101. Porn pastor's wife vows to stand by him

Comment #237539 by Don_Quix on August 26, 2008 at 5:21 pm

The Richarddawkins.net forums is not a formal organization of professional debaters that requires paid membership and/or adherence to a strict debate format. It's an informal online message board. Anyone can create an account here and post anything they want, including Internet trolls who spam the forums with insane moonbat nonsense.

That being said, there's nothing wrong with pointing out, deriding, and making fun of hypocrisy and fraud, and the people who engage in it. Especially when the hypocrisy and fraud is engaged in by a supposed "moral" authority figure such as a well-known priest or preacher. A strong case could be (and has been) made that most if not all religious authority figures were, are, and continue to be engaged in the greatest and longest-running perpetration of hypocrisy and fraud in human history.

102. Porn pastor's wife vows to stand by him

Comment #237336 by Don_Quix on August 26, 2008 at 11:04 am

Fundamentalist Christian Troll wrote:

The glee, self righteousness and pompousness of this triviality is bad enough - but the thought that it is actually posted here as an argument for fundamentalist Christianity is even sadder.

There, I fixed it for you.

Funny how the exact same thing can be applied to every Christian forum on the internet, isn't it?

103. Porn pastor's wife vows to stand by him

Comment #237329 by Don_Quix on August 26, 2008 at 10:59 am

What's a little porn, fraud, and intentionally deceiving all of your friends and family, when you are trying to save souls?!

104. The heretic

Comment #237319 by Don_Quix on August 26, 2008 at 10:51 am

Great article! I've always found Bruno fascinating.

I also learned something new. In my hometown there is a locally well-known Catholic university called Bellarmine University. Up until today, I had no idea that it was named after none other than Saint Bellarmine (aka Cardinal Robert Bellarmine), the inquisitor of Galileo and the (indirect) torturer and murderer of Bruno. Somehow I doubt most of the students at Bellarmine are aware of this either. In fact, I'm sure old Saint Bellarmine is looked upon quite favorably in most Catholic circles.

105. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #236630 by Don_Quix on August 24, 2008 at 11:55 pm

Quine:

Regarding Bart D. Ehrman (from his Wikipedia entry):

He has researched the source materials for the Bible. His research proposes that the Biblical text was unintentionally altered by scribes and intentionally altered for a variety of reasons.

Of course it was. It had to fit in with the political structure at the time because the Western world was literally in chaos after the collapse of the Roman empire.

If you add this to the fact that there were also certainly and understandably "unintentional alterations by scribes", and that the Greeks/Romans/Egyptians/Pagans had thought of and were worshiping various versions of the God-Man that Jesus was supposed to represent at least a thousand years prior to the Roman Empire's collapse...then it all totally makes sense :)

106. Richard Dawkins on Talkback Radio

Comment #236628 by Don_Quix on August 24, 2008 at 11:36 pm

People who note this as evidence of 'design' should also understand that Jupiter is likewise credited with the chaotic coalescence of the asteroid belt and the rocky inner planets, including Earth.

But it *is* evidence of design! If Jupiter wasn't gobbling up rocks and influencing gravity in our neighborhood, we wouldn't be here! Therefore Jupiter == God == Designer! Q.E.D.

Just kidding.

It is fortunate we have a large planet like Jupiter with a large gravity well that does (occasionally) take hits for us. However, it sucks when Jupiter is on the other side of the sun from us and doesn't really offer much protection. So much for the clockwork design of the solar system!

Basically we're lucky that our species has happened to evolve and become sentient during a relatively quiet period in both our planet's and our solar system's history. It's very likely (in fact, almost certain) that a major extinction-level asteroid or comet will hit us in the next few million, if not thousand, years. Hopefully between now and then we will have evolved enough to be able to deflect it or to have moved off this planet :)

107. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #236625 by Don_Quix on August 24, 2008 at 10:49 pm

Quine:

In some of my earlier posts (which may or may not have started or contributed to the whole Jesus Exists vs Jesus Never Existed tangent of this thread) I may have not stated what I mean as clearly as I meant.

Please allow me to clarify:

1) Based on what I have read/studied, there is literally no evidence for a literal Jesus as described by most standard editions of the Christian Bible. Certainly not a supernatural Jesus.

2) I agree that the myths of the Bible must have come from somewhere. Probably from various Greek/Roman interpretations/reinterpretations/misinterpretations of Jewish prophecy over the course of several hundred years. Not to mention that all the Jewish myths were thrown into an ancient food-processor with the Greek/Roman/Egyptian Gnostic GOD-MAN myths that had already been around and been the status-quo for at least hundreds (if not thousands) of years prior in Greek/Roman/Egyptian culture.

3) I agree it is possible that a literal person existed in history who may or may not have said some of the things that are attributed to Jesus, but there is no historical or physical evidence for that person (and there probably never will be). On the other hand, there are at least a few (if not many) other religious figures throughout history that *do* have historical and/or physical evidence of their existence.

This is not to say that any of the claims of any of these other religious figures has any truth value. But, I'm saying that some of them have a historical/physical basis that is much much more accepted and provable than that of the biblical Jesus.

108. Richard Dawkins on Talkback Radio

Comment #236621 by Don_Quix on August 24, 2008 at 10:23 pm

Giving up the hope for life after death and the other supposed benefits religion affords can be a very difficult thing to do, and it doesn't surprise me that many people jump through mental hoops to accommodate this. This is not to say that it makes those beliefs true.

There's not anything particularly wrong with hoping for a life after death. It's a natural and very seductive idea, since human beings (as far as we know) are the only creatures on this planet who can, from a very early age, perceive and fear their own future deaths. Nobody who is now alive can say for certain that there is or isn't some part of us that survives natural death...but based on what we know now right now, it's incredibly unlikely. If there is any kind of afterlife, it would almost certainly be totally unlike what the major religions would have you believe it is.

The problem I have with people who believe in religions is that they spend much of life preparing for something which is very, very likely not true. Instead of preparing for "the next world". you should be living your *life* and doing what you can to help future *living* generations after you are gone (whether it be your children, or grandchildren, or humanity in general, or whatever).

Then again, with technology advancing as fast as it is, it is possible that some people who are alive today may become nearly immortal at some point in the not too distant future...but that is a totally different discussion.

109. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #236613 by Don_Quix on August 24, 2008 at 9:51 pm

Thus wrte this article: "Creationism is stupid...

This is a very valid and intelligent statement.

...and that's all there is to it."

This, not so much.

Oh, but I guess it is brilliant to just assume that chance was the author of the complexity of this world.

There are a multitude of implied misunderstandings in this sentence. You'll find that no one here, and certainly no scientists who actually know what they are talking about, either believe or would say what you said. "Chance" doesn't "author" anything. There is no "author" to anything in the natural world, and there doesn't need to be.

I just don't understand...

That's fairly obvious. Perhaps you should read a few books (science books, not the bible) and educate yourself on the relevant issues before shooting your mouth off about things you admit to knowing nothing about.

If you're genuinely interested, and not just a troll, then The Blind Watchmaker is always a good place to start.

110. Richard Dawkins on Talkback Radio

Comment #236603 by Don_Quix on August 24, 2008 at 9:28 pm

It is Zeus, not Jupiter!!!

Better not say that around any Centurions!

111. Richard Dawkins on Talkback Radio

Comment #236596 by Don_Quix on August 24, 2008 at 9:13 pm

Spinoza:

For christ's sake... Jupiter DOES NOT shield the Earth... I mean what the hell... and what on earth does THAT, if it were true, have to do with "there must be a designer"... That's just confirmation bias.

I beg to differ. Not only does Jupiter shield us from evil and destruction, but He is the supreme arbiter of laws and social order! Why, without Jupiter, there would be no morality or ethics...it would be total chaos!

Oh wait...err...wait...

112. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #236592 by Don_Quix on August 24, 2008 at 9:02 pm

What in the world is going on in this thread?

The comments aren't loading right. All I see is some religious wingnut spamming the comments with repetitive senseless insanity.

It's too bad, because this was an excellent article. I wish I had had a teacher even remotely as smart and engaging as David Campbell when I was in high school.

113. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235959 by Don_Quix on August 24, 2008 at 1:07 am

Well, because we are talking about a human figure, some of whose words have been recorded

Which human figure are you saying we are talking about? Are you talking about the supposed human figure of Jesus (which I was originally talking about)? If so, where were his words supposedly historically recorded other than in the bible (not counting the Koran, which was a cheap ripoff of a cheap ripoff)?

114. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235952 by Don_Quix on August 24, 2008 at 12:56 am

Fanusi:

Well, because those are explicitly mythological in the way that Jesus or Lao-Tzu isn't.

OK. Then can you help me understand why Jesus or Lao-Tzu are not explicitly mythological, and why every other God-Man figure is?

115. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235944 by Don_Quix on August 24, 2008 at 12:42 am

Just another point this whole arguement seems completly unaware of the work of people like Albert Schwitzer (The Quest for the Historical Jesus), Rudolf Bultmann(Kerygma and Myth) et al who very sceptical but still found an historical figure underneath all the mythology.

O RLY? Which figure was that? Osiris/Dionysus? Mithras? Darth Vader? The Lord Of The Rings, et al? I can't believe I missed this!

If what you claim is true, or at least popularly accepted, it certainly would have been on every single major news network at the time it was published and we would still be hearing about it now. Even more so the Catholic Church would be browbeating us with it daily :)

Basically, I'm calling bullshit.

116. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235935 by Don_Quix on August 24, 2008 at 12:23 am

#235929 Fanusi Khiyal

Laurie & Don, you're pushing at an open door with me. I was just making a more general point about quasi-historical/mythological figures. I think that researching who the man from Nazareth really was is very interesting. Same with Gautama Buddha, or Lao-Tzu, or even Muhammad (though that last one carries certain, ah-hem, risks)

Don't get me wrong. I often find myself agreeing with many of your posts. I'm just saying, in regard to Jesus in particular, there is no empirical historical evidence of him ever existing (and certainly none of him being the "Son Of God"..whatever that means). On the other hand, there is lots and lots and lots of historical evidence for people claiming to have the same godliness/birthright/superpowers as the supposed Jesus did around the same time as he supposedly lived...and long before.

I'm not trying to say that no religious figure ever existed, but I think most of them are wholly made up, composites of multiple real people throughout a long period of time, or both.

I think I understand what you are saying, and I want you to understand that I am not disagreeing with you on the fact that there may have been a person at some point who may have served as the starting point for various myths/religions.

But seriously...why are any of the people you originally mentioned more truthful and/or historically accurate than Zeus or Thor or Athena or Hathor or Cthulu or Xenu or Ba'al, etc, etc, etc?

117. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235930 by Don_Quix on August 24, 2008 at 12:08 am

thewhitepearl

..one other person, can't really remember, I believe it starts with a "T".

I think you are thinking of Tacitus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

118. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235922 by Don_Quix on August 23, 2008 at 11:44 pm

#235916 Fanusi Khiyal

Not sure that's quite true. I mean, I think that it's probable that there was a preacher from Nazareth, in the same way that I think that Siddharta was probably a historical figure.

That's possibly true. But what I was trying to stress was that there is no empirical historical evidence to prove any of those individual "God" figures ever actually existed (especially Jesus). If there is any evidence at all, it's likely quite slim. After all, we're only talking about a few thousand years ago, not even ten or a hundred thousand years ago before there were written records. Since the dawn of civilization (or at least the invention of writing), human beings have been notorious for keeping copious written records of any event or person that is important to us :)

We have many, many (mostly) undisputed historical records of important people and places and things that existed during the times the supposed "Jesus" lived. The reason we don't dispute them so much is because we have empirical evidence for them. The records still exist. We know for a fact that Rome and Greece and Egypt and China (and many other places) existed and that there were senators and emperors and relatively advanced civilizations with millions of people.

We also know that all of these people desperately believed for hundreds if not thousands of years in gods that we now laugh at, because we now know they were obviously false.

I'm not disputing that there may have at some point been some guy named "Jesus" who lived somewhere in the Middle East and may have said a couple of cool things to a few people...but so did lots of other people throughout history! And probably many of them said and did equally cool things before the supposed Jesus.

What I am disputing is the (usual) Christian claim that "Jesus", if he existed at all, existed as they claim he did, and did the things their holy book claims he did. There is absolutely no evidence for that at all.

119. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235913 by Don_Quix on August 23, 2008 at 11:10 pm

Comment #235909 by Laurie Fraser

Well, that's the thing, Don - the mythology has overtaken any chance of actually getting at the historicity of Christ.

Agreed. But the historicity of Christ is so difficult to prove for the exact same reason as the historicity of Osiris/Dionysius, or Thor, or Zeus, or any number of laughable dead gods are!

Everything is fabricated, including all "prophesies", because humans do not have the ability to see into the future via "magic". That's why the scientific method is so great, because it doesn't rely on what people think or say or believe...it relies on what we can prove with evidence.

I understand what you're saying, and I know you aren't disagreeing with me, but I still always find myself feeling the need to stress the fact that all human religion is bullshit. All of it. 100%.

120. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235905 by Don_Quix on August 23, 2008 at 10:35 pm

Shuggy #235858

This assumes that there really was a historical Jesus who lived early in the first century

This is another good point (among many) that Christians also always neglect to consider, or dismiss out of hand. After all, if you doubt the all-loving Jesus Christ ever lived, then you risk being being burned/raped/tortured for all eternity...because Jesus/God loves you so much.

There is absolutely no historical or physical evidence that Jesus ever existed other than a couple of random mentionings of the word "Christos" in a couple of ancient documents. Most, if not all, of these have long since been proven to be frauds or mistranslations. "Christos " was a common ancient (specifically Greek) name for a "chosen" or "annointed" person, of which there were many in the ancient world. The primary authority most Christians base their beliefs and worldviews on is not historical at all, but simply on what is written in a multiply mistranslated and reinterpreted book that bases its own legitimacy and historical accuracy upon what it says about itself.

It's utterly ridiculous...or maybe Religulous, if you like Bill Maher. heheh.

Seriously, when you break it down to brass tacks, Christianity (and other related monotheistic religions) are totally insane.

121. Pastor Michael Guglielmucci spun gospel of lies

Comment #235364 by Don_Quix on August 22, 2008 at 10:27 pm

Isn't religion illegal and punishable by death in Australia? Oh wait, I think I'm confusing religion with themes from the Mad Max series:

THOU SHALT TAKE NO GOD BEFORE TINA TURNER!

MASTERBLASTER RUNS BARTERTOWN!

BUST A DEAL AND FACE THE WHEEL!

etc...

122. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235359 by Don_Quix on August 22, 2008 at 8:49 pm

ATTENTION REGULAR POSTERS OR CASUAL VIEWERS OF RICHARDDAWKINS.NET:

Please do one or both of the following:

1) Stop replying to any post PennAndTeller makes.

2) Click the [troll] link under any of PennAndTeller's posts.

PennAndTeller is an obvious troll, has no interest in any honest debate, is here with the sole intention to take everything off subject for his/her own amusement, and will only continue shitting up this thread if the rest of you keep replying to his/her posts.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Citizen

123. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235354 by Don_Quix on August 22, 2008 at 8:41 pm

I think that this fear of "promoting" atheism is utter foolishness

Well duh. "Promoting atheism" == "Promoting thinking". It's not some sort of sinister worldview or social movement. I know you didn't mean it that way, but many people (due to their ignorance or their upbringing) think it is.

124. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235344 by Don_Quix on August 22, 2008 at 8:24 pm

This is the age of the internet my friend, no need to wait:

Also, all 3 episodes are available here :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tqm285F8Fks

Although, I would like to see this on US television too. Unfortunately it will probably end up on one of the self-selecting semi-science channels like Discovery/History/Discovery Science Channel, so the people who really need to see it, those who could have their minds opened by it, probably won't.

125. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235340 by Don_Quix on August 22, 2008 at 8:19 pm

PennAndTeller just got marked as an obvious troll. Stop feeding it.

126. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235327 by Don_Quix on August 22, 2008 at 6:50 pm

Women, more so than men, are concerned with their partners loyalty.

This is an interesting question. I am always checking for any cause that would provide gene selection for religious behavior in spite of any reasonable behavior, as in the peacock's tail.

I think many women may be more interested in their partner's loyalty to them personally and their partner's ability/willingness to bring resources to the relationship (whatever those resources may be), much more so than their partner's loyalty to their religion. Otherwise, atheist men (and women) would be long extinct ;)

I'm only being half-serious. Human beings certainly exhibit behavior that is defined at least in part by their genes, but I also think our ability to reason and think abstractly clouds such easy distinctions as to the reasons behind our behavior (then again, our ability to reason and think abstractly is also defined by our genes).

127. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235315 by Don_Quix on August 22, 2008 at 5:49 pm

RD says "It's one reason why I don't believe in God".

I find it hard to believe that many people in the UK where the show was broadcast aren't already aware of Richard Dawkins' position on religion (and thankfully a large percentage if not a majority of them probably agree with him), so I also find it hard to believe that anyone would find it strange that he would say something like that.

I can't exactly remember the context of when that was said, but I think he was explaining why *he* found evolution so convincing. He said this while speaking directly to the AUDIENCE as a presenter, not to the children as an educator. There's nothing wrong with him stating his own opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong.

All that aside, it all basically comes down to:

EVOLUTION: Lots and lots and lots of evidence from lots and lots and lots of independent sources.

CREATIONISM: No evidence.

128. Scientists Create Blood From Stem Cells

Comment #234386 by Don_Quix on August 21, 2008 at 9:30 am

Um, who made those estimates?

You know...THEM!

129. Scientists Create Blood From Stem Cells

Comment #234048 by Don_Quix on August 20, 2008 at 7:48 pm

So basically researchers can either choose to have the materials to do the job, or the money to do the job, but not both. Most researchers opt for the money and do what they can.

I'm surprised there aren't a significant number of private billionaire philanthropists who have stepped up to fill this void. In fact, I think there may be. I think the founders of Google or Google.org have. I'm not sure if some of the more high profile philanthropists like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett have through their organizations, but quite possibly.

Granted, lots more progress could be made if there wasn't a backwards government prohibition on this kind of research, and the government reasearch funding spigot was wide-open, but it's not like real stem-cell research isn't still happening.

I think the situation regarding stem-cell research might change once the US administration changes in 2009, but we'll see. It'll depend on who gets elected. Either way, there will still be a bunch of politicians pandering to the unwashed (and educationally stunted) masses, but hopefully things will loosen up at least a little bit.

If we lived in some alternate universe where for some reason stem-cell discoveries could only benefit elected politicians, you can bet your ass it would be funded as well or better than the defense department :)

130. Scientists Create Blood From Stem Cells

Comment #234038 by Don_Quix on August 20, 2008 at 7:35 pm

This is going to seriously impact my O-negative wife's ability to get free orange juice and cookies from the blood bank.

131. Life Is Short...

Comment #234004 by Don_Quix on August 20, 2008 at 5:42 pm

I don't know why, but for some reason I find the term "post-shellular" amusing.

132. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #231153 by Don_Quix on August 15, 2008 at 10:10 pm

This thread is ridiculously long.

I wish there was a forum here that was only for people who want to post empirical evidence for some sort of supernatural creator being.

Or better yet, I wish there was a dedicated forum for people who want to post long incoherent rants with lots of BIBLICAL QUOTES IN ALL CAPS ALONG WITH THREATS OF HELLFIRE AND DAMNATION!!!11

Of course, the first forum would be totally empty, and the second forum would have the most posts on the site.

Regardless, they would both be fun to read :)

133. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #231134 by Don_Quix on August 15, 2008 at 9:27 pm

Apparently this is the friday night hangout thread. I always miss all the good parties.

134. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231128 by Don_Quix on August 15, 2008 at 9:03 pm

where are all the rabbit fossils in the cambrian layers?

They're all in the soutwestern US. Unfortunately, no one has found any since 1972.

135. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231109 by Don_Quix on August 15, 2008 at 7:34 pm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26222822?GT1=43001 ... for a laugh or two

Sorry Border Collie, sadly it appears the DNA samples were contaminated...by bullshit. ;)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080815/ts_nm/bigfoot_dc_2

136. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231103 by Don_Quix on August 15, 2008 at 7:19 pm

There's nothing worse than having your pleasant trip to the park interrupted by a fearsome crocoduck dragging off your pets and any small children nearby.

137. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231011 by Don_Quix on August 15, 2008 at 2:30 pm

It's funny how these insane ranting creationists keep making ridiculous unsupported claims like "evolutionary theory has collapsed" and "evolutionary scientists can't agree on anything" and "there are no transitional forms" etc ad nauseum.

However, no matter how many times they say these ignorant and totally untrue things, science fields such as medicine and pharmacology continue to make major advances that would not be possible without the theory of evolution. In fact, almost all fields related to Biology (including almost all medical fields) would be practically useless without evolution.

When you're in the hospital with an antibiotic-resistant infection, and you are suddenly given a new antibiotic that kills the infection and saves your life, you have a bunch of very hard-working scientists using the theory of evolution to thank. Not your imaginary friend(s).

In the words of Irate_Atheist: Fucktards.

138. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #230076 by Don_Quix on August 14, 2008 at 8:20 am

I thought the article was pretty dead on.

I could have done without that BJKate or whatever her name is further up in the comments making herself look like an abrasive, bullying, and ignorant fool.

139. The God Delusion

Comment #229590 by Don_Quix on August 13, 2008 at 8:15 pm

I find it amusing that there was an entire book review based on the cover art of said book. I suggest that the next cover of The God Delusion have a picture of Michelangelo's God with God's hot harem of cherubim on it, reaching out to give the spark of life to a nuclear bomb.

Alternately, it could have frolicking kittens instead.

140. Optimism in Evolution

Comment #229585 by Don_Quix on August 13, 2008 at 7:55 pm

I agree with 99% of this article, but it really annoys me that "climate change" seems almost always (or at least very frequently) to be tangentially or casually thrown into every single science-related article in the mainstream english-speaking press, regardless of the subject of the article. It's almost like it's a dogmatic buzzword requirement (especially in the mainstream American press).

I'm not trying to state an opinion here one way or the other in regards to climate change, but it just seems to come up at least a couple of times almost every day in the normal daily news I read, even when it has no business being there...and I find it irritating.

I think the casual overuse of the word "climate change", as if were a 100% empirically-proven and undebatable common fact, like the fact that the world is round or the air contains oxygen, in many ways takes away from the issue itself. In many cases it reinforces the stereotypical gut responses that otherwise rational people would have to it, and thus (perhaps unintentionally, but I doubt it) restricts rational debate and discussion in regard to it.

141. The Afterlife for Scientologists

Comment #229582 by Don_Quix on August 13, 2008 at 7:31 pm

Let's see:

Christianity: We believe a man was born to a virgin, and after doing a lot of amazing things (including telling others they could do anything if they just do what he tells them), was crucified and brought back physically from the dead and rose to heaven in order to forgive all humans of their original sin. We have the way to remove your original sin. The way to eternal life is to believe this bullshit, oh, and by the way, GIVE US MONEY.

Scientology: We believe all humans are inhabited by many other human ghosts known as "Thetans", and that most of the pain and frustration in human life is caused by the trauma inflicted on these ghosts by an evil alien overlord named Xenu. We have the way to remove your trauma. The way to eternal life is to believe this bullshit, oh, and by the way, GIVE US MONEY.

Seems like a legitimate religion to me.

142. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #228653 by Don_Quix on August 12, 2008 at 10:42 am

Nightwatchman's post reads a lot like http://timecube.com

143. Bill Maher hates your (fill in the blank) religion

Comment #226922 by Don_Quix on August 8, 2008 at 10:57 pm

Mainly, the subjects of the Borat interviews were upset because (some of them claim) they didn't initially realize they were part of a satirical comedy film, and they were upset/offended because they were being made fun of (after the fact). Some of them also claim they wouldn't have participated if they had known otherwise. Coincidentally all this only started happening after Borat made a huge amount of money at the box office. :o Go figure.

But, the movie wouldn't have been as funny (or even possible) if they had known what was happening. All of them signed legitimate release forms. Therefore if they had a legitimate claim then they could have legitimately sued and won...and they didn't (have a claim or win). So fuck them.

See the link for details (scroll down to the "Controversies" part - I can never get links to work right here):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borat:_Cultural_Learnings_of_America_for_Make_Benefit_Glorious_Nation_of_Kazakhstan#Controversies

144. Bill Maher hates your (fill in the blank) religion

Comment #226910 by Don_Quix on August 8, 2008 at 9:53 pm

I've never seen Borat... Sometimes I feel like I live in a cave. I've heard if him (that is the guys name isn't it, or is it the name of the film?)

Actually you are right on both counts. Borat is the name of the character, and Borat is the name of the movie. Although the full name of the movie is Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.

The character of Borat was created and is portrayed by a pretty well-known English comedian/actor named Sacha Baron Cohen.

Religulous is being made by the director of Borat (Larry Charles).

I suspect that the same (or similar) methods were used in Religulous that were used in Borat in order to obtain interviews and to enhance the comedic value of the movie. This is because they are trying to make an entertaining and successful SATIRICAL COMEDY film (with perhaps some social value...as most good satires have), and not a factual documentary.

I believe Borat did very well critically and at the box office. I suggest you rent it :)

145. Bill Maher hates your (fill in the blank) religion

Comment #226900 by Don_Quix on August 8, 2008 at 9:29 pm

Its a bait and switch. Just because the customer can know about the switch before paying the money does not mean the sellers technique is less fraudulent. Just because the interviewees learn that it is a comedy before they have to say anything on camera does not make the lure less fraudulent.

By this logic, Borat, and any number of other social satires that set people up under (initially) false pretenses in order to make fun of them, are also fraudulent. This includes many (if not most) "reality" TV shows. You may have a point here.

Does that make it immoral? Probably not. It seems to have become a social norm in most western cultures.

Does that make it any less funny? No.

146. Bill Maher hates your (fill in the blank) religion

Comment #226894 by Don_Quix on August 8, 2008 at 8:59 pm

Again, all I can say is:

Religulous: Comedic social satire that is marketing itself as such.

There is nothing you can do in such a movie that is "immoral" (well...as long as it is legal). It is a comedy. One of the ways you make comedy is by putting people in awkward or unexpected situations, and then observing their reactions.

If you think it's funny, laugh. If you don't, don't go see it.

I think many of the moral comparisons going on in this thread between this movie, and the "other" movie, are themselves "religulous" ;)

147. Bill Maher hates your (fill in the blank) religion

Comment #226880 by Don_Quix on August 8, 2008 at 8:19 pm

J Mac:

Religulous is a comedic social satire that is marketing itself as such. It's not trying to market itself as a fact-based documentary like certain other recent movies that I will not give the dignity of naming. Also, the producers of Religulous (as others have already mentioned) do not appear to have lied to their interviewees about what was going on once the interview began. The interviewees in Religulous could easily have left as soon as they found out what was going on (once Bill Maher showed up), but most of them chose not to do so.

The producers of that *other* movie never told its interviewees about what was happening before, during, or after their interview. In fact, the producers outright lied the whole time and told them exactly the opposite of what they intended to do, under the guise that they were participating in a factual scientific documentary. They then edited the interviews to make the subjects of those interviews appear to be saying things they actually did not say or mean.

Comedic Social Satire != Factual Documentary. They can't be held to the same standard of integrity for obvious reasons.

That's the distinction I see here.

148. Bill Maher hates your (fill in the blank) religion

Comment #226873 by Don_Quix on August 8, 2008 at 7:40 pm

Bonzai:

So, is "Borat" ethical?

Damnit! Beaten :)

I was about to say shouldn't we heap scorn on Borat for not being forthright with the subjects of their interviews as to what actually was going on? Of course not. This, like Borat, is social satire...it's comedy. Since it is comedy, it would be impossible (or nearly impossible) for it to work if the subjects of the interviews knew what was really going on. It is not trying to sell or market itself as an impartial documentary that is ostensibly explaining facts.

My only hope is that there is some kind of naked wrestling scene with Bill Maher and a rabbi. Oh wait...no I really don't hope that.

149. Father, son and holy toast

Comment #226868 by Don_Quix on August 8, 2008 at 7:24 pm

You better hope Bill Donahue doesn't hear about his.

150. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #226843 by Don_Quix on August 8, 2008 at 6:52 pm

I found the first episode of The Genius of Charles Darwin to be very entertaining and informative. Never once did Richard Dawkins come even close to "preaching", "ranting", or doing anything remotely like what he is so often accused of doing by theists. To me it came across that he was simply trying to educate the children in the show in a very calm and reasonable manner, and to make it interesting for them. It was a pleasure to watch, and I look forward to seeing the rest of it.

As for this Libby Purves person, I have no idea who she is, and I'm pretty sure I don't care.

EDIT: Also, anyone who accuses Richard Dawkins of the things that Libby Purves accuses him of has obviously never been to a Southern Baptist or Pentecostal church service. You'll definitely hear some REPENT OR BURN there...and they mean it...literally.