Clock Crew

http://www.lionsgate.com/religulous/

haha thank god, hopefully this'll open people up to the fact that religion is bull.

(O_O)

Me want, looks fantastic. Cant wait to see it tried to be banned by the church, thus creating a wealth of hype.
Idiots...

Looks fun.

Holy shit, that guy that said he was the second coming of Christ (Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda) preaches to a church fuckin 20 minutes away from my house! I've seen the motherfucker in person, my mom goes to his church, and every person in there is a raving lunatic. They even wrote a book about him called "Jesus Christ is a Puerto Rican". That church single handedly took away any and all faith I had left, and I am so happy that Bill Maher is taking that shithole down.

Also, part of his foreign policy?

We already cycled through his claptrap, people.
 Get with the times.

Hahaha look it's Marlin.

Totally not self-serving ego stroking, no way BIll Maher would do THAT!

Quote from: RomanClock;1376709Totally not self-serving ego stroking, no way BIll Maher would do THAT!

I got two words for you. Peter Popoff.

Quote from: AbsintheClock;1376717I got two words for you. Peter Popoff.

And your point? I don't believe that is good behavior, and neither is ego stroking by insulting others.
Swindlers are everywhere, you might as well list off all the other political, business, and religious cons out there.

And I'm saying you're stroking your own ego by using silly little phrases. Isn't it a bit of an ego stroke to think maybe somebody just made a video about something they actually believe in? I suppose the last temptation of christ was a huge ego stroke too. Religion to me is nothing more than rooting for your favorite sports team without the sport. It's when you get stupid and start badmouthing something you could simply ignore simply because you don't agree with it. It doesn't threaten your way of life, and it's generally made as a means of preaching to the choir anyhow so what threat is it to you? As for my ego, I'm pretty well set around here I don't think I need to fluff it any just by telling somebody they're acting like a jackass. By the way sir you are acting like a jackass.

I mean, I'm the biggest jerk ever by saying this movie is a big ego stroke by ATTACKING OTHER VEIWS!

Quote from: Salt the hpst33;1376583haha thank god, hopefully this'll open people up to the fact that religion is bull.

Quote from: Dull;1376584(O_O)

Me want, looks fantastic. Cant wait to see it tried to be banned by the church, thus creating a wealth of hype.
Idiots...

Quote from: RomanClock;1376741I mean, I'm the biggest jerk ever by saying this movie is a big ego stroke by ATTACKING OTHER VEIWS!

Hey wait a minute, in my thread about my own beliefs irrelevant to religion you stated that was incredibly egocentric of me as well.

So it seems to me you tend to labeling anything "thinking for yourself" to be egocentric. And if thats true, how can one expect to change or think at all?

This movie is obviously designed to mock and be funny, but more importantly and fundamentally to raise questions and encourage others to think.

Anyways, I'll be sure to see this even though I'm not a big fan of Bill...

damn


a thread about religion and it's already turned into an argument.

that's the clockcrew for you!

Quote from: yo if your smart you;1376802I can only think of Carlin, to be honest.

Really? George Carlin is the only person you can think of who's mocked religion? Honestly?

On the subject of this film, based only on the trailer, will be lame shitty joke after shitty joke and thoughts that have already been brought up again and again.

Shitty jokes in the trailer:
"...you believe in a talking snake?"
"Is that the voice of God?!"
*LOL look Bush said something dumb HAHAHAH*
"Jesus compared to Santa"

Thoughts in the trailer which are not new at all:
"Why doesn't God just get rid of evil?"
"Even if a billion people believe something, it can still be ridiculous."


The trailer leads me to believe that this film isn't going to be any more thought provoking than a visit to the Debate Forum, and the humor will be about as entertaining as the Gas Chamber, so I just might skip paying $6.50 to see this and log on to the CC on opening day instead.

Quote from: yo if your smart you;1376807This thread has been done before. Heineken posted it again because he is an ass hole. Again, LeekClock cried. Why not let old wounds heal? Why do you hate LeekClock?

http://www.worstpreviews.com/trailer.php?id=1014&item=2

Just found a clip from it. Yup, the film is just Maher walking around being an unfunny dick. I also just watched the clip of Maher on Larry King live, and he called Michael Moore a genius... I can't even get into that.

Quote from: Salt the hpst33;1376800that's the clockcrew for you!

That's the entire world for ya.
You can also, if you feel the need to, substitute "religion" with "race","abortion","war","[insert current political leader of given country here]" and "immigration" and you will get similar results!  Just add water.

Quote from: Flux;1376820Michael Moore a genius... I can't even get into that.

:D

I don't like religion but it just seems like he's being a smug dick.

Quote from: Balsac the Jaws of Death;1376765There is no supermassive homogeneous religious/political organization that refers to itself as "The Church". Typically this hype is created by smaller independent churches that try to get it banned within their heavily insulated communities. Most large religious organizations really wouldn't give two shits about Bill Maher making some shitty psuedodocumentary about his views on an irrevocable cultural force.

We Catholics like to call ourselves The Church. We are the Original Church.

But you're right, it's not like all of us would go at arms to boycott his crappy film.

Also seeing that preview I don't even see how Anti-theists could stand that kind of douchebaggery.

Quote from: BinaryClock;1376883I don't like religion but it just seems like he's being a smug dick.

.

that was pretty sickening to watch
the message that i got from this was a mockery of the ignorant
its not helping them out of ignorance... its comedy
yes, it may have some insightful thoughts, but i doubt even Nietzsche acted like an asshole.

i guess thats the way it has to be though :/.  New thoughts just must be communicated through comedy.  Kind of sad that humanity can only be drawn to new insightful topics only if its accompanied by humor.

i just dont see why people cant understand that sometimes believing in something more helps a person.  

Although I dont like the way its being presented... i like that its being presented.  People do need to see that religion is much more.  They arent just rituals that need to be done and over with, like a checklist to get into heaven.  On the other hand, atheist must understand religion before becoming an atheist.  To me, most atheist just look at the "no religion" as a freedom from the rituals, an easy way out, and not an intense study and rejection of religions.  Just a note on a tired old quote, "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him."  The man who said this was studying to become a priest.

bleh >_>
all in all i'll probably see this film since it might be quite insightful

Quote from: Ti-83Clock;1376895that was pretty sickening to watch
.............
all in all i'll probably see this film since it might be quite insightful

Paradox? :confused:

It's not even funny. It'd be excusable if it was remotely entertaining, but even his humor is idiotic. It's really just complete mockery, and it's people like him that make it harder to say you're an atheist without being looked at as an asshole.

Also the classic "let's stick a dumb Bush quote in, can't make a documentary without at least one dumb Bush quote" method. We've been beating the "lolz bush cant talk" horse for 8 years now. Enough is enough.

Quote from: RomanClock;1376899Paradox? :confused:

not quite
it can be sickening (the comedy and mockery of the ignorant), but insightful (the ageless questions of god)

Guise calm downe.


I just posted this because I thought it was a hilarious trailer, that part with george bush was amazing.

I lost interest in this movie a while ago.

But one thing I'm tired of is people saying 'I've seen this sort of thing a million times before and I'm sick of it, so everybody else is going to be sick of it.' Just be a little more self-aware. Most of the attitudes people witness about atheism and antitheism come from the internet. But in case everybody hasn't noticed, the internet is not the real world, and not nearly as many average people visit forums as you think they do. The vast majority of people very rarely see a film like this, and in that context, I think this film is important.

This film will be sure to draw not just atheists and fans but religious people who are actually curious about the movie, simply because it IS something different. Take a careful look at the media of America and the world, especially movies (if we're talking about a movie, then let us speak in a cinematic context). What you'll soon find is that the vast majority of the media has this eclipsing deism and theism too it, and even in the most challenging of plots and stories, the characters or narration always manages to rationalize God and make the audience feel secure again, and any characters with lingering or waning faith will find themselves brought back into the fold.

People who say this movie isn't special are speaking mainly from the context of the internet where this sort of antitheistic humor is rampant, but it just isn't so in the real world. So when curious religious audiences attend the film, they are not only going to see somebody challenge religion in general, but also this unhealthy habit we as human beings have of rationalizing an apparently all-powerful and all-loving being.

Somebody mentioned that the questions raised in this film have been around all of the time. But whenever these questions are raised in movies, television, or even books, their answers always seem to be 'God/religion is a mystery. Don't think about it.' The media always tends to create the idea that religion or belief in a god is a mandatory (if arbitrary) condition for human existence. All Bill Maher is doing is presenting people with 'Hey, there is an alternative. If it doesn't make sense, don't believe in it.' While we may have heard this on the internet billions of times, this is quite a radical concept in the film industry.

Jesus fucking christ if you bunch of faggots would actually look at the trailor carefully before dusting off your bible/darwin quotes, it actually looks like the movie will not attack religion,but more like religious fundamentalists like that one redneck!!!!!111 111111111

Quote from: The Hero of Winds;1376889We Catholics like to call ourselves The Church. We are the Original Church.

But you're right, it's not like all of us would go at arms to boycott his crappy film.

Also seeing that preview I don't even see how Anti-theists could stand that kind of douchebaggery.

Anti-theist? thats probably the crappiest insult ever. Also, didn't the romans and greeks have churches before Catholic-ness existed? I don't know.

I'm gonna save my judgment on this film untill its out.

I wouldn't pay money for it, but then again I'm not paying for any movie these days.

I'm going to make a movie where I talk to crazy people who call themselves Atheists and call the movie Atheidiot! Sounds HILARIOUS :D

Quote from: GearBox;1377243Anti-theist? thats probably the crappiest insult ever. Also, didn't the romans and greeks have churches before Catholic-ness existed? I don't know.

I'm gonna save my judgment on this film untill its out.

They had Temples.

Also I was just using a term Cadillac seemed to be using for Atheists that are against religion.

Quote from: GearBox;1377243Anti-theist? thats probably the crappiest insult ever.

Jesus christ gearbox guess what's the most commonly used word for "atheist" is besides atheist?

Quote from: RomanClock;1377271I'm going to make a movie where I talk to crazy people who call themselves Atheists and call the movie Atheidiot! Sounds HILARIOUS :D

Actually you pretty much nailed the point of the movie. It's fun to make fun of crazy people, but it's INAPPROPRIATE!!1 to make fun of crazy people. So you have to get a group of crazy people that share one common thing. A lot of religious crazy people are really crazy, making them even more fun to make fun of. Secondly, in this day and age it's becoming acceptable and even popular to doubt the existence of god, yet it's still a bit controversial, which means people will pay attention to it.

Very good example would be that this thread has three pages whereas a lot of threads in youwhore don't reach that many.

Quote from: HeinekenClock;1377287Jesus christ gearbox guess what's the most commonly used word for "atheist" is besides atheist?



Actually you pretty much nailed the point of the movie. It's fun to make fun of crazy people, but it's INAPPROPRIATE!!1 to make fun of crazy people. So you have to get a group of crazy people that share one common thing. A lot of religious crazy people are really crazy, making them even more fun to make fun of. Secondly, in this day and age it's becoming acceptable and even popular to doubt the existence of god, yet it's still a bit controversial, which means people will pay attention to it.

Very good example would be that this thread has three pages whereas a lot of threads in youwhore don't reach that many.

The problem with it though is that it takes the fringe and presents it as the norm. Also there already was a time like what you think of now happened, I just can't recal the name of the era at the moment :(

Quote from: Balsac the Jaws of Death;1377309It is in highschool, and I have to listen to it every goddamn day :grumpy:

Do you know what it's like being an atheist in a private Catholic school? I think you and I have some very common ground here.

Quote from: Ti-83Clock;1376895"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him."  The man who said this was studying to become a priest.

The man who said that was trying to point out that Christian obsession with dogma and ritual rather than moral practice was what was disillusioning people (including himself).

I don't know if you're an atheist or not, but most of us don't subscribe to Nietzsche. I think you need to read some more atheist literature before you begin arbitrarily assigning inspiration for our disbelief. God isn't dead because he never existed. We don't believe that religion has at any point proved to be for the general good of mankind.

I would agree with you in the sense that many atheists (mostly the I'm a edgy teen fourteen-year old sect of us anyway) merely reject gods as a way of rejecting tedious and arbitrary ritual. But being an atheist in a private school, and coming from a Catholic upbringing, has certainly taught me that their's more to the philosophy of disbelief (and more importantly, being actively opposed to religion) then simply not wanting to go to mass every Sunday.

Quote from: Randy Pearson;1377570We don't believe that religion has at any point proved to be for the general good of mankind.

Wow.

No matter how you slice it, dice it, melt it down... Religion is the ancient basis of all basic forms of reinforced morality. If it had never existed, the lines between right and wrong would be different in every civilization.

Without a history containing religion, there is no being that can say what is right or what is wrong. Even things which harm other beings, since these things will have no need for justification without a base morality. Without religion there are two opposing extremes which society will cling to: All for all, socialism, whatever is best for the whole is best for the one. Or, the opposite extreme, where one only cares for himself, and does what is right by himself and nothing else, man is his own god. One extreme leads to diluted humanity by loosing individuality and familial structure, and the other leads to dissolution of all structure to anarchy. The only way to have a balance between the extremes is with the presence of morality, upon which there can be the creation of laws, government and modern society, the footprint of which is firmly grounded in freedom of religion.

Quote from: Deep Blue;1377700Argues that religion is the basis for human morality

There is a line of thinking which states that the development of morality was necessitated by humans being inherently social animals and needing to cooperate if they were to survive, and that religion developed not as the basis for morality but for the control of people by one or several rulers.

If we're going to talk about ancient basis, then let's talk about humans as animals. People tend to see animals from two extremes, one in which they are peacefully living out their niche in the animal world, and the other in which they are constantly fighting with each other in chaos, tearing each other limb from limb. Both of these extremes are used by people in an attempt to distinguish themselves from and put themselves on a higher plateau than animals. The truth is that while animals have neither laws nor religion, many of them still manage to keep societies that are as stable as the environment would permit. They have their leaders and their families and pariahs, just like we do. Humans are merely highly evolved forms of these social creatures, and like these animals, we have our moments of chaos and anarchy, but we always manage to reform. If we didn't, then we would have been hunted to extinction by more efficient animal societies a long time ago.

Now that man does evolve, he becomes more self-aware and aware of the world around him. He realizes that no matter how long he lives, no matter how many beasts he conquers and makes his resources, he will never conquer death. He experiences a fear unlike any other animal. He no longer abides by the "animal condition" which drives him to socialize to survive. He now suffers from the "human condition," which makes him realize the emptiness of his existence. Man is now permanently afraid of not what he does know, but what he doesn't know.

Some members of mankind then reason that since this world seems tailor made for them that there is a big, omnipotent force that guides their success. And since they were the first to realize this, then they must be the mediums between this force and the tangible world. He then decides that there is in fact a life after this one, and that death is not simply the end. This provides solace to those of mankind who are afraid, and they associate their happiness with the rituals that the "shaman" insists will bring good favor from the force. The "shaman" becomes a celebrity, even becoming the alpha-male's chief adviser. Generations come and go, and mankind forgets how he ever could sustain a stable society without the Shaman. Things go about much as they used to, with those who disturb the fabric of life being exiled, but now what were simply crimes against the humans become crimes against the spirits (they have, after all, been indoctrinated to believe that morality was given to them by the spirits through the shaman, this being the one thing that makes him different and protects him from the savage animals). And now, any bad thing inflicted upon the village is quickly associated with actions that have angered these spirits...this...god.

And the leaders don't mind this one bit, seeing as it's much easier to get people to do what you tell them if you think that they belong to a dynasty which holds the mandate of heaven. People are not just comforted by religion, they are controlled by it, because who's going to object to the actions of somebody who receives his orders from god?

As tribes split apart, some of them choose to settle near rivers, while other decide to become nomads, carrying mankind across the world and thriving there. This separation of course causes discrepancies in ritual and folklore (hell, they can't even decide on the same god/gods). The fear is still common, however, especially for settling groups. It doesn't matter what tribe you visit, they all have their own stories about earthquakes and floods, and because of their inability to understand these events, they arbitrarily attribute them to the wrath of God. But the purpose of religion continues to be served, to provide solace to the weak, and security to the monarchs.

It is my sincere belief that people who claim that religion is the basis for morality are overestimating humans and underestimating morality.

To shorten my piece into a few sentences, no, I do not agree that religion is the basis of morality. I think that honor lies with the need to survive. Religion, on the other hand, is the product and means of fear, serves less to make people act better towards one another, and is the arbitrary result of humans coming to dominate the planet.

Quote from: Randy Pearson;1377740There is a line of thinking which states that the development of morality was necessitated by humans being inherently social animals and needing to cooperate if they were to survive, and that religion developed not as the basis for morality but for the control of people by one or several rulers.

I shouldn't need to read the rest if you make such obvious and egregious assumptions as this.

Quote from: Randy Pearson;1377740It is my sincere belief that people who claim that religion is the basis for morality are overestimating humans and underestimating morality.

I believe exactly the opposite. To believe that morality is based on an evolved instinct of the common good would be overestimating it's depth, and underestimating it's complexity.

My reasoning for this is that morality, and ethics in general are not constant across the gamut of human life. There are many different races (and thousands of sub-societies), each with their own ethical standards. Sure you could argue that if they are all averaged together that they are more or less the same, but one has to look at the reasons for the vast differences between neighboring ancient societies as well. The lines between ethical and moral standards are distinctly drawn on the boundaries of varied religions, and thus to argue that religion is not the basis of some moral standards would be jumping to a conclusion. Granted there are other factors, but religion is the most clearly definable (when in relation to the societies they belong to) and it directly mirrors the ethical variations.

We cannot prove that morals are a part of human evolution, but we can scientifically prove that religion is part of the evolution of morality.

A simple look at nations across the word reveals a lot:
America and Europe are Christian based, Middle East is Muslim based, Japan is Shinto, and the various religions of Africa. Though of course religion is not the ONLY factor, there is a clear divide between each country based on religion. This divide is most prevalent between Israel and the rest of the Middle East.

Quote from: HeinekenClock;1377234Jesus fucking christ if you bunch of faggots would actually look at the trailor carefully before dusting off your bible/darwin quotes, it actually looks like [SIZE=gfh3]the movie[/SIZE][SIZgfhE=4] will not[/SIZE] attack religion,[SIZE=gf6]but more like[/SIZE][SIZE=7gh] religious fundamentalists like that one redneck!!!!!111 111111111[/SIZE]

I posted a clip on page 2 where he just walks into an Islamic clothing store and metaphorically shits all over the owner for no reason, so don't even start that.

Quote from: Deep Blue;1377846My reasoning for this is that morality, and ethics in general are not constant across the gamut of human life. There are many different races (and thousands of sub-societies), each with their own ethical standards.

I was not arguing this. You are ignoring my initial concept that morality is not a specifically human trait. Animals have society and morality too (and, as you mentioned, each one is distinct).

You are right. Moral standards are not constant among any race or species, which is why they are constantly changing (racial subjugation --> equal rights), and obviously there will always be members of society that go against those moral standards.

QuoteSure you could argue that if they are all averaged together that they are more or less the same, but one has to look at the reasons for the vast differences between neighboring ancient societies as well.

Exactly. Which is why we have the word "culture" to express the variations between societies.

QuoteThe lines between ethical and moral standards are distinctly drawn on the boundaries of varied religions, and thus to argue that religion is not the basis of some moral standards would be jumping to a conclusion.

You're right, that would be. But you said that:

QuoteNo matter how you slice it, dice it, melt it down... Religion is the ancient basis of all basic forms of reinforced morality.

And it is here that I flat out disagree with you. I would be willing to concede
 that religion plays a large enough part in cultures to the point of which it defines a certain aspect of a culture or society's morality. I will not concede, however, that religion is the basis of morality, nor that it is essential for any culture to reinforce notions of morality.

QuoteGranted there are other factors, but religion is the most clearly definable (when in relation to the societies they belong to) and it directly mirrors the ethical variations.

We cannot prove that morals are a part of human evolution, but we can scientifically prove that religion is part of the evolution of morality.

I simply don't understand how people can compare human and animal societies and not come to the conclusion that social creatures at least have some sort of morality that is lacking in solitary creatures.

If we are going to talk about the ethical variations among religion, then let me just start out by saying that religion has not consistently proved to actually make people behave better towards one another and that no one religion is unique in it's subjugation and persecution of people (whether it be of a society's own people or of the people of another religion or nation). To my knowledge, there has not been a single aspect of religions, especially monotheistic ones, that has proved to me to have not been totally irrelevant, either in that it is useless or in that it is completely ignored by the same people who claim to subscribe to it.

- Religions all over the world continue to repress people sexually, whether it be to restrict sex before marriage or to tell them that their desires for the same sex are an abomination. Masturbation alone, if we are to trust religion's infallible moral guidance, can cause blindness, unsightly hair growth, the deterioration of the brain, and even cause the spinal column to dissolve.

- Violent and primitive morality create violent religions: most crimes and sins in the Old Testament, running the gambit from sex before marriage, to homosexuality, to simple teenage rebellion against parents can be solved with a simple stoning. I don't think I need to even bring up Islam.

- Religion has been and continues to be a perfect tool for war and mass murder. Because people end up associating cultural and religious identity with morality, religion has also been used as an excuse for racism, slavery, sexism and misogynists, and genocide. Because when people associate morality with religion, especially ignorant people (which, I don't have to remind you, there are a lot of in this world), they view anything else as amoral or morally abhorrent: polytheists enslave and slaughter Jews and Christians, Christians and Muslims subjugate and enslave American and African natives, Muslims suicide bomb Jews and other Muslims, Christians kill Jews and Muslims and subjugate just about everyone, Japanese polytheists crucify Christians; the list of atrocities goes on. And let's not get into pre-Christian times chiefly illustrated by simply a series of polytheistic nations conquering one another.

- Religion does not make people act better towards one another. Global atrocities aside, religion has not proved in general to be for the good of society. They champion themselves often as the guides to the lost and protectors of the poor, but more often then not dogma supersedes practice and the words of the clergy fall of deaf ears. One need only consider the complacency of ancient Jewish priests, whose inaction and hypocrisy encouraged the rise of many proclaimed messiahs and popular cults (one of which became the second monotheistic religion). This is what I mean when the morality of religion is irrelevant: because whatever tenants they might have are completely irrelevant except to those who truly concerned with the plight of others; and this is an argument for self-awareness and humanism, not religion.

- Religion has proved its true motives of control throughout history. And no number of apologists will ever truly right the indelible harm religion has inflicted on people. Because at the end of the day, no matter what atrocity a religion claims responsibility and apologizes for, they are still ready to be infallible all over again.

Quote from: RomanClock;1377850A simple look at nations across the word reveals a lot:
America and Europe are Christian based, Middle East is Muslim based, Japan is Shinto, and the various religions of Africa. Though of course religion is not the ONLY factor, there is a clear divide between each country based on religion. This divide is most prevalent between Israel and the rest of the Middle East.

This does not disprove the concept of essential-for-survival social norms that exist among all animals, nor does it invalidate the idea the morality comes before religion. Religious variations are simply the product of geographical and social variations (in other words variations of "culture," which is why no matter how good-intentioned they claim to be, they will always manage to betray their followers). No religion is unique enough to claim that they were the result of independent morality and more often then not, religion in all of these countries has proved to do more harm than they do good.

I'm sorry if you find my views egregious, but considering that so many people are religious and consider it a huge part of their lives, there really is no way that I could have put that that wouldn't be at least slightly offensive. That is not to say I was trying to be offensive. But if I feel that religion is irrelevant to morality, so irrelevant is the word I intend to use.

This debate is going in circles. We are officially trapped in the classic "chicken-or-egg" argument loop. There is really nothing I can say that will convince either of you that one came before the other, and vice versa. So why don't we end it right now. All things considered, this would probably be best.

haha fun

Quote from: yo if your smart you;1378144RomanClock: I will dismiss this on the basis of one line.

I still read the whole thing :\
Shouldn't and didn't/won't are different words.
And I do not believe the Catholic Church has as much control on people as you think.

Quote from: Randy Pearson;1378118Religious variations are simply the product of geographical and social variations (in other words variations of "culture," which is why no matter how good-intentioned they claim to be, they will always manage to betray their followers).

Well I think this is where you have the effects backwards. Religion affects society, society doesn't suddenly come up with one that because acceptable on a mass scale. And location is basically irrelevant, how would the location of water change your religion, or if it were always cold, or if you were in a higher altitude. That doesn't make any sense. And what do you mean by "they betray their followers?" There are always people that move under the guise of religion.

Quote from: Randy Pearson;1378118Religious variations are simply the product of geographical and social variations (in other words variations of "culture," which is why no matter how good-intentioned they claim to be, they will always manage to betray their followers).

Well I think this is where you have the effects backwards. Religion affects society, society doesn't suddenly come up with one that because acceptable on a mass scale. And location is basically irrelevant, how would the location of water change your religion, or if it were always cold, or if you were in a higher altitude. That doesn't make any sense. And what do you mean by "they betray their followers?" There are always people that move under the guise of religion.

Quote from: RomanClock;1378211Well I think this is where you have the effects backwards. Religion affects society, society doesn't suddenly come up with one that because acceptable on a mass scale. And location is basically irrelevant, how would the location of water change your religion, or if it were always cold, or if you were in a higher altitude. That doesn't make any sense. And what do you mean by "they betray their followers?" There are always people that move under the guise of religion.

When I used geography I meant in the sense that religions that are farther away from each other have more distinct features: while it can be said that Christianity and Islam are certainly different, nobody would argue that Shinto had greater similarities.

You caught me trying to shove too many ideas into one paragraph. I slipped up there.

Quote from: Balsac the Jaws of Death;1378713This is true, Morality can be seen as a result of social interaction which was itself a result of our evolution as social creatures.

Thanks, this is basically what I said, but shorter. Much shorter.

Eh it was alright. The preaching at the end was annoying, and his "arguments" sucked. It was kind of funny though, and I really enjoyed the part with that "maverick priest" at the Vatican.

The movie looks pretty self-serving, but it's from the guy that directed Borat, the Dilbert series, and who wrote some of the funnier episodes of Seinfeld. I'm intrigued.

Even so, it has Bill Maher parading around, pointing and laughing. This reads less like a documentary and more like farce.

Is it worth watching though>?

Quote from: SnakeClock;1418656The movie looks pretty self-serving, but it's from the guy that directed Borat, the Dilbert series, and who wrote some of the funnier episodes of Seinfeld. I'm intrigued.

Even so, it has Bill Maher parading around, pointing and laughing. This reads less like a documentary and more like farce.

It was kind of a big circle jerk. There were a lot of "dickey aheists" (thank you munglai for that term, I use it all the time) lauging too hard at some parts. It was still entertaining though, like I said and some of the people truly were idiots. The end did suck though, and was preachy.

Quote from: Mr.Satan;1418661There were a lot of "dickey aheists" (thank you munglai for that term, I use it all the time) lauging too hard at some parts.

In the movie or in the theatre?

Because if it was in the theatre, they'd probably do some really loud fake-laughing interspersed with "THAT IS SO TRUE!" so that everyone in the theatre would "overhear" them, then they'd get out of their seat and poke their head out the exit to do it to everyone outside.

IS IT WORTH WATCHING?

Quote from: GearBox;1418683IS IT WORTH WATCHING?

It's got 65% at Rotten Tomatoes and 55 at Metacritic. Ultimately, it's your decision.

Looks like a thinly-veiled method of capitalising on the increasingly-popular trend of picking holes in religion.

Meh, average ratings. I'll probably see it just cause of its awesome name.

Hooray for preaching to the choir.

Quote from: SnakeClock;1418664Because if it was in the theatre, they'd probably do some really loud fake-laughing interspersed with "THAT IS SO TRUE!" so that everyone in the theatre would "overhear" them, then they'd get out of their seat and poke their head out the exit to do it to everyone outside.

You explained it flawlessly :)

Quote from: GearBox;1418683IS IT WORTH WATCHING?

If you are a dickey atheist, a religious person who likes to hate non-religious people, or you like humor that stems form uncomfortable situations then sure.

Quote from: Mr.Satan;1418710You explained it flawlessly :)


If you are a dickey atheist, a religious person who likes to hate non-religious people, or you like humor that stems form uncomfortable situations then sure.

YES, YES, and YES

Hey guys, air is bullshit; there is no such thing as air. I can't see it, or taste it, or sense it in any way, so it must be fake right?

I mean, you all have your "science" mumbo jumbo that "proves" that it exists, but I don't believe in science, so you can't use that as support. Nope, no such thing as air, no way no how! But feel free to wallow in ignorance while I, the knower of the truth, arrogantly chuckle behind your back.

Quote from: CubeMelonClock;1418746Hey guys, air is bullshit; there is no such thing as air. I can't see it, or taste it, or sense it in any way, so it must be fake right?

I mean, you all have your "science" mumbo jumbo that "proves" that it exists, but I don't believe in science, so you can't use that as support. Nope, no such thing as air, no way no how! But feel free to wallow in ignorance while I, the knower of the truth, arrogantly chuckle behind your back.

Please prove god exists through science ok

ITT Buttplug misses points made.

Quote from: CubeMelonClock;1418800ITT Buttplug misses points made.

Sorry I am gay :'(

Please prove you exist through science ok

Quote from: Mr.Satan;1418801Sorry I am gay :'(

s'alright, we're all gay and I've always loved you <3

by the way buttplug, go take pictures of food and post them in the fandango thread.

Quote from: CubeMelonClock;1418812by the way buttplug, go take pictures of food and post them in the fandango thread.

I don't have a camera :wiebel:

Quote from: Mr.Satan;1418814I don't have a camera :wiebel:

ur gay >:c

He was actually pretty funny on the Daily Show, and I agree with many of the points he's making, he's just such a raving asshole agghhhhhh

Quote from: Phantom Renegade;1418700Hooray for preaching to the choir.

That's how you get them to sing

Quote from: Mr.Satan;1418710You explained it flawlessly :)


If you are a dickey atheist, a religious person who likes to hate non-religious people, or you like humor that stems form uncomfortable situations then sure.

Why would a dicky atheist be someone who hates atheists?


PS: Anyone who thought he was funny on the Daily Show is a dick.

Because that's all that he was being.

Quote from: The Hero of Winds;1418972Why would a dicky atheist be someone who hates atheists?


PS: Anyone who thought he was funny on the Daily Show is a dick.

Because that's all that he was being.

Someone is being a grumpy gilmore




And it sure isn't me




Also John Stewarts not a dick : (

Atheism is a religion.

End of line.

awwww somebody's god got its feelings hurt awwww


AWWWWW

Quote from: Deep Blue;1419024Atheism is a religion.

End of line.

THANK YOU.

Quote from: Father Dougal McGuire;1418974Someone is being a grumpy gilmore




And it sure isn't me




Also John Stewarts not a dick : (

Where did I say that?

Quote from: billiardball9;1418972Why would a dicky atheist be someone who hates atheists?


PS: Anyone who thought he was funny on the Daily Show is a dick.

Because that's all that he was being.

No, you see, you either went there as an athist to circlejerk or as a Christian to bust up the jerkcircle.