Agnostic.com

6 4

Bill M is another great comedian gives everyone a reality check on religion and politics combined. If you haven't seen his documentary Religulous.. (not sure on the spelling), IMO, felt he did a great job & covered a lot ground doing it.

mistymoon77 9 Oct 23
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

6 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

2

That is an awesome film!! Seen it many times, right on the mark !

0

I liked his documentary, but I thought he often was trying too hard. I thin i twould have been more effective without the overt bias.

0

I saw the movie some time ago, and his show and clips from it several times.
I like Bill for the most part, but he seems to suffer from a superiority complex and can be rather snarky at times.
Because he is in a high profile occupation, it doesn't make a good impression for atheism in general.
People can make the sweeping generalization that we're all like that.

Yes I can see that too.. where some people might generalize and think that. But if anyone watches him and knows his humor, they would get that he is very sarcastic, just like George Carlin was. One has to have a bit of dark humor in order to really get it.

0

I like that movie.

0

That is a great documentary, wish he would make more

2

I liked that movie, too. There was a part when Bill was talking to some guy and the guy said something about the holy trinity. He equated the father, the son, and the holy ghost with the three stages of H2O: water, steam, and ice. It stumped Bill and I thought it was pretty clever and poetic. But that's kind of the crux religious-based claims and argumentation.
I was talking with my Catholic uncle once and I said, "You venerate Jesus..." He 'corrected' me by saying, "We 'venerate' the saints, we adore Jesus." And it stumped me. "What?!" "What's the difference? Is there a point to the difference?" He started to explain, but I wasn't having it. I knew, on some level, it was such a stupid... postulate[?]... that I would have to work 2.718281828 times as hard to prove his statement was semantics bullshit.
From what I recall, this thought process wasn't elaborated upon. Just mentioned in passing: how they throw curveballs at you with terms and premises that the conversation assumes as true, definitive, and tangible. If anything, Relgiulous was kind of like a survey course on religious crap. Covered a lot of ground indeed. I enjoyed it.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:2109
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.