Home > Apologia, Atheist Arguments, Media, Videos > Religulous, Pt. 2

Religulous, Pt. 2

Back in September, it was released that the great comedian (great sarcasm), Bill Maher, would be releasing a movie on religion.  Thus, Religulous.  I posted this post in regards to the upcoming release.  This past weekend, I was able to get the movie at the library and sit and watch it.  I made sure to write down specific things to keep track of…by the end, I had typed four pages of notes.  All in all, the movie is typical atheist mumbo jumbo that presents no factual information against Christianity, but only seeks to mock it.  So, without further delay, let’s talk.

Maher opens the movie with the statement, “Religion is detrimental to the process of humanity.”  I somewhat understand what he’s saying here, surprisingly.  Wars, etc in the name of gods and religion.  Interestingly enough, watch the movie, and Maher doesn’t necessarily discuss religion per se, but makes it a personal attack on Christianity.  The movie is a little over 90 minutes, but 58 of those minutes are spent upon Christianity.  Feeling threatened, Mr. Maher?

Maher makes a number of erroneous statements throughout the movie.  In one, he is interviewing a group of Christian truckers at a truck stop in Raleigh at a service.  (I mean, he had to go get interviews with scholarly people, right?)  He states that he has problems with the fact that Christians believe in stuff that is not mentioned in the Bible, such as…and I quote, “Original sin…and the virgin birth.”  Say what?  Not in the Bible?  Apparently Mr. Maher has never read Romans 5 in regards to Original Sin, nor the Gospels in reference to the virgin birth.

My favorite error though is this.  It’s the book of Revelation.  There is no “s” at the end of Revelation in regards to the book found in the Bible.  There never has been, and there shouldn’t be in your movie.  This was at the VERY BEGINNING of the movie.  I caught it, rewound it to make sure I heard correctly, and then watched it twice more to verify.  At the end of the movie, on the screen, he quotes Scripture and actually spells it “Revelations” and then gives the reference.  Now, I’m not being nitpicky, but, to me this irked me.  If you are trying to make a movie to dispel the “myth of religion,” it seems to me that making it someone correct in the minor details would help to establish its credibility.  If you overlook details such as that, I think you start losing early in the game.  

Maher interviews Bill Westcott, a former homosexual who has started Exchange Ministries.  I’d love to see the real interview, because like the rest of the movie, Maher has had the interviews all edited to make him look smarter.  Maher claims that there has been the discovery of a gay gene, to which Westcott denies it.  The scene then shifts to Maher sitting with Dean Hamer and he says, “Now, you’ve discovered the gay gene?” Hamer says, “Yes.” Then it goes back to the interview with Westcott.  In regards to this, I am going to make a movie and prove that my best friend Jacob found a gene for being able to set people on fire using his mind.  My proof?  He said yes.

My favorite part of the movie was the interview with Ken Ham – Answers in Genesis director, and the head of the Creation Museum (or as I like to call it, “Museum That Makes Every Atheist Whine Like a Baby Even Though They Don’t Have to Attend, Support, or Talk About It”).  The interview was horrible.  I could see the rough editing from the beginning.  Maher asks some stupid questions, and edits it to make Ham look unintelligent, which anyone who has read or seen Ham, knows is definitely not the case.  I began to do research following the movie, and found two pieces on the interview with Ham.  They’re found here and here and I do challenge you to glance over them to see what type of liar Maher is.

The first is from Ham’s personal blog.  I recommend you to read that.  It’s pretty dirty how Maher did everything to get into the Creation Museum.  Long story short, the company never asked for Ham to interview with Maher, or informed them that the movie would mock Christianity.  Instead, it called and talked about how their documentary needed the Creation Museum because it was great, blah blah blah.  Liars.  Dishonest.  Call for Christianity to face up with the truth of the past and all that, and you are so dirty about the way you film your movie.  Liars.

Maher also visits the Holy Land Experience in Florida.  He gets and interview with the man who plays Jesus.  Seriously?  No offense to this guy, but if Maher wanted to interview me, I’d not do it, because I realize I am not a scholar.  Maher wants to really debunk Christianity?  Go talk to Norm Geisler, Ravi Zacharias, and other apologists.  Not the average joe Christian.  Anyways, the issue comes up of Horus, Osiris, and the typical argument that Christ is a myth taken from other stories.  And again, Maher presents NO evidence, but just states and argues with people that his view is true.  I’ve shown this website before, but go here for a response to that same ole mumbo jumbo that has no truth behind it.  Jesus is not a copycat story.

There’s a lot more, but it’s not worth it.  It does cover other religions briefly, but the time is definitely given to bashing Christianity and presenting pure trash about it.  Maher is a dirty person.  He was dishonest.  I hope atheists and anti-Christians who watch this movie realize how unfactual it truly is.

  1. March 9, 2009 at 11:46 am

    ” Feeling threatened, Mr. Maher?”

    Well, as Maher lives in America, and 80% of Americans are some kind of Christian, that seems to make sense to focus mostly on Christianity.

    Similarly, if he lived in the United Arab Emirates, most of the movie would be about Islam.

    “Apparently Mr. Maher has never read Romans 5 in regards to Original Sin, nor the Gospels in reference to the virgin birth.”

    I think Maher may be referencing that the translation for ‘virgin’ is actually ‘young girl’.

    Not that it particularly matters.

    “My favorite error though is this.”

    Your favorite error is a grammar mistake? Really?

    ” If you are trying to make a movie to dispel the “myth of religion,””

    I don’t think he was trying to do that. I think he was trying to show that religion is ridiculous. Hence the title.

    “which anyone who has read or seen Ham, knows is definitely not the case.”

    I’m sorry. But anyone who believes that humans and dinosaurs lived together is most certainly not intelligent, at least about that particular subject.

    “Maher is a dirty person. He was dishonest.”

    I disagree with the first, but agree with the second. Maher was dishonest to get many of his interviews. I wish he was more honest, and believe he still could have made a movie that made fun of religion that was completely honest.

    Oh well.

  2. March 9, 2009 at 2:30 pm

    Maybe I got a little too exaggeratory (how’s that for a word) about a grammar mistake being my favorite. Nonetheless, I thought it was ridiculous that someone can overlook that throughout a whole movie.

    And, I still hold fast to Maher being dirty. Dishonesty and dirtiness are synonymous in my book. I guess it’s all linguistics.

    Glad to have you commenting though morse. Sorry I’ve neglected my blog. 😉

  3. March 9, 2009 at 3:55 pm

    The reason I don’t view Maher as dirty is because I don’t think he was trying to make a hard-hitting, fact based “All religion is wrong and here are the best arguments for why” film. He was trying to make a comedy that showed why he viewed religion to be ridiculous.

    So my thoughts are, had he tried to make the first kind of film then he would have been dirty. As he made the second kind, he’s just a liar.

    Which doesn’t mean I necessarily view him as wrong.

    Of course, if you want to talk about Bill Maher being a liar AND wrong, we can talk about his views on alternative medicine and PETA.

  4. March 9, 2009 at 5:27 pm

    I definitely see your point. I might be letting my dislike for Maher show through, eh?

  5. March 10, 2009 at 8:56 am

    A little bit, yeah.

    Which is fine. I generally liked Maher’s movie, and I generally like his show.

    Of course, I feel free to disagree with him and many issues and I take nothing he says too seriously, nor view much he says as great revelations.

  6. Niki
    March 20, 2009 at 1:10 pm

    I just want to say that Maher wasn’t saying that religion is wrong. He claimed he doesn’t know and neither does anyone else. He was trying to make a point that religion is bad for society.

    • March 20, 2009 at 3:40 pm

      Hi Niki, and thanks for stopping by.

      Where is there a difference in those two things? If I say that eating meat is bad for society, can I technically stand and say that it is right? Maher’s attitude toward religion and its adherent’s is so blatantly arrogant, there is no way that he would ever say that it is right. Basically, you contradicted yourself by saying he never said it was wrong yet says it is bad.

      Overall, Maher’s attitude and actions throughout the movie are pretty sickening.

  7. March 20, 2009 at 3:57 pm


    Something can be true and also bad. Conversely, something can be false (or wrong) and also good. I think that’s what Niki meant.

    Maher stated that he doesn’t claim to know the truth, but regardless of what the truth is, religion (or at least the religions he specifically mentions in the film) are bad for people and society.

    Not sure I agree, but that seem to be his argument.

  8. Alan
    March 25, 2009 at 4:57 pm

    morsecode and all dissenters,

    Bill Maher DID say that he didn’t know what the truth is. He then states that religion is bad for society. If one wants to make the first statement, then there is no traction for a good/bad judgment on what he knows nothing about. This movie was not merely a mockery, but an outright attack of Christianity. Maher, not knowing as he admits, is doing nothing but documenting his own excuses to ignore eternity so that he can watch it over and over again everytime the truth tries to creep into his life. He also wants to bring others down with him, because there is “safety in numbers.”

    The inability of people to see the obvious flaws of Maher as they are displayed in his movie is why our world is full of shallow people who will follow someone over a cliff just because they are wellspoken or goodlooking. The rest of us simply allow them to fall right over the cliff by not taking Bill Maher (and others like him) seriously just because he is a comedian or whatever the case may be.

    It’s time that we all take in whatever information we hear with a grain of salt. Put it up against your common sense, other opinions, and real history. I think you’ll find the film Religulous to be very inaccurate, harmful, and unnecessary…especially since Maher himself calls it a “documentary.” Instead of “documentary” I would call it a window into the insecurity of his soul. I am sure that in turn you will find real truth in the “religion” of Christianity. And in that truth, you will find nothing bad.

  9. CliffsofBurton
    April 25, 2009 at 9:44 pm

    Good morning, afternoon and evening everyone!

    I just wanted to put in my two cents. Honestly, I don’t care what anyone thinks of Bill Maher. I am not Bill Maher, so it would be pretty weird if it mattered to me in any big way.

    That’s not really what I am here to say though.

    I think we forgot, that Bill Maher, though he may have done some dishonest things, just like you or I might have done in our lives, is human. Bill Maher is a comedian. He is not a historian or a anti-religious zealot. I think he made the movie as a way to kind of poke at the nerves of the Christian church.

    I say, he has done quite a good job of that, hasn’t he?

    As far as getting in and trying to talk to scholars of Christianity or other religions goes, I don’t think the thought ever occurred to him. Because of how much information we have access to, and how much information we all DON’T have access to, that would put us all on pretty much the same page. His reason, I believe, for asking the “average Joe” and not a bunch of scholars, is that with access to the information, anyone could know as much as any scholar. However, they don’t. I don’t claim to. I tend to go off my own observations.

    Anyone can pick up the Bible and read it for themselves. I sometimes dig up a copy when I am bored, but I find myself not able to read it. I just find it almost like a poorly written fantasy novel, and after reading incredible books by Ray Feist and David Eddings, it just bores me even more. So, I can’t tell you anything about your religion that you don’t know. But I do know how people are, and how they think, and Bill Maher tries to imitate someone else. His name, I think, you will know. He is the great “thinking comedian,” as I call him. His name is George Carlin.

    Bill’s version of the master is rather disappointing, don’t you agree? Had he been a scholar, he might have talked to scholars. Mr. Carlin, (may Joe Pesci have mercy on his soul) was a scholar, but he didn’t want to do a documentary, he wanted to be a comedian.

    Bill Maher is a comedian. I think he made the movie as a comedy more than anything else. He just wanted to make us laugh.

    I did.

    The Great Alexander

  10. CliffsofBurton
    April 25, 2009 at 9:55 pm

    Oh, and by the by Alan, what you said about the “window into the insecurity of his soul,” is pretty… Well, frankly I thought that was childish and unnecessary.

    You have never met Bill Maher, I think. From your writing, and the things you say, I could call you insecure, and you, I. But I don’t, and I hope you won’t either. It’s not about insecurity. Everyone is insecure about something. That doesn’t say anything really profound about the man.

    He expressed an opinion. I don’t know if you know, but you can do that where he is from, America, that is. I doubt someone forced you to watch his film. Furthermore, if he is just insecure and dishonest and wrong, why did it bother you so much?

    The Great Alexander

  11. CliffsofBurton
    April 25, 2009 at 9:59 pm

    I apologize yet again, but I have wanted to know what the term “apologetic” means for some time now. If you would be so kind, please get back to me.

    The Great Alexander.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: