• Warning up front: If the comments get out of line with personal attacks or insults from either side in this thread - I'll drop them faster than a bad habit.

    We managed to have a civil conversation regarding "Expelled" and I hope we can do the same here.

    Vic
  • INK
    Sounds like a good see Vic, thanks.

    BTW I have never really liked Maher, mainly because I don't think he's that funny, so I doubt I ever see his movie.
  • michael
    well, i was considering going to see Religulous but my friend told me it wasnt very funny at all. I havent seen fireproof either but my uncle(who is agnostic)told me it was a good movie, so ill believe him.
  • Jose Torres
    Very similar to the whole Ron Paul running for Pres thing ealy last year, with all the ranting and raving his supporters were making online, I though for sure we might see something. The primaries proved otherwise.
  • Regarding Maher: About 10-12 years ago he *seemed* to be more even-handed (that or back then I was more aligned with his views) and I enjoyed watching his late night TV show. I had the chance to go see him live and took my wife - we had great seats and were looking forward to his stand up routine.

    But when he came onstage it was one f-bomb after another. I mean I'm from Jersey and I used to cuss up a storm with the best of 'em, but I did not expect this at all and was actually embarrassed I'd brought my wife to see him.

    It was nothing like the TV show... more like he was trying to out-Murphy Eddie Murphy's "Raw" stage show.

    Changed my opinion of the guy on the spot.

    Vic
  • michael
    mccain fans dont know how to use computers lol
  • @michael

    Apparently this one does.

    Vic
  • Patrick
    I don't like Maher. I know a lot of atheists, and none of them try and rain on my parade because I believe in God, none of them make fun of me. My one friend who is an atheist even told me he thinks people should at least follow the moral standards of the bible even if they don't believe in God. I will say I haven't seen either movie. I don't personally like pushy believers that think I should go to church every sunday, but I dislike people making fun of other people and their faith even less so...
  • Not sure why you were surprised that Fireproof made more Vic. Religulous is a documentary... documentaries do not make as much money as other films. Never. Doesn't matter what the subject is.

    The highest grossing documentary of all time is Fahrenheit 9/11 and it only made $119 million, while the biggest grossing movie of all time made $600 million.

    And Fahrenheit was an aberration, not the norm. Religulous has made $10 million already. That makes it the 9th highest grossing documentary of all time.

    Where does Fireproof's $23 million land it on the biggest movies of all time list?

    Two completely different types of films, not really comparable in this sense.
  • Of course they're comparable. They came out a week apart and they were diametrically opposed in their points of view. The commercials for Religulous pitched it as being funny, and you'd think that Maher has a pretty big fan base.

    Then again, maybe not so much.

    With all the pro/anti religion verbosity permeating the internet in general and specifically in regards to this election, I would have thought Religulous would have done much better.

    Vic
  • nowhereman
    I find it fascinating that the public can sit and eat thier popcorn while viewing flicks like the rediculous "Saw" lot, but seem to get really worked up when something religion based is released into the theaters. I don't prescribe to any particular religion, but as one of the many carbon based types running around this little rock I often do find myself hoping in my heart of hearts that everything will somehow work out for the benefit of all. Either by our own efforts or that of the workings of a benevolent or mysterious entity. Sometimes its better IMHO to look past the content of such a film and dial in on the message as it appears to you, and allowing others to do the same without fear of persecution or slight.

    I do believe that if there is in fact a GOD, that he certainly doesn't take sides...
  • Matt
    Ok, lets look at the numbers. Approximately 250 million Americans claim some sect of Christianity. Only about 12%, or 30 million Americans, consider themselves to be Athiest/Agnostic.

    So, Fireproof was seen by approximately 2.4 million(assuming a $10 ticket cost) out of 250 million: Less than 1% of it's core audience went to see it. By contrast, Religulous was seen by 1.1 million out of a target audience of 30 million, so 4% of it's target audience went to see it. That means 4 Times as many Non-theists went to see "their" movie as Christians went to see "their" movie. (And Fireproof opened in 60% more theatres than Religulous)

    As an Athiest, that substantiates a number of thoughts i've had, as well as makes me smile in general. It's a reflection of just how many lip-service christians there are out there.

    A movie opens, Made Just For Them, in a TON of theatres, and less than 1 percent bother to go see it. Religulous opens in less than half the amount theatres, aimed at a small minority, and manages to garner the support of 4 times more of it's core audience. I consider that a huge success.

    And as far as Religulous having "Higher production values"... Not even close. You can just watch the Trailers for each movie and easily see that Fireproof has ALOT more production value and Hollywood-trickery behind it. Religulous is filmed like a documentary, meaning most times, there's just a guy holding the camera. No cranes, no theatrics, no special effects, no make-up, no special lighting, No professional actors... NONE of the frills of Fireproof.

    Though we might disagree on Theology, I think these facts paint a clearer picture of these two movies, especially as they relate to each other.

    In addition, I thought Religulous was Hilarious, and so did my christian brother. Granted, it will certainly ruffle your feathers a bit if you practice a religion, but if a movie will ruffle your feathers That Bad, then you might want to rethink the conviction of your faith in the first place. Plus, I believe you have to shake yourself up every now and then, I think it's good for you. To hold on to something just because you've always held on to it is a bad reason, and it's always good to go back and re-examine things to know how they fit in your life, if they still apply to you, Why you feel how you feel, etc. You gotta shake things up every now and then.

    Anyway, just some points to ponder.
  • Ken J
    Wow Vic, I'm sure you're familiar with the political ad that michael is referring to. The one where they make fun of McCain for not using computers. Well, McCain does use them, and knows how to use them, he simply doesn't like to since he can't type due to arthritis he has from his war injuries. I broke my wrist a few years ago. I'm not old, but because of that injury, I get arthritis on my wrist, and yes, it hurts if I type a lot, but since it's only one wrist, I manage anyhow. But McCain broke both his arms SERVING OUR COUNTRY and these people insult him for his war injuries. Do you throw tennis shoes at the first legless veteran you see as well? How appalling.

    Anyway, about the film, I haven't watched either one, but I would say if I had to, I would definitely watch Fireproof. I will not give my money to some attack movie like Maher's retarded film. I'm not religious, and I'm sure I will find most of what Fireproof says pretty corny, but at least they are celebrating something and not senselessly attacking something. I'm agnostic, but I hate when some atheist is talking crap about religion. It's their BELIEF and I believe that everyone has their right to believe in whatever religion they choose, including my right to not pick sides, and the atheists' right to not believe. But on the same note, I respect religious people more than atheists since at least they are picking to stand FOR something and not simply standing AGAINST something like atheists do.

    I think that shapes me political views too. I'd rather elect someone who is standing for a certain ideal than those who simply oppose everything. Even if I don't happen to believe in some of the things they do, it's better than having a weak president that can't stand for anything.

    I'm glad Fireproof earned more money than Religulous. What is Maher going to do with the money? Donate it to a certain political candidate? Buy another personal jet? At least with Fireproof, maybe it might just inspire some people, who knows. I see no harm done. But attacking people for being religious is just mean-spirited.

    Why do we have more and more of these stupid comedians thinking they can tell us what to think about politics and religion like Bill Maher and Al Franken. When I see people like that, I see clowns, I don't take advice from clowns, do you?
  • Kane
    What an interesting discussion... particularly given our early emails about me writing for Screen Rant, hey Vic? ;o)

    Meanwhile... I'm still waiting on even a HINT of a release date for 'Religulous' here in Australia but I've heard it's not the "smarmy" or "belittling" film it at first seems... but rather a series of genuine questions aimed at ALL religions. It's certainly not a 'Borat'-style "gotcha" film, as first assumed... and even religious people have reportedly found it more enjoyable than offensive.

    But as for 'Fireproof'... really? I saw the trailer when looking on YouTube at some of the cringe-worthy things Kirk Cameron says and does these days* and I'm surprised it even got a cinema release. In fact, if it wasn't for its religious "message", it looks like it would barely have stood out alongside 'Snowman's Pass' and 'Ring Girls' (a pair of straight-to-DVD releases I had the "pleasure" of reviewing last year). 'Fireproof' strikes me as a Hallmark telemovie in 'The Passion' clothing - nothing more, nothing less.

    (* Silly even to deeply religious people I know of, by the way...)
  • Kane
    Ken J... just one little thing, since I believe Vic doesn't want this to be a place for insulting peoples' beliefs...

    Atheism is not "simply standing AGAINST something". If you actually look into it, it CAN BE as much a passionate belief system as any. That is... by believing strongly in a conscious creator NOT existing, Atheists believe in nature and scientific reasoning as the highest "authority" (for want of a better word) and find endless fascination in the idea that the answers to life's questions are infinite. Just when you discover the origin of one thing, there's more to learn... and more... and more. I, for one, find a great deal of peace and wonder in that.

    Yes, the side-effect is obviously a tendency to "shoot down" religious faiths... but I don't think that's any different to a Christian proselytising to an Agnostic... or a Jehovah's Witness door-knocking.

    Don't be so quick to pass judgement on a belief system you clearly do not understand.
  • Deadpool
    No one at my church told me to go see it either.

    I am rather surprised to read this story though. If a friend had mentioned this in casual conversation, I would never have believed them.
    @Kane
    I completely agree with you. I often feel like too many people automatically discount the opinion of Christians just because of what we believe. I really wish people could stop attacking what certain groups may believe just because they disagree. I have atheist friends as well as Christian friends. I just dont talk belief systems with my atheist friends.

    If you don't believe, just don't comment on it.
  • Kane
    Oh, don't get me wrong Deadpool...

    I OFTEN discount the opinions of people's religions - in fact, I make it my life's work - but I welcome them to discount mine and want both sides to have a solid backup. Without debate and genuine questions, I don't think we can grow or learn.

    Having said that, this is not my personal space... and Vic's asked for respect... so I was merely pointing out that even Atheists deserve that. Discounting them as "not standing for anything" is an absolute farce.
  • Jess
    I agree with Kane, not because im an atheists but I believe in not judging a book by its cover. I'm not trying to attack you Ken but I dont find it right for someone to attack another belief, and even if they were talking "crap" about another religion in the movie, you just let it go.

    I havent seen either of these movies but I will probably wait till they come out on dvd.
  • Ken J
    Kane, I also believe in science and evolution and all of that, but my question to you as an agnostic is how can you be so sure that science and evolution wasn't "created" by a higher power so there appears to be a "logical" explanation for it? What exactly is "logical" anyway? What you think is common sense, physics, or science, could all have been created by God if he is all powerful.

    I don't actually believe that, but you can't disprove it. One can say that God created all of this science and scientific ways to explain everything so that the people who still believe are people acting on faith and not simply because there's no other explanation. It kind of proves their devotion. Think about it, if God actually came to earth and showed everyone that he exists, then people will believe simply because they know it's true, not because of faith like it's supposed to be.

    Anyway, just making a point that you can't prove a negative. It's PHYSICALLY impossible to prove a negative, lol. But like I've said, that's not actually my personal belief. I choose to not pick sides, there could be a God, there could be multiple gods, there could be no god, who knows... I'll find out when I die. :-)
  • RastaZen
    I think Maher is a terrific comedian with a sharp mind. I haven't seen Religulous yet but I do expect to rent it , eventually .

    I saw Maher promoting the film on The Hour ( CBC ) recently and it seems to me that he feels his perspective (as an atheist/agnostic ) is under-represented.
    Discussing ( or even promoting ) religion is a very common and accepted thing. Atheists are , I think , often regarded scornfully and perhaps even considered subversive .

    I do feel that faith can be a very valuable and important part of a person's life.
    I also feel that its very important to think for yourself and to learn what else is out there. In most aspects of life there's more than one way to do things.

    As for Maher making fun of the religous ..........well , the man IS a comedian. Thats just naturally going to be his approach to most any topic .
    He's promoting a movie , so he will try to push as many peoples buttons as he can . If you agree with him and go see his movie , great , that helps his project ; if you disagree with him and phone Larry King to say so , that helps his project too.
    In show biz ( with the right spin ) there's no such thing as bad PR.
    His " jokes " cannot diminish the power or significance that your faith has in your life. So, don't let him piss you off , people :)
  • Ken J
    That's funny Jess, I was just saying that it isn't right for people to attack other peoples' beliefs... Thanks for agreeing with me?? :-D
  • Jess
    Oh wow you lost me im so confused you can just ignore my last comment im haveing a really off day lol
  • Kane
    Ken... I don't think it's really the place to debate religious philosophy but trust me when I say I've heard all the arguments and so far I've found each and every one fundamentally unsound.

    To answer your question about proving a negative though... look up something called "the celestial teapot" or "the flying spaghetti monster". These things are ludicrously silly (or are they not?)... but they do make the very valid point that just because something's existence cannot be disproven, doesn't mean it's not REASONABLE to disbelieve it.

    And Atheism has various interpretations... one being the complete "I KNOW FOR SURE there is no God" angle and the other "I REJECT the idea of a God, based on what I know and understand" angle. Nothing in this world can be known for absolute certain - just look at medical improvements since the days of Deadwood, less than 150 years ago - but we can move forward based on the knowledge we've ascertained thus far... and make reasonable projections as to what is likely the truth. As an Atheist, I actually am open to the idea of a conscious creator... ON THE CONDITION that if I believe in that, then I have to ALSO ask who or what created that. If the answer is "no one - God just simply IS and ALWAYS HAS BEEN", then the logical counter argument is "then why can't nature and the universe not simply BE and ALWAYS HAS BEEN?" At some point, logic has to reconcile if you choose to use logic as ammunition.

    Alternatively, you can have faith in a book and what your community has always taught you... and I'm okay with faith if it comes purely from what I guess you'd call "gut instinct". If your journey has led you to faith, then - in some ways - I envy your conviction. But until that faith is put through the the full and unbiased wringer of rational questioning and scientific evidence, I don't think it should dictate the progress of otherwise peaceful and non-religious people's lives.

    That is why I say I'm Atheist - because I'm passionate about making sure our society is not governed by what could well be viewed in the year 6008 in the same light as we today view the ancient Egyptian, Greek and Roman religions and those practiced by native Americans and Australian Aborigines.

    It's not about offending people for the sake of it... it's about trying to find the truth through looking at EVERY angle... and I think that's what Bill Maher tries to do, when you truly look beyond his acerbic sense of humour.
  • I just got back from watching Fireproof... it was great to see such a different-flavored movie on the regular, big screen; this occurred to me as i dashed out to go to the bathroom in the middle of the movie, and walked by the pain-filled screaming coming from the Saw 5 theater
  • @Matt

    That's a straw man argument if I ever heard one. So only ATHIESTS were going to turn out to see Maher's movie? Not agnostics, Christians-in-name-only, etc.?

    Heck if just the anti-religious members of the Digg community showed up to see the movie it probably would have beat "Fireproof" easily.

    Vic
  • It's just the wrong time for Religulous. Bill Mauher's political affiliation mixed with how close it is to the election just tells me the intention was to do nothing more than act "controversial".

    What I'd like to know though is how much time is spent attacking which faith.
  • 790
    Vic I can still insult Bill Maher can't I????

    Fireproof is more of a movie where as Bills home movie is a pile of steaming crap,,, (who wants that?)

    (Myself) I would never see Fireproof, just because its a story/topic I don't care for...
    It hardly matters to me if a religious group receives the profits from the film,,, sheesh its better than Disney or Sony !
    ^
    Bill Maher, has always been a No-talent hack, and a vulgar tool...
    I don't like him!

    Basically I wouldn't see ether one of these "films"...

    Oh and I love sleeping in on Sundays,,, 8-)
  • I'm an atheist/agnostic who saw Bill Maher's movie cuz I heard it was funny. I was reluctant cuz I think Bill Maher is an arrogant dousche usually, but I actually really liked it. I can't back this up, so I might be wrong, but I actually thought he was pretty respectful the whole time. He was definitely honest and logic the whole time.

    To be fair, during the ONLY religious argument brought up that I actually related to (being formerly Jewish) was about an Orthodox anti-Zionist, he made the guy look dumb. I happen to know there's a lot of logic behind that guy's argument, so as far a I know every other religious argument was wrongly torn apart to a certain extent. I happen to not believe that to be the case, but it's definitely possible.

    While I understand the anger towards arrogant atheists, and I know there are many of them, I do feel there's some logic to the "anti-religion crusade," basically if it influences politics. But, I'm a hardcore libertarian: religion doesn't lead to violence, government leads to violence, and they regularly hijack religion to do so.
  • 790
    Oh wait a sec. my Spellcheck software just got a laugh out of the title
    "Religulous"

    Mission acomplished turd, I mean D bag ,,, Bill,,,

    Damn Spellcheck was taking over, nothing I could do,,,
  • Ken J
    Don't get me wrong, I know not ALL atheists are spiteful, like I said, I feel EVERYONE is free to believe what they want, including atheists. But I stand by what I said that the core of atheism is standing AGAINST religion instead of for anything. Supporting science and evolution and all of those things DON'T make you an atheist. That simply makes you an agnostic, and some religious people also believe in all of those things. The only time you become an atheist is when you denounce the possibility of God's existance.

    aâ‹…theâ‹…ist [ey-thee-ist]
    –noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

    While simply believing in science and evolution, but not believing in any specific God or any supreme being would make you agnostic. By not believing in, I don't mean you are against the idea, just that you're not specifically for it.

    agâ‹…nosâ‹…tic [ag-nos-tik]
    –noun 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

    Think about it this way. Let's pretend that there are no religions. Let's say that, for some reason, in all the years it took for us to evolve into what we are today, nobody was curious enough about things they don't understand to create a religion. So there is no Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Wicka, Scientologists, whatever, lol. I'm sorry, but there would also be no atheists. Atheism RELIES on the existance of religions and concepts of gods or supreme beings to denounce for it to exist. Now I know your argument for this, if there were no religions, EVERYONE will be atheists. I do not believe that is correct. I believe in that case everyone will be agnostic, because they don't know, they don't pretend to know, nor do they even think about it. To further support this, look at your own words:

    Kane wrote:
    "As an Atheist, I actually am open to the idea of a conscious creator… ON THE CONDITION..."

    I personally believe that you have mistaken yourself for an atheist, but you are, in fact, an agnostic, since you are saying you are open to the idea of a conscious creator. Even though you are giving conditions and criteria, a true atheist believes that there is no such thing, regardless of conditions or criteria.

    But like I said, not all atheists conduct themselves in an insulting way. Some people are atheists but simply keep their beliefs their own opinion and do not express them against religious people in an antagonistic manner. But sorry to say this, but EVERY true atheist I've ever met have always been very spiteful and hateful in the way they confront religious people or the concept of religion. Most don't antagonize the people themselves, but if the topic of religion is ever brought up, they have nothing but negative and condescending things to say about the religion and the people who follow them.

    But just to set things straight, I'm agnostic, I'm not religious. I 100% believe that we evolved from an ape that was very similar to the chimpanzee. Most people misunderstand the theory of evolution as saying we evolved from the chimpanzee, it doesn't. In fact, both humans and chimpanzee's evolved from the same ape, but the chimpanzee remained very similar while we took a path not taken by the rest of them.

    Which brings on the arguments over which theory of human evolution people choose to believe. There has to be isolation for us to evolve in such an independent way from the others. The Savannah theory is WRONG, sorry to anyone who still believes it, but it has been proven wrong for many years, but nobody has another theory to replace it with, so the scientific community is hesitant on making any kind of public campaign to denounce the savannah theory. Well, I don't want to hijack this any further, but I actually like discussing that, so if you would like to discuss issues with evolution, email me at slagman5@yahoo.com as long as you promise to keep it friendly, lol.
blog comments powered by Disqus