No one can truly know, but assertion of correctness or "right" has always and will continue to remain.
As to Religulous, I would like to note that the film, not so subtly, eludes to Religion being the basis for war. Although Religion is often claimed to make the warrior "right" it is not the cause, the cause is the assertion that religion is correct and everyone else is incorrect (or rather, that religion is incorrect and everyone else is correct).
The most "preaching preacher" I ever met was an atheist. He preached his cause more than any pastor of any church I've ever met... of course, he was "preaching to the choir."
"It is always interesting to me that both sides of the "God" debate think they are discrediting the other side, when in reality, neither can truly be credited."
According to my dictionary, both sides can be credited and discredited. I think what you mean is that neither side can be proven. While that's true, it's irrelevant. We all believe something, and assert it (even if only in the refutation of opposing points of view.) Even you, claiming some sort of objectivity on the matter, argue for your point of view. Is this not an "assertion of correctness?" Even your profession of uncertainty is a certain assertion. The arguments for and against God are ridiculous? Your argument that they ARE is ridiculous. Belief, by it's very nature is a conviction without proof. Disbelief is equally unsubstantiated. But do not think that uncertainty will save or justify you. It may make you feel less hypocritical, but it is an illusion, because you ultimately act on belief or disbelief in the Christian God.
And all of this misses the point that the question posed was "how do you know?" Knowing can come by knowledge but the only necessary requirement is conviction. "How do you know" is not the same as "how can you prove?"
furthermore Christianity does not require proof that cannot be had. It very honestly requires faith of people. Atheism and agnosticism hypocritically and dishonestly conceal this requirement.
I'm not a Christian, am pretty agnostic about such matters, and even I could see that Religulous was often disingenuous.
I was particularly respectful of the diarist's heart going out for Dr.'s Hamer and Newberg; I felt that Maher abused them.
I did a blow-by-blow analysis at http://www.ronazajac.com/Religulous/ ; have a look. Lots of thumbs up; lots of thumbs down. Both for Bill and for religion.
Certainly you didn't think that Bill never hit the ball; and sometimes out of the park!
Get my ebook, "The Apocryphal Jesus," here
Outside of poor reviews for the film there isn't much critique, and the critique that is there focuses mainly on the fact that Maher lied to people as you have clearly articulated. Unfortunately secularists will likely praise such dishonesty as exactly the kind of clever attack Christian ignorance invites.
ReplyDeleteAs for whether or not it constitutes a documentary you mistake it's purpose. It is meant to give the impression of honesty. Real Bill Maher + real locations +real religious interviewees = the real deal on Religion. Editing? Pfft! Editing shmediting. People are conditioned to ignore that.
You have to love the irony of a supposed documentary being shown in an establishment where people are told to suspend their disbelief. The only way this could possibly be more deceitful is if they only used the audio from the interviews and made it a cute CG movie for children.
(love the blog btw I'm new to Christianity and seeing people who give the notion of God a fair shake serves to strengthen my faith)
Thank you Paul, my new brother.
ReplyDeleteCheck out the "List of My Home Pages" and see if there is anything else to your liking.
“Life and Doctrine” is Christian apologetics.
Hope to hear (or read) from you again.
aDios,
Mariano
It is always interesting to me that both sides of the "God" debate think they are discrediting the other side, when in reality, neither can truly be credited. A good debate to get people thinking is lovely, but to say that atheism is discredited by "How do you know?" would be like asserting Christianity is discredited by the same question. No one can truly know, but assertion of correctness or "right" has always and will continue to remain.
ReplyDeleteAs to Religulous, I would like to note that the film, not so subtly, eludes to Religion being the basis for war. Although Religion is often claimed to make the warrior "right" it is not the cause, the cause is the assertion that religion is correct and everyone else is incorrect (or rather, that religion is incorrect and everyone else is correct).
The most "preaching preacher" I ever met was an atheist. He preached his cause more than any pastor of any church I've ever met... of course, he was "preaching to the choir."
Cheeers.
"It is always interesting to me that both sides of the "God" debate think they are discrediting the other side, when in reality, neither can truly be credited."
ReplyDeleteAccording to my dictionary, both sides can be credited and discredited. I think what you mean is that neither side can be proven. While that's true, it's irrelevant. We all believe something, and assert it (even if only in the refutation of opposing points of view.) Even you, claiming some sort of objectivity on the matter, argue for your point of view. Is this not an "assertion of correctness?" Even your profession of uncertainty is a certain assertion. The arguments for and against God are ridiculous? Your argument that they ARE is ridiculous. Belief, by it's very nature is a conviction without proof. Disbelief is equally unsubstantiated. But do not think that uncertainty will save or justify you. It may make you feel less hypocritical, but it is an illusion, because you ultimately act on belief or disbelief in the Christian God.
And all of this misses the point that the question posed was "how do you know?" Knowing can come by knowledge but the only necessary requirement is conviction. "How do you know" is not the same as "how can you prove?"
furthermore Christianity does not require proof that cannot be had. It very honestly requires faith of people. Atheism and agnosticism hypocritically and dishonestly conceal this requirement.
I'm not a Christian, am pretty agnostic about such matters, and even I could see that Religulous was often disingenuous.
ReplyDeleteI was particularly respectful of the diarist's heart going out for Dr.'s Hamer and Newberg; I felt that Maher abused them.
I did a blow-by-blow analysis at http://www.ronazajac.com/Religulous/ ; have a look. Lots of thumbs up; lots of thumbs down. Both for Bill and for religion.
Certainly you didn't think that Bill never hit the ball; and sometimes out of the park!