• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Problems with the "Religulous" movie

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,803
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
This is about the Wikipedia Religulous article

This is a section I attempt to add:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...=920048609#The_Alleged_Horus-Jesus_Connection


The Alleged Horus-Jesus Connection

The movie included a subtitled segment about alleged similarities between the stories of Horus and Jesus which involved amusing scenes from old movies about Jesus while the song Walk Like an Egyptian played. When asked about this part of the movie, the Straight Dope column stated “The notion that Jesus was copied from Horus is a stretch”.[48] The column says the alleged parallels repeated what self-taught Egyptologist Gerald Massey claimed “whose work has never been taken seriously by scholars". [48] StrangeNotions.com, which attempts to be "the central place of dialogue between Catholics and atheists",[49] republished an in-depth response to the claims of the Horus segment concluding these types of claims "have little or no connection to the facts". [50]

48: "Was Jesus copied from the Egyptian god Horus?". The Straight Dope. May 25, 2012. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
49: "About StrangeNotions.com". Retrieved 2019-11-11.
50: Sorensen, Jon (Nov–Dec 2012). "Horus Manure: Debunking the Jesus/Horus Connection". Catholic Answers Magazine. Retrieved 2019-11-11.

My most recent attempt to add that section got reverted with the comment:
12 November 2019: "I see you have been attempting to push your agenda here for years despite an extended discussion on the article talk page regarding your pushing of non-WP:NPOV material"
in 28 July 2016 their comment was: "doesn't say much about the subject of the article; non-RS cites" ["Reliable Sources"]

From the Talk page:
"Major inaccuracies regarding the Horus-Jesus connection"
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...curacies_regarding_the_Horus-Jesus_connection

I think the sources I referred to are "reliable".... it is about a documentary but some people in Wikipedia won't allow me to include criticism regarding the accuracy of its content. The article does allow a huge amount of comments from reviewers and how many stars they gave it, etc.

I have been really frustrated with this but if I can share my thoughts here then that would make me feel better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,155
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
This is about the Wikipedia Religulous article

This is a section I attempt to add:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...=920048609#The_Alleged_Horus-Jesus_Connection


The Alleged Horus-Jesus Connection

The movie included a subtitled segment about alleged similarities between the stories of Horus and Jesus which involved amusing scenes from old movies about Jesus while the song Walk Like an Egyptian played. When asked about this part of the movie, the Straight Dope column stated “The notion that Jesus was copied from Horus is a stretch”.[48] The column says the alleged parallels repeated what self-taught Egyptologist Gerald Massey claimed “whose work has never been taken seriously by scholars". [48] StrangeNotions.com, which attempts to be "the central place of dialogue between Catholics and atheists",[49] republished an in-depth response to the claims of the Horus segment concluding these types of claims "have little or no connection to the facts". [50]

48: "Was Jesus copied from the Egyptian god Horus?". The Straight Dope. May 25, 2012. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
49: "About StrangeNotions.com". Retrieved 2019-11-11.
50: Sorensen, Jon (Nov–Dec 2012). "Horus Manure: Debunking the Jesus/Horus Connection". Catholic Answers Magazine. Retrieved 2019-11-11.

My most recent attempt to add that section got reverted with the comment:
12 November 2019: "I see you have been attempting to push your agenda here for years despite an extended discussion on the article talk page regarding your pushing of non-WP:NPOV material"
in 28 July 2016 their comment was: "doesn't say much about the subject of the article; non-RS cites" ["Reliable Sources"]

From the Talk page:
"Major inaccuracies regarding the Horus-Jesus connection"
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...curacies_regarding_the_Horus-Jesus_connection

I think the sources I referred to are "reliable".... it is about a documentary but some people in Wikipedia won't allow me to include criticism regarding the accuracy of its content. The article does allow a huge amount of comments from reviewers and how many stars they gave it, etc.

I have been really frustrated with this but if I can share my thoughts here then that would make me feel better.


Bill Maher is a comedian. The entire film is him taking the piss out of Christians. It's not a rigorous critique of Christian theology. I liked it. I thought it was funny. But it only takes aim at the most ridiculous forms of Christianity.

I think it's unlikely that anybody here is likely to come to Bill Maher's defense. I think anybody who has ever read a book understands the film is theologically pretty weak. It's still funny. My favourite is the guy who admits he was a Satanist. I still don't understand what he meant by that. I somehow doubt this guy sacrificed blood and prayed by black candlelight in a hood. But that's the image I got.

The entire world dies in the winter and resurects every spring. I doubt we need more inspiration than that to project resurection onto our mythical heroes. As made evident of the fact that it is a fairly common trope in religion.

It reminds me of the film Zeitgeist. Full on bullshit from start to finish. Just because I'm an atheist I'm not going to defend every idiot atheist who has an opinion :)
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,803
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
Bill Maher is a comedian. The entire film is him taking the piss out of Christians. It's not a rigorous critique of Christian theology. I liked it. I thought it was funny.
Well Michael Moore is also able to make humorous documentaries - while at the same time being pretty accurate (hopefully). Same with Ricky Gervais when he talks about Christianity (like the Garden of Eden or Noah's Flood)
But it only takes aim at the most ridiculous forms of Christianity.
And it makes assertions that Christianity significantly identical to Horus stories - it gives the impression it is completely factual and the humour just comes from the music and the old video excerpts. They could have just removed that section.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lLiRr_mT24&t=60s
Bill: But Jesus' story isn't original
Guy: How so?
Then it has nearly a minute of inaccurate claims...
I think it's unlikely that anybody here is likely to come to Bill Maher's defense. I think anybody who has ever read a book understands the film is theologically pretty weak.
My Wikipedia addition referred to a source that investigated in depth each statement in the Horus segment.... yet they only allow parts to remain that are just based on people's impressions and opinions. It seems they don't want any mention of there being factual problems.
It reminds me of the film Zeitgeist. Full on bullshit from start to finish. Just because I'm an atheist I'm not going to defend every idiot atheist who has an opinion :)
Yeah Zeitgeist also talked about Christianity being copied from other sources (including Horus?)
 
Last edited:

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,155
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Well Michael Moore is also able to make humorous documentaries - while at the same time being pretty accurate (hopefully). Same with Ricky Gervais when he talks about Christianity (like the Garden of Eden or Noah's Flood)

We think differently of Michael Moore's accuracy. Or to quote a documentary filmmaker friend of mine. "People don't watch documentaries to learn anything. Documentaries is entertainment. If you want to learn anything. Read books."

It's a longer quote. The topic was whether film was a good or bad way of conveying information. He thought it was good for one thing only, and that was to convey feelings. Which makes it particularly bad to convey information, because those feelings will always get in the way.

If somebody is trying to convince you of anything and is doing it in a Youtube video or a documentary... all your alarm bells should be ringing.

And it makes assertions that Christianity significantly identical to Horus stories - it gives the impression it is completely factual and the humour just comes from the music and the old video excerpts. They could have just removed that section.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lLiRr_mT24&t=60s
Bill: But Jesus' story isn't original
Guy: How so?
Then it has nearly a minute of inaccurate claims...
I think it's unlikely that anybody here is likely to come to Bill Maher's defense. I think anybody who has ever read a book understands the film is theologically pretty weak.
My Wikipedia addition referred to a source that investigated in depth each statement in the Horus segment.... yet they only allow parts to remain that are just based on people's impressions and opinions. It seems they don't want any mention of there being factual problems.
It reminds me of the film Zeitgeist. Full on bullshit from start to finish. Just because I'm an atheist I'm not going to defend every idiot atheist who has an opinion :)
Yeah Zeitgeist also talked about Christianity being copied from other sources (including Horus?)

Everybody wants to live forever. Everybody who has had a loved one die, wants them to live again. Why do you think we need any inspiration for this?
 

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
6,437
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I never thought of that movie as a documentary. It's just a comedy that pokes fun at a lot of religious mythology. My favorite part is when Maher acts as an evangelist for Scientology. Laughter is a great way to help us cope with the more negative aspects of life. There is evidence that laughter may help our immune systems, according to a nursing CEU course I took a couple of years ago. So, please never take Maher too seriously. He's just a comedian. If you don't find him funny, then find some other comedian or comedy movie that makes you laugh, and forget about Maher.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,803
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
I never thought of that movie as a documentary. It's just a comedy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religulous
Wikipedia calls it a documentary 9 times... (5 times in the article and 4 times in the categories) - so it should put some effort into how accurate its claims are... (like its assertions about Horus)

.....So, please never take Maher too seriously. He's just a comedian. If you don't find him funny, then find some other comedian or comedy movie that makes you laugh, and forget about Maher.
Here is an example of talking about things like Horus is a seemingly accurate way while being funny: (it also mentions Bill Maher at the end)

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0-EgjUhRqA[/YOUTUBE]

The problem is that Christians might investigate the movie's Horus section and then have their faith strengthened when they find it is garbage....

http://www.strangenotions.com/horus-manure
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
1,880
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Perhaps you should take it up with the film maker and the persons who wrote and approved the script. I've seen the movie, and I don't think the director intended to create a serious documentary fully supported by citations and references. I think it was intended as satire, which is also an acceptable form of commentary.
 

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
6,437
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I never thought of that movie as a documentary. It's just a comedy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religulous
Wikipedia calls it a documentary 9 times... (5 times in the article and 4 times in the categories) - so it should put some effort into how accurate its claims are... (like its assertions about Horus)

.....So, please never take Maher too seriously. He's just a comedian. If you don't find him funny, then find some other comedian or comedy movie that makes you laugh, and forget about Maher.
Here is an example of talking about things like Horus is a seemingly accurate way while being funny: (it also mentions Bill Maher at the end)

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0-EgjUhRqA[/YOUTUBE]

The problem is that Christians might investigate the movie's Horus section and then have their faith strengthened when they find it is garbage....

http://www.strangenotions.com/horus-manure

Wiki doesn't always get things right, but if you want to call it a documentary, at least admit it's a comedic documentary. I doubt many Christians wold bother to watch a satirical movie by an atheist comedian. Do you honestly think Christians would be influenced one way or the other by that comedy?

Good grief. If Christians want to be a positive influence, they should do it by imitating the better nature of the Biblical Jesus, not by criticizing a silly movie. Sorry if I've missed your point. Even when we read each other's posts, sometimes it's difficult to know exactly what point the poster is trying to make. I know I've been misunderstand many times, and I'm sure most of us here have.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
The problem is that Christians might investigate the movie's Horus section and then have their faith strengthened when they find it is garbage....

http://www.strangenotions.com/horus-manure
Christains watching Religulous? I find that unlikely.
Someone at their church tells them what's in it, what the creator's motivation was, what to do about it, what to say in their letters to the paper, their senator, etc.

Just like Last Temptation of Christ. Or The Pope Must Diet.
Wandering around with signs being offended without actually seeing any content.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,803
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,803
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
Wiki doesn't always get things right, but if you want to call it a documentary, at least admit it's a comedic documentary.
Yes of course it is comedic. BTW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_film
"....is a non-fictional motion-picture intended to "document reality" (or at least reality in the view of its creator)

I don't see any reason for it to include so much misinformation in the Horus segment - even though the movie criticises religion for misinformation.

Here is an example of problems that can happen because of the segment:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6AZqOO2FJA[/YOUTUBE]

So the atheist thought he had a good argument for William Lane Craig but then it turned out it was a bad one. See also the video in post #6 where Christians would are informed that people like Bill Maher are spreading misinformation about Horus....
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,803
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
Perhaps you should take it up with the film maker and the persons who wrote and approved the script. I've seen the movie, and I don't think the director intended to create a serious documentary fully supported by citations and references. I think it was intended as satire, which is also an acceptable form of commentary.
In the Horus section it appears to be on the side of the misinformation (while assuming it is factual) while in other parts of the movie it seems to be opposing the misinformation and mocking people for it.
 

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
6,437
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Wiki doesn't always get things right, but if you want to call it a documentary, at least admit it's a comedic documentary.
Yes of course it is comedic. BTW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_film
"....is a non-fictional motion-picture intended to "document reality" (or at least reality in the view of its creator)

I don't see any reason for it to include so much misinformation in the Horus segment - even though the movie criticises religion for misinformation.

Here is an example of problems that can happen because of the segment:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6AZqOO2FJA[/YOUTUBE]

So the atheist thought he had a good argument for William Lane Craig but then it turned out it was a bad one. See also the video in post #6 where Christians would are informed that people like Bill Maher are spreading misinformation about Horus....

I watched your video, but to be honest, I have never taken the movie in question seriously. I've watched it at least 3 times, just for a good laugh. And, I'm not sure that the person in your video is any more knowledgeable than any other person who thinks he knows all about Jesus. Of course, we all know that Jesus was Jewish. Oddly enough, Bill Maher was raised with one Jewish parent and one Christian parent, so I imagine he's been exposed to plenty of Jewish and Christian mythology too.

I apologize if I've wasted your time. My point is that the movie is just a satire of religion, nothing to be taken as "gospel" truth, but rather something that pokes fun at religious mythology. I don't even remember the part about Horus, so maybe if I have time I'll watch the movie again to see what you're taking about, but there are only so many hours in a day. :D

What one person finds humorous, another person may find offensive. :)
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,068
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
The problem is that Christians might investigate the movie's Horus section and then have their faith strengthened when they find it is garbage....

http://www.strangenotions.com/horus-manure
Christains watching Religulous? I find that unlikely.
In that link a Christian not only watched it, they examined every single word in the Horus segment.
Keith&Co. is a comedian. (You're talking to the guy who turned his submarine into a make-believe democracy just so he could bamboozle his commanding officer into giving the crew a day off. :notworthy: ) His post is not a rigorous critique of Christian movie-watching behavior. ;)

And that was published in "Catholic Answers Magazine".

This is about the Wikipedia Religulous article

This is a section I attempt to add: ...

I think the sources I referred to are "reliable".... it is about a documentary but some people in Wikipedia won't allow me to include criticism regarding the accuracy of its content. The article does allow a huge amount of comments from reviewers and how many stars they gave it, etc.

I have been really frustrated with this but if I can share my thoughts here then that would make me feel better.
It sounds like Wikipedia is applying its "No original research" policy. They don't want an explanation of what's wrong with the movie unless the explanation comes from some other published source that they can cite -- which means if you haven't been published in a real journal then your criticisms aren't what they consider it their job to report. So I'm guessing if instead of saying what's wrong with the movie, you add a paragraph to the "Critical Response" section reporting what Catholic Answers Magazine says is wrong with it, and you cite "Catholic Answers Magazine", and you put in a footnote with the issue number and date and so forth, then I expect they'll leave it in.
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
1,880
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Perhaps you should take it up with the film maker and the persons who wrote and approved the script. I've seen the movie, and I don't think the director intended to create a serious documentary fully supported by citations and references. I think it was intended as satire, which is also an acceptable form of commentary.
In the Horus section it appears to be on the side of the misinformation (while assuming it is factual) while in other parts of the movie it seems to be opposing the misinformation and mocking people for it.


I understand that. The documentary appears to be satire, and satire uses exaggeration and even misrepresentation to make its point. From Google:

Satire - the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

I don't understand what your point is. Are you criticizing the movie for including exaggerated elements that potentially stray from the facts? What do you want us to do about it?
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,803
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
I understand that. The documentary appears to be satire, and satire uses exaggeration and even misrepresentation to make its point. From Google:

Satire - the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

I don't understand what your point is. Are you criticizing the movie for including exaggerated elements that potentially stray from the facts? What do you want us to do about it?
It is just based on self-taught Egyptologist Gerald Massey. The Horus segment is shown after this:
Bill: But Jesus' story isn't original
Guy: How so?

Are you saying that Bill wasn't really serious about his claim or something?
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,803
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
....It sounds like Wikipedia is applying its "No original research" policy. They don't want an explanation of what's wrong with the movie unless the explanation comes from some other published source that they can cite -- which means if you haven't been published in a real journal then your criticisms aren't what they consider it their job to report. So I'm guessing if instead of saying what's wrong with the movie, you add a paragraph to the "Critical Response" section reporting what Catholic Answers Magazine says is wrong with it, and you cite "Catholic Answers Magazine", and you put in a footnote with the issue number and date and so forth, then I expect they'll leave it in.
In the talk page the other guy never said it was against the no original research policy....
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...curacies_regarding_the_Horus-Jesus_connection
The critical response section already has 8 paragraphs and some are really long.

In the talk apparently there is "...a policy preventing articles about documentaries from including opinions about whether parts are accurate or misleading"

The other people in the talk page never ever suggested any way in which any of my four sentences could be added to the Religulous page - it seemed they just wanted to use any excuse they could think of to remove any mention that the Horus section is inaccurate. They claim that The Straight Dope is a "dubious" site.... though The Straight Dope is "published in the Chicago Reader and syndicated in eight newspapers"....
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
1,880
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Are you saying that Bill wasn't really serious about his claim or something?

Bill is a professional entertainer who has a show on HBO that ridicules Christians and other assorted right wing zealots. He is NOT an expert on the Bible or ancient mythology. He was very likely just following a script from his screenplay writers.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,803
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
I watched your video, but to be honest, I have never taken the movie in question seriously.
Perhaps it is like a person saying "you beat your wife" and them replying "what do you mean?" and then the documentary showing 47 seconds of wife beating scenes from movies and statements about the guy with music ("Smack My Bitch Up")... then just leaving it at that. Then Wikipedia refusing to allow counter-arguments to those claims while allowing people saying the movie is funny, etc.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,803
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
Are you saying that Bill wasn't really serious about his claim or something?
Bill is a professional entertainer who has a show on HBO that ridicules Christians and other assorted right wing zealots. He is NOT an expert on the Bible or ancient mythology. He was very likely just following a script from his screenplay writers.
So they included a 47 second segment that was pretty much completely inaccurate. But Wikipedia says 9 times that it is a documentary.

Before the segment it says:

Bill: But Jesus' story isn't original
Guy: How so?

Was Bill's statement there part of the script? I guess "How so?" was his real opinion. Who do you think was responsible for licensing the "Walk Like an Egyptian" song, putting together those old movie scenes and those Gerald Massey statements? I thought if they're going to go to that trouble they could have talked to someone who actually knows something about Horus....
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,050
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
I have not seen the movie, and don't plan to. Not that I don't like satire about religion. One of my favorite movies is Python's Life of Brian. I also love Dogma (well, Salma Hayek is in it, for one thing), and I like some comics who poke fun at religious faith, like George Carlin (though his pissing all over the theory of rights is terrible and naive), and too many others to count.

The reason I won't bother to watch Religulous is because I think (which means my view is subjective, meaning something that means something to ME) that Bill Maher is unfunny; not just unfunny but utterly unfunny. He could be funny, in that he's sharp and intelligent, and witty, and loves a good barb.

His absolute unfunniness (for ME) results from his delivery, which is so clustered and misshapen with fake posturing and "comedic" body language, eye-movements, inserted laughter (often at the worst times) and pregnant pauses and distractions which are typically intended to take the viewer's attention away from something stupid or desperately unfunny that he has just said: sometimes you can see it dawn on him right away that what he has uttered is stupid, because he's sharp and very intelligent - just not funny! Thomas Reid was funnier than Bill Maher! And Reid was a philosopher! And he died a L O N G time ago.

But then again he did he wear that silly red hat that his friend Hume also wore - those freakin' sweathogs!...so there's th...etc, etc, etc.&

Keith&co is very funny! Yes indeed, but the idea that Christians won't see a movie like Religulous is silly. Certainly there are some outliers who won't watch it, but pooh and boo-hoo on them. Their loss. Now where was I?



You want to see funny? Watch some Frank Zappa interviews. But a lot of people won't get the jokes.

Or watch some Groucho Marx interviews. Amazingly funny even without the slapstick and his brilliant brothers.

Or Brian Regan, who's amazingly funny, while not preachy in the least, and who doesn't do blue material, or even swear.
 

none

Banned
Banned
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
3,331
Location
outside
Basic Beliefs
atheist/ignostic
I have not seen the movie, and don't plan to. Not that I don't like satire about religion. One of my favorite movies is Python's Life of Brian. I also love Dogma (well, Salma Hayek is in it, for one thing), and I like some comics who poke fun at religious faith, like George Carlin (though his pissing all over the theory of rights is terrible and naive), and too many others to count.

The reason I won't bother to watch Religulous is because I think (which means my view is subjective, meaning something that means something to ME) that Bill Maher is unfunny; not just unfunny but utterly unfunny. He could be funny, in that he's sharp and intelligent, and witty, and loves a good barb.

His absolute unfunniness (for ME) results from his delivery, which is so clustered and misshapen with fake posturing and "comedic" body language, eye-movements, inserted laughter (often at the worst times) and pregnant pauses and distractions which are typically intended to take the viewer's attention away from something stupid or desperately unfunny that he has just said: sometimes you can see it dawn on him right away that what he has uttered is stupid, because he's sharp and very intelligent - just not funny! Thomas Reid was funnier than Bill Maher! And Reid was a philosopher! And he died a L O N G time ago.

But then again he did he wear that silly red hat that his friend Hume also wore - those freakin' sweathogs!...so there's th...etc, etc, etc.&

Keith&co is very funny! Yes indeed, but the idea that Christians won't see a movie like Religulous is silly. Certainly there are some outliers who won't watch it, but pooh and boo-hoo on them. Their loss. Now where was I?



You want to see funny? Watch some Frank Zappa interviews. But a lot of people won't get the jokes.

Or watch some Groucho Marx interviews. Amazingly funny even without the slapstick and his brilliant brothers.

Or Brian Regan, who's amazingly funny, while not preachy in the least, and who doesn't do blue material, or even swear.

I was walking down the street, wait.. that wasn't me - Steven Wright
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
6,437
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I watched your video, but to be honest, I have never taken the movie in question seriously.
Perhaps it is like a person saying "you beat your wife" and them replying "what do you mean?" and then the documentary showing 47 seconds of wife beating scenes from movies and statements about the guy with music ("Smack My Bitch Up")... then just leaving it at that. Then Wikipedia refusing to allow counter-arguments to those claims while allowing people saying the movie is funny, etc.

I'm sorry that you are taking a goofy satirical movie so seriously. There are a lot of movies that I've seen but didn't like, but I've never taken a movie, even one that was supposed to be based on something factual, as seriously as you seem to be taking this movie. I loved the movie "Ray" about the late Ray Charles, but I'm sure there was probably lots of non factual information in the movie. I've watched two different movies about the life of Billie Holiday, but I'd be willing to bet that there was some misinformation in each of them. "Amadeus" was a fantastic movie, but if Mozart were still around, I bet he'd find plenty of fiction in that movie too. Movies are primarily for entertainment, not for being historically accurate. So, my advice, is not to be so bothered by this movie.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,803
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
I'm sorry that you are taking a goofy satirical movie so seriously. There are a lot of movies that I've seen but didn't like, but I've never taken a movie, even one that was supposed to be based on something factual, as seriously as you seem to be taking this movie.....
Jon Sorensen wrote 1-5 paragraphs for each claim the Horus segment made - so he was taking it even more seriously than me:
https://strangenotions.com/horus-manure/
So could you respond to my example from post #23? What if a movie played "smack my bitch up" with statements about a guy and his alledged wife beating for 47 seconds? Would you just dismiss it as being a goofy satirical movie? (in Religulous the Horus segment was in response to a guy saying "how so?" to Bill's statement "But Jesus' story isn't original")

BTW Bill Maher makes more related claims such as Mithra being born on December 25....

 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,050
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
excreationist,

You're doing a fine job here, IMO, and I will read the Wikipedia article in depth later on. What I've been doing is downloading certain articles as pdf files, then going through them when I'm not busy here.

While reading just now I did see this paragraph, which gives me more reason not to bother watching the film:

The documentary received some negative reviews, with Rick McGinnis of Metro concluding that, "Maher is preaching to the choir with an undisguised dishonesty that only the true believers will forgive."[37] James Berardinelli wrote, "If the subject of religion is as important to Maher as he claims during his end comments, then he should have followed those words with actions and made a movie that's more than a sum of inauthentic interviews, ranting attacks, and obvious observations. The choir may hum along with Maher but the rest of those watching this movie will be singing the blues."[38] Nick Schager of Slant Magazine called it an "atheistic wannabe-dissection of modern faith."[39] - emphasis mine.

I did see a few exerpts of the movie on YouTube, and was not impressed. Note: I do not disagree with Bill Maher with respect to his opinions about the negative impact of religious faith on society historically and currently. He is not wrong. The problem for me is that he prefers a cocksure, dismissive mockery rather than a genuine investigative curiosity. And, while his intelligence is not in question, nor the conclusions he reaches very controversial or even original at all (he doesn't pretend that they are), he is just not a good comedian, in my opinion. Apparently he is very funny to a great many people.

But then again there are people who think Shakespeare is over-rated (if anything s/he/they is/are still under-rated); that the Beatles weren't that good; that Led Zeppelin actually sucked. There are people who think symphonic music is a lot of silly noise that anyone can create; there are people who believe that Frank Zappa was just a foul-mouthed asshole who wrote disposable music to make money; there are people who believe Ozzy Osbourne is just a silly, drug-addled brummer who can't even sing (there are studies done by prominent people in the Music world that prove that Ozzy, at least in his strong years, from 1973-1983 or so, had an unusually wide vocal range and could reach extraordinarily high notes without switching to falsetto - not as high as Rob Halford but much higher than the average singer), etc, etc, etc&...

More later. We'll see how this thread progresses. Hang in there, excreationist. And by the way, I find your views in a lot of other areas very interesting.

Gotta get ready for work! Come along, Concord, we must collect more lupins! :joy:
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,328
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Mahr is a liberal opportunist playing to a demographic. An entertainer putting on an act.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,803
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
While reading just now I did see this paragraph, which gives me more reason not to bother watching the film:

The documentary received some negative reviews, with Rick McGinnis of Metro concluding that, "Maher is preaching to the choir with an undisguised dishonesty that only the true believers will forgive."[37] James Berardinelli wrote, "If the subject of religion is as important to Maher as he claims during his end comments, then he should have followed those words with actions and made a movie that's more than a sum of inauthentic interviews, ranting attacks, and obvious observations. The choir may hum along with Maher but the rest of those watching this movie will be singing the blues."[38] Nick Schager of Slant Magazine called it an "atheistic wannabe-dissection of modern faith."[39] - emphasis mine.
Thanks I didn't notice that paragraph.... well it looks like things like "undisguised dishonesty" were mentioned in there after all....
 
Top Bottom