This film is smart and needed. I am like Maher in my beliefs and it is refreshing to know that I am not the only on. I have faith in a higher power but I am rational. Religion is more of a problem for me than it is a solution. What would the world be like if we could all just have rational conversations about these topics and then go have a beer together afterward with no animosity toward each other?

Cheers to that

Mr. William Maher –

You have an awesome wit. You are also great in espousing your philosophy of the meaning of our existence. Your film “Religulous” demonstrates the truth of this statement. Please consider the following:

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove.

You are familiar with “Religulous” your production. I watched it – well done.

Minimax (sometimes minmax) is a decision rule used in decision theory, game theory, statistics and philosophy for minimizing the maximum possible loss. Alternatively, it can be thought of as maximizing the minimum gain (maximin). It has been extended to more complex games and to general decision making in the presence of uncertainty.

“The minimax approach to designing experiments applies to the Weibull and lognormal regression models used in accelerated life testing (ALT).” In other words, minimize your maximum potential loss. Cover your bases as best you can.

Around 93 AD., Josephus published “Jewish Antiquities,” a history of the Jews in twenty books. Though not a prominent subject of his writing, John the Baptist, Jesus of Nazareth, and Jesus’ brother James are all mentioned in “Jewish Antiquities.” This represents the earliest historical record of Jesus from a historian.

“There are numerous things that we know of now that we did not know of before. There are many new phenomena that we have either discovered, or can now be accurately described.” Josephus gives us a starting point to avoid circular reasoning, i.e., the Bible is true because the Bible says the Bible is true.

A challenge – get outside of your comfort zone. Read: “Understanding the New Testament” by Howard Clark Kee and/or “Understanding the Old Testament” by Bernhard Anderson. Both works are introductory yet scholarly.

If you want to put the energy into study that you put into producing “Religulous” then move on to “An Introduction to the New Testament” by Raymond Brown and/or “Introduction to the Old Testament” by R.K. Harrison. After watching your production I am confident that you would relate to these works. But study is work.

With Respect,
Hal Niebel
ontrd1@verizon.net

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with asking tough questions about Christ. In fact, 1 Peter says to be “ready always to give answer to
every man that asks you a reason concerning the hope that is in you.”

I can’t speak to the movie until I’ve seen it, but I do note that Maher tends to have a tendancy to select less than the best commentators to represent Christianity on his show. They give great sound bites, but not necessarily the clearest presentation of what Christianity is. I’ll let Muslim, Morman, etc followers speak on Maher’s treatment of their beliefs.

I’d also like to note that Athiesm is a belief system, just as Christianity is. Each of us has faith that what we believe is truth, and merely because Maher is not Christian does not mean that the film does not have a bias or an axe to grind.

I’m looking forward to seeing the film, but we can create laughter and dialogue in ways that are honest and show love/respect for all parties. That too is a Biblical teaching.

Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbour (Eph 4:15a).

And although I don’t consider myself an atheist (I don’t believe in god, but it’s more complex than that), I do think those speaking up for secular society ought to demonstrate from their own actions that it is honesty that leads them away from dogma. This isn’t a movie that I would praise–due to its deceptive tactics.

Nevertheless, since title for most successful documentary of 08 is between two deceptive films, I wouldn’t deny that I look forward to next weekend when Religulous will (almost certainly) surpass Expelled’s total. It’s like the election, you want the less bad one to win.

Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Once you make a contradictory statement it throws out the ENTIRE argument. Guess what, most people aren’t as smart or clever as they make themselves out to be, especially once they start to speak of their true thoughts. If you hold other peoples lives at stake you better be ready to speak on behalf of them no matter whos the interviewer.

This was a hard documentary to shoot. Of course no body would want to speak to Bill Maher if they knew who he was, they could get caught in a lie and have to face reality.

Point being, if the persons being “tricked” into being interviewed had nothing to fear and were confident enough about their occupation and something as important as religion, they could speak to anyone, especially if they hold a higher degree of responsibility within that organization. Its not like words (which is the most important thing beyond camera angles) were put in their mouths, they said what they really said.

simply put.

I have no problem with Maher or SBC’s tactics in a society where people simply refuse to be honest and open about what they really think.

We are so used to having these perfectly manicured statements about everything we think and believe. It is nearly impossible to get any sort of candor from anyone. When we do, we crush, criticize and soundbite them to death.

Journalists have been doing ambush interview for decades to catch people off guard and maybe get some “real” info.

I think both perspectives are correct. It is shady to interview people under false pretenses, but that doesn’t mean it is not funny, effective, or necessary depending on the topic and interviewer. Ultimately, how the material is edited and presented will decide how fair or unscrupulous the interviewer/director/producer/studio is.

He’s a comedian, he set out to make a funny film. I thought Borat was genius, and worked perfectly. Wow, you didn’t think it was funny? The naked wrestling scene is probably in my Top 5 I-Almost-Died-Laughing moments.

As for the tactics to get people on camera, I think I’d rather see the flick (shocking!) than pre-judge it based on its interview methodology.

not exactly the same as borat or expelled, in which the interviewee was not aware of the real intent of the interview until it hit the big screen

Sure, unlike Expelled, this will be funny but I’d like to see good arguments from Maher that are funny AND properly solicited.

Hopefully it’s something that the transparency of the internet and threats of lawsuits will keep in check.

I’m with you - I *really* don’t like that sort of thing. People jumped all over the guy who appeared in Borat and sued, but I don’t blame him one bit.

The scene where Borat was invited to dinner at someone’s home in the film was particularly disturbing.

Vic