1. Comment #190503 by BigChiefRainInFace on June 9, 2008 at 8:01 am

The discussion about ridiculous beliefs needs to spread from books and editorials to the bowling alley and pub, where the average Joe is. Bill Maher is as average as they come and I think that's a good thing.

Other Comments by BigChiefRainInFace

2. Comment #190507 by Valiant on June 9, 2008 at 8:05 am

This movie seems <3

Other Comments by Valiant

3. Comment #190508 by MrPinz on June 9, 2008 at 8:05 am

If you haven't got quicktime, here's the Youtube link - http://youtube.com/watch?v=kSa2j6UoU78

Other Comments by MrPinz

4. Comment #190517 by briancarnell on June 9, 2008 at 8:15 am

@1 wrote:

"The discussion about ridiculous beliefs needs to spread from books and editorials to the bowling alley and pub, where the average Joe is. Bill Maher is as average as they come and I think that's a good thing. "

Bill Maher is a vocal opponent of disease research that utilizes animal models. In fact, much of Maher's animal rights views are rather religious in tone and nature, such as in http://www.metroactive.com/papers/cruz/04.06.05/maher-0514.html">this 2005 interview:

Acknowledging that he sympathizes with animals more deeply than he does with the human race, Maher says, "We are sentient in ways animals are not. Animals are innocent. They're not mean, they don't plot." By contrast, Maher observes, "people are irredeemably fallen."

Other Comments by briancarnell

5. Comment #190522 by MarcLindenberg on June 9, 2008 at 8:24 am

Wow, totally looking foreward to this :D

Other Comments by MarcLindenberg

6. Comment #190528 by designsoda on June 9, 2008 at 8:28 am

I can see the reviews now:

"Maher focuses too much on religious fringe groups."

"Maher is mean because he pokes fun at people's deeply held beliefs."

"But, of course, reasonable people don't believe in a talking snake anymore!"

Etc. etc.

Other Comments by designsoda

7. Comment #190529 by black wolf on June 9, 2008 at 8:29 am

The meanness and plotting Maher sees as negative is found in most animals of a-bit-higher intelligence, from crows to primates. They hide food from others while communicating they don't have any, they trick each other out of comfortabe areas despite knowing there are others and so on. It's just not as black/white as Maher seems to think. Call it ironic, but these abilities to trick others are part of what allowed intelligence to be a selective advantage.

Other Comments by black wolf

8. Comment #190531 by RationalPrimate on June 9, 2008 at 8:32 am

@briancarnell

And your point is....?

Other Comments by RationalPrimate

9. Comment #190532 by Cambridge'10 on June 9, 2008 at 8:36 am

Good, consciousness raising in action. I hope this will reach an audience without the peremptory closing of the mind which The Four Horsemen regularly encounter. Can't wait to see this!

Other Comments by Cambridge'10

10. Comment #190533 by Grantaire of JC on June 9, 2008 at 8:36 am

Very nice. But will this be seen by a large audience? It's a delicate topic for any studio to do, but to be seen in the theaters requires some significant pull. I'd love to be there opening day.

Other Comments by Grantaire of JC

11. Comment #190534 by Angels On a Pin Head on June 9, 2008 at 8:38 am

If you want to download widescreen/HD versions, try these links:

religulous-tlr1a_h480p.mov (34MB)

religulous-tlr1a_h720p.mov (105MB)

religulous-tlr1a_h1080p.mov (171MB)

Other Comments by Angels On a Pin Head

12. Comment #190535 by mordacious1 on June 9, 2008 at 8:40 am

Oh, so I won't go see his film because he is a critic of disease research on animals? He is a comedian and satarist exposing religious people, enough for me. Oh, and the fact that he's good at it too.

Other Comments by mordacious1

13. Comment #190540 by Mango on June 9, 2008 at 8:42 am

I worry that Bill Maher is making a comedy, not a straight documentary that has the potential to lead many people towards reason. I say that because, from what the trailer depicts, he interviews theists who occupy the fringes of major religions. So maybe 90% of American Christians who see the film will reassure themselves, "I'm not that stupid, I have sophisticated religious beliefs."

BUT, I say that because I'm very accustomed to thinking of Jesus and Allah as no more real than Santa Claus. When Bill Maher compares Jesus to Santa, it might jolt many theists that someone can so nonchalantly call a spade a spade, and maybe when they leave the theater they will continue to think about Maher's humorous jabs with a critical eye towards their long-held beliefs.

Other Comments by Mango

14. Comment #190559 by HourglassMemory on June 9, 2008 at 8:55 am

I find what he says "I'm wrong about everything" to be an actual interesting point.
It just made me think of the whole thing with religious experiences being subjective, and how the fact that they think these are claims about reality, can confuse people(becasue they're so different from each other) and can't get them to find a stable stance on matters of reality (something Science offers). And they sort of shrug and leave alone the fact that everybody just has their own experience of transdiemnsional worlds that care about us and are going to seperate people's souls into heavens and hells of different sorts, like it wasn't that important.

I also like the part that starts at 1:33.

I think this film could get a lot of viewers because it's about a delicate issue and people are curious about what he'll say.
The same happened with the God Delusion. People buy because the title was provocative and the theme was something that you hadn't seen before.


The more things like this there are, the better.

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

15. Comment #190565 by adk on June 9, 2008 at 8:58 am

Cool! I want to see this. I hadn't heard of it up til now though, I hope it gets out there some more.

Other Comments by adk

16. Comment #190571 by Nentuaby on June 9, 2008 at 9:01 am

I'd feel much better about having Bill Maher on my side if he wasn't a certified lunatic in the domain of health care. He's strongly anti-vaccination and advocates that particular theory of "medicine" that sees vaguely defined "toxins" behind every ill.

Other Comments by Nentuaby

17. Comment #190574 by Edamus on June 9, 2008 at 9:05 am

Looks good, I'll definately see this... I just hope "Expelled" crazy North Carolina will be getting this... I'd hate to have to drive too far to see it...

Other Comments by Edamus

18. Comment #190581 by riki on June 9, 2008 at 9:12 am

I normally hate the flicks that come out of Lionsgate, but at last something decent.

Other Comments by riki

19. Comment #190587 by thewhitepearl on June 9, 2008 at 9:21 am

EDIT: Brian C and Nentuaby maybe you should read the article that addressed the uses of Ad Hominem.

Can't wait to see this movie

aahh I'm sorry Mango you're right I looked at the wrong name...forgive me?

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

20. Comment #190592 by Mango on June 9, 2008 at 9:25 am

thewhitepearl: kewl.

Other Comments by Mango

21. Comment #190612 by aleprechaunist on June 9, 2008 at 9:40 am

Nentuaby and BrianCarnell..

Surely there's no problem, provided the anti-religious arguments presented in this film don't rely on any of Maher's faulty medical ideas. I don't see any necessary or likely overlap...

Other Comments by aleprechaunist

22. Comment #190615 by Mango on June 9, 2008 at 9:44 am

EDIT

Other Comments by Mango

23. Comment #190640 by toddaa on June 9, 2008 at 10:14 am

The problem with defending Bill Maher is that he is not an advocate for reason. I'm sure the movie will be funny, but Maher denies germ theory. Completely. He belongs in the same category as Ken Ham. He's got a big podium on his HBO show to spew out all sorts of pseudo scientific nonsense and nobody challenges him on it because he's good at telling jokes about pedophile priests.

Other Comments by toddaa

24. Comment #190643 by aleprechaunist on June 9, 2008 at 10:17 am

Sorry Mango, my mistake... post re-edited - that was a bit of indiscriminate cutting and pasting on my part...

Other Comments by aleprechaunist

25. Comment #190644 by severalspeciesof on June 9, 2008 at 10:23 am

In Milwaukee there is a right wing radio talkshow host extremist named Mark Belling who pushed hard for the movie Expelled. He even said that because there would be a lot of bad reviews of the movie, that it would prove its' point. I just wonder if he'll even touch on this film, and if it turns out that critics like it, if He'll then pull the martyr complex card... "Us religious are being picked on by the big bad liberal media...Boo Hoo" Or he might just pan this one altogether, since he has no respect for Maher at all.

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

26. Comment #190656 by lozzer on June 9, 2008 at 10:36 am

I like Maher but i wish he didn't support the terrorist organization PETA.

Other Comments by lozzer

27. Comment #190660 by briancarnell on June 9, 2008 at 10:46 am

@12 ... I think toddaa @23 did a good job of expressing where I was going. The complaints about "ad hominem" seem a bit odd in that this is movie doesn't appear to be making a serious argument other than "lets laugh at the crazy religious people"...fronted by a man who himself is a fan of any number of pseudoscientific claims.

Other Comments by briancarnell

28. Comment #190662 by Tosser on June 9, 2008 at 10:50 am

Let's make sure that this at least doubles the box office for Expelled.

Other Comments by Tosser

29. Comment #190663 by notsobad on June 9, 2008 at 10:50 am

I'm sure the movie will be funny, but Maher denies germ theory. Completely.

No, he doesn't.

This same claim was made in the last discussion about Maher and nobody presented any evidence to support it.

Other Comments by notsobad

30. Comment #190666 by xdrive on June 9, 2008 at 10:55 am

I'm only cautiously optimistic about this movie. Bill Maher's not the most objective or intelligent person in the world to be making documentaries about something as big as religion. Expect no earth-shattering revelations or insights with this one.

Then again it doesn't seem to be trying to be anything other than a cheap "religion is stupid, lol!" movie, which I guess has a place. Maybe this will raise consciousness enough to make people look into more serious surveys of modern religion and its implications. I'll give Maher a chance at any rate.

Other Comments by xdrive

31. Comment #190674 by Szkeptik on June 9, 2008 at 11:12 am

Maher isn't against modern medicine. He's against the tens of thousands of marketed medications that are made by companies for income alone and the illnesses they are made to cure are often just made up.

Other Comments by Szkeptik

32. Comment #190705 by ghuckin on June 9, 2008 at 12:23 pm

I hope they invite the producers of Expelled to a preview,...........and let them watch it.

Other Comments by ghuckin

33. Comment #190715 by Barbara on June 9, 2008 at 12:43 pm

I hope they invite the producers of Expelled to a preview,..........and let them watch it.

If they made a film of the procuders of Expelled watching the Religulous film,..........I'd pay to see it for the fun of watching them squirm in their seats. Well, maybe not.

Other Comments by Barbara

34. Comment #190734 by catskill on June 9, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Looking forward to him hitting all the talk shows to plug this movie. Should make for some good clips! Wish it was coming out sooner.

Other Comments by catskill

35. Comment #190735 by toddaa on June 9, 2008 at 1:20 pm

This same claim was made in the last discussion about Maher and nobody presented any evidence to support it.

Courtesy of Orac:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/10/is_bill_maher_really_that_ignorant_part.php

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/01/is_bill_maher_really_that_ignorant_part_1.php

Other Comments by toddaa

36. Comment #190736 by Socrates on June 9, 2008 at 1:20 pm

Religulous is coming out October 3rd: http://lionsgate.com/religulous/

Other Comments by Socrates

37. Comment #190745 by Shane Williams on June 9, 2008 at 1:38 pm

I'm glad we can counter Ben with Bill, but I'd really rather do this myself.

I'd rather do alot of things myself, actually.

Other Comments by Shane Williams

38. Comment #190756 by phil rimmer on June 9, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Bill Mahers deception (using the talking snake jibe) led RD to have to apologize to Francis Collins.

What is clear from this...

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2463,Richard-Dawkins-and-Bill-Maher,Real-Time-With-Bill-Maher,page7#comments

comment 312

...is that Dawkins seems to have a higher view of Collins' honesty than Maher's.

Maher makes me uncomfortable. He's too self serving.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

39. Comment #190762 by bad_andy on June 9, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Bill Maher gets a lot of things right. He took a very public stance against the 9/11 conspiracy advocates, for example. I love what he has to say about religion. I think having another movie in circulation that takes an unflattering look at what people actually believe will be a good thing.

What he gets wrong seems more like a misinterpretation of some facts rather than a diminished capacity for reason. It sounds to me like he's conflated too many of the real business issues with the American food industry, health insurance industry and pharmaceutical industry with whether or not medical science as a whole is reliable.

I've heard him talk skeptically about vaccination. The fact is that a batch of vaccines can get contaminated. People do have unexpected reactions to vaccines as well. But those are the rare exceptions to the rule that prove that as a whole vaccination is a very valuable medical breakthrough. Maher just needs to understand that better.

The great thing about rationality is that you can always replace bad ideas with good ones and bad information with good information. He can always realize that he's wrong and I don't have to agree with him about medicine to look forward to this movie.

Other Comments by bad_andy

40. Comment #190780 by robotaholic on June 9, 2008 at 2:38 pm

I'm sure, this looks hilarious and I no doubt will be seeing it- but come on...it's not like it's trying to prostyletize for atheism - it's just a comedy and mabye it will cause a commotion or mabye it wont - regardless I love Maher's blatant disrespect for religion so much - it's awesome to hear

Other Comments by robotaholic

41. Comment #190795 by The Soilworker on June 9, 2008 at 3:04 pm

I'm glad everyone can find something to focus on against Bill Maher. The fact that he is making a movie that is (hopefully) holding a mirror to the world and showing them how ridiculous they are simply isn't enough for the armchair elitists in this forum. I agree with earlier posts about accepting Bill Maher as an ally against theistic idiocy - we don't have to agree with him about everything under the sun to appreciate the point of this film. Bill is funny, cynical, and somewhat iconoclastic when it comes to all things religious. Even if it wasn't intended to be a comedy, I'm certain it will be hilarious because WATCHING FUNDIES EXPRESS THEIR MORONIC IDEAS IS FUCKING FUNNY. What isn't funny is the damage they do to education and policy.

Expose documentaries usually have an air of comedy and look-how-retarded-this-is appeal to them. Iraq movies show how retarded the war is, healthcare movies show how backward healthcare is, and religious films depict the stupidity of religions. Sit back, enjoy the movie, and take comfort in knowing that if only one person of faith in that theater sees the error of their ways, then the film is a success.

Other Comments by The Soilworker

42. Comment #190803 by Nova on June 9, 2008 at 3:23 pm

Szkeptik:

Maher isn't against modern medicine. He's against the tens of thousands of marketed medications that are made by companies for income alone and the illnesses they are made to cure are often just made up.

In your attempt to defend him you just tarnished Maher even more! The view you just expressed, whether Maher holds it or not, is crazy, making medicines is very hard and there is often a fine line between a medicine and a poison so drug companies are regulated and your idea their medicines don't work because they're just for profit is absurd because of this.

Then somehow you believe that these companies have silenced or brainwashed the entire medical profession to get illnesses they made up to go unchallenged. You rank very high on the wacky conspiracy theorist meter.

Other Comments by Nova

43. Comment #190823 by toddaa on June 9, 2008 at 4:13 pm

I agree with earlier posts about accepting Bill Maher as an ally against theistic idiocy - we don't have to agree with him about everything under the sun to appreciate the point of this film.

Yes, by all means accept Bill Maher as an ally against theistic idiocy. Heck, you could even claim Deepak Chopra as an ally against theistic idiocy. Or Rupert Sheldrake. But don't for a second of think the guy is somehow an advocate for science and reason.

What isn't funny is the damage they do to education and policy.

Ironic. It's because he has a big platform in which to spread pseudo scientific nonsense that is damaging to education and policy. Antivaccination conspiracy theorists, which includes Bill Maher, are to blame for recent outbreaks in malaria and mumps. That is every bit as much a threat as fundamentalists trying to remove evolution from schools.

Other Comments by toddaa

44. Comment #190827 by Lucas on June 9, 2008 at 4:33 pm

lozzer - "I like Maher but i wish he didn't support the terrorist organization PETA." Okay now that is just a fucking retarded thing to say. Some of you seem to be taking your "sciencism" a little too dogmatically. It is perfectly reasonable to be opposed to medical testing on animals. Personally, I don't like when people hurt animals either, but I recognize the usefulness of medical testing for my future immortality as a weird nano-cyborg. So be it. I do think its a little odd to treat animals worse than humans. What Bill Maher thinks about this subject is about as relevant to his atheist activism as the kind of porn he prefers. Read the ad hominem article. Do like your avatar there, though.

Soilworker - Ha ha!

Nova - Who do you work for? In what delusional reality do you live in that pharmaceutical companies DON'T profit from deception and bribery? Generally, I'm very happy with all the wonderful drugs there are, but there are indeed quite a few that are harmful or useless or worse, and sold to over-medicated rubes who look for all their answers in pill form.

Other Comments by Lucas

45. Comment #190836 by DalaiDrivel on June 9, 2008 at 5:15 pm

I'm in complete agreement with Soilworker. Just one recovered theist will render this film successful.

As to its being serious or hilarious- I am much more hopeful and attracted to the idea of it being the latter. This is because I am impertinent, politically incorrect, and deprecating as a person (it is true), and a theist asking me for a serious discussion is asking for trouble. I can show them how ludicrous their position is (which they will be sure to ignore) indicating their beliefs as arguments from incredulity, and design etc., and present that as my reason for treating them with such irreverence. Beliefs based on stupid arguments are stupid themselves. That maybe theists are "nice" people and deserve a sober audience perhaps for that reason is an undeserved privilege, in my view.

I entertain my theist friends, but it does not trouble me that I entertain them solely because they are my friends.

It is true. I am an impertinent, politically incorrect, disparaging elitist.

Remember, if my frequent unwillingness to seriously entertain theists disturbs anyone, that they often discuss the inadequacies and fallacies of other faiths quite eagerly, as RD noted I think, in the God Delusion.

Humour is the best medicine here I think, unsettling as it may be. As the Buckley's slogan goes, "It tastes awful, and it works."

These people have got to see the errors inherent in their faith, and in religious faith itself for themselves. My indifference towards them is probably matched by their indifference to any form of self-critique.

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

46. Comment #190856 by MaxD on June 9, 2008 at 6:28 pm

Lucas,
It is not perfectly reasonable to be against animal testing. Not even a little bit. It is reasonable to try to be humane to the animals being tested, but without animal testing in medicine there is no more medicine. Not unless you want to take huge risks with humans.
I don't think that is at all wise.

Further it is not good to support an organization that is A) Hypocritical and B) Supporting domestic and international acts of terror. Full stop. End of story. If you want to say that there is are reasonable arguments against animal testing, I am all for hearing them. That is not the same thing as supporting anything that P.E.T.A stands for, or does.

I do agree that isn't so important to his stance on religion.

(EDIT) Just finished the preview and it does look hilarious.
Bill Mahr: "Why doesn't Jesus just kill the devil,....?"
Jesus look-a-like: "He will."
Bill Mahr: "He will?...Uh, what's he waiting for?"

Do you think, when met with that kind of skepticism believers are bewildered and confused. It isn't even overly hostile to religion, just utterly, and completely dismissive. Which I suppose carries with it a peculiar and more painful jab than outright dislike, or mockery.

Other Comments by MaxD

47. Comment #190870 by Saerain on June 9, 2008 at 7:21 pm

I don't understand why our allies in the fight against religious delusion should be in concord on other topics. Aren't we constantly telling theists how atheists agree only on the nonexistence of deities?

I'm voting for Barack Obama despite his theistic rhetoric. I consider myself a Liberal despite my irritation over most Liberals' opposition to nuclear energy. Like many of you, I relish Christopher Hitchens in debates despite disagreeing with him politically. You get the idea.

Other Comments by Saerain

48. Comment #190884 by dudenextdoor on June 9, 2008 at 7:52 pm

"Kono mo shoko mo mada da."

In Japanese, that's, "This too/also/additionally testimony too/also/additionally yet is." It's really bad Japanese grammar (about the only correct part is that the verb comes at the end of the sentence), but that "speaking in tongues" part could actually be read to be saying, "This, too, is yet additional proof."

Or maybe I'm reading WAY too far into it. XD

edit: My bad: the second "mo" is a "do." Which means "copper." ...So now it doesn't make any sense. So close, though!

Other Comments by dudenextdoor

49. Comment #190908 by zoobiewa on June 9, 2008 at 9:40 pm

Thank you Lucas for defending Maher's stance on animal testing.

I also wanted to write that although I am all for trying to figure out ways for human medicine to progress, I do not like the fact that we torture and injure animals to gain some of these tools. It makes me uneasy and ill.

I got a C in my jr. high biology class because I was so conflicted over the "insect collection" that I turned in three or four that I had found dead. I killed one in the freezer and felt horrible about it and knew I could never do it again.

It's simply a part of science that I have to shut my mind off to and pretend doesn't happen.

MadX: There are always other ways. If we had a perfect understanding of chemistry we could tailor drugs through computer simulations. Hopefully we'll be able to do that in the next hundred or so years and animal testing will not be necessary.

PETA, of course, feels legitimate in their actions because they feel they are battling atrocities. If you, MadX, reframed your definitions and your terms, you could easily arrive at the justification of what they do (which, in reality, is actually pretty tame compared to the torture and murder of living things).

Other Comments by zoobiewa

50. Comment #190916 by First Dark on June 9, 2008 at 10:20 pm

@ Comment #190856 by MaxD

It is not perfectly reasonable to be against animal testing. Not even a little bit. It is reasonable to try to be humane to the animals being tested, but without animal testing in medicine there is no more medicine. Not unless you want to take huge risks with humans.
I don't think that is at all wise.

Your views (and those of many others here) on this issue seem outdated and/or overly simplistic, relying much more heavily upon general consensus than reason.

Safe and effective? Not so, says Robert Mendelsohn, M.D. "The reason why I am against animal research is because it doesn't work," he explains. "It has no scientific value and every good scientist knows that."

Aysha Z Akhtar, M.D., M.P.H., a senior medical advisor and Jarrod Bailey, Ph.D., a senior research consultant for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, concur. "The more we study the relevance of animal tests, the more apparent their shortcomings become," Akhtar and Bailey state in a Feb. 9, 2007 letter published in the British Medical Journal. "Even subtle physiological differences between humans and animals can manifest as profound differences in disease physiology and treatment effectiveness and safety. For example, numerous differences in spinal cord physiology and reaction to injury exist between species and even strains within a species. These differences likely contribute to the repeated failure of spinal cord treatments that have tested safe and effective in animals to translate into human benefit"...

"Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are like us,'" says Professor Charles R. Magel. "Ask the experimenters why it is morally OK to experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are not like us.' Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction."

I'm not really interested in taking sides on this issue, as I don't feel that this is an appropriate place for a full-blast discussion of the topic. I simply want to point out that this is not such a clean-cut issue as most people like to make it out to be.

Regardless, I agree with Saerain. Whatever Maher's views may be on these other issues has no legitimate bearing on his upcoming film.

Other Comments by First Dark