Bill Maher’s Religulous Trailer Directed by Larry Charles

religuloustrailer.jpg

We all know that religion can be a touchy subject, but if there’s one guy who’s not afraid to tackle touchy subjects, it’s the former host of Politically Incorrect, Bill Maher. Religulous is an upcoming documentary from Maher, directed by Larry Charles (Borat), that has one purpose: to expose the hypocrisy and foolishness of all religions around the world. Actually, come to think of it… there is also a secondary purpose. To provide 90 minutes of humour and entertainment for atheists everywhere.

It pretty much goes without saying that this movie is going to piss a lot of people off. Part of me hopes that it will also get people talking and re-thinking their beliefs, but after watching the trailer, I’m not sure that it will. Bill Maher’s smug attitude isn’t likely to change anyone’s mind. Still, if you agree with Maher, I imagine this will be an enjoyable watch. The involvement of Larry Charles puts this up there with some of my most anticipated movies of the year. I just hope it will end up playing somewhere near me on October 3rd. Check out the trailer below, and also check out Maher’s newly launched anti-religion site www.disbeliefnet.com for even more “mythbusting”. Feel free to sound off in the comments below.



  • Lord Dungbeetle you’re simply too stereotypical to spend time on. I can’t believe that once again people defend religion with the argument that hitler killed religious people (along with all the atheists he also killed). Bill O’Reilly would be proud of you.

  • Henrik,

    Why am I sterotypical? Because I disagree? I’m not the one with a movie mocking people.

    Hitler was an atheist who killed religious people and non religious people, especially when he invaded Stalinist Soviet territory.

  • Goon

    alright i made another long post but it disappeared again. i should have copied it before hitting post.

    this is repetitive LD, no matter how much evidence there was of religion in Hitlers life and in the lives of Germans, no matter how documented religion affected Nazis rise to power, you will push the same line. You will continue to claim its my responsibility to disprove Jesus and Santa Claus rather than it being the onus of those making the extraordinary claim. You will continue to bash atheism even though its clear you are one yourself, a self hating one at that. Your’e either trolling or just plain fucked in the head. Good day.

    On an unrelated note, your website is ass.

  • Goon

    btw, stats:

    http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

    as Henrik can confirm (he’s Scandinavian, and the #3 country on that list), the scandinavian ones have some polls on the lower end because when you are born they register you into the church against your will.

  • I dont knwo what happened to your last post, LD, its… gone. i tried to cut/paste it but i hit refresh and its gone. hitler was all over the place the entire time. while you are claiming he made soandso dencounce his faith…

    recovering an older post. since you insist Hitler was an atheist – im still not sure you mean ‘once’ or ‘always’. i must continue to insist there is much you are ignoring. i saw your quotes you lifted from the early 40s that he made in private… but I also submit:

    The Nazis had amalgamated state with church. Soldiers of the vermacht wore belt buckles inscribed with the following: “Gott mit uns” (God is with us). His troops were often sprinkled with holy water by the priests. Citizens were told by both state and church to blindly follow all authority figures, political and ecclesiastical.
    Prayers were mandatory in all schools under his administration. While abortion was illegal in pre-Hitler Germany he took it to new depths of enforcement, requiring all doctors to report to the government the circumstances of all miscarriages. He criminalized homosexuality.

    You want to say all this time he was secretly just using people. Maybe by the end, but it takes the people to follow out his orders, you have tried to paint them as atheists as well but its not going to fly. I know my history here. Those same tapes you quoted from 41-42 have him also saying that The Ten Commandments are perfect and are still his moral code, and around the same time he condemned atheistic jews for not only being jews, but abandoning their god.

    Hitler was baptized in Austria, an altar boy in his youth, and confirmed as a “soldier of Christ” in that church. The worst doctrines of that church never left him. He church’s liturgy contained the words, “perfidious Jew.” which stayed there until 1961. it was this background that led him to tell people that Jews lied about Jesus being one of them. (Perfidy means treachery, btw)

    Hatred of Jews was the norm in Catholic/Lutheran Germany. Hitler praised Martin Luther, who openly hated the Jews and also condemned the Catholic Church for its pretensions and corruption. This partially explains Hitlers duplicitous critique of the church over the years. but like Lutehr, Hitler supported the centuries of papal pogroms against the Jews. Luther said, “The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows seven times higher than ordinary thieves,” and “We ought to take revenge on the Jews and kill them.”

    Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf. “… I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord’s work.” He quoted those same words in a Reichstag speech in 1938.

    He also said, in private: “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.” He never left the catholic church even despite his weird actions, and the church never left him. The church was banning book after book but wouldnt excommunicate hitler or ban Mein Kampf. Popes contracted with Hitler Franco and Mussolini, giving them veto power over whom the pope could appoint as a bishop in Germany, Spain and Italy.

    Hitlers most acclaimed biographer John Toland said: “Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god…”

    For him to be an atheist all that time would require a hell of a lot more effort and 24/7 acting than I think anyone is capable of, devoted and with a plan from a very young age. I’m sorry, but your proposition and rewriting of history LD, is hard to swallow. Hitler was a complex tantrum spewing hate filled man who at some times seemed non-religious and at other times both publicly and privately was all about religion. I look at his whole life and believe he was more religious that irreligoius, that if he abandoned religion the evidence points to his disillusionment being deep into the tail end of his reign. furthermore, clearly by his actions it was the way of the people and they didnt recognize the conflicts of their actions with their supposed beliefs. The anti-Jewish sentiment throughout Germany corrupted their religion. It was corrupt before hitler even got to it, not representative of the christianity most people believe, but it was deeply held religious belief nonetheless. if you dont think this is a fair assessment then so be it, but thats my last word on it.

  • Wow. Late to the party on this one. Can’t really get into a hot and heavy thesim debate, ’cause religion simply ain’t my cup of tea.

    @Henrik – “Any scientist worth his salt would admit that he hasn’t got the universe figured out, if some scientist is an idiot and happens to be an atheist then so be it,”

    I agree strongly with the first part of that sentence. My day-job is a ‘materials chemist’ and I have a science background, degree and whatnot. I work in a ridiculously educated workplace, a majority of PhDs, etc. and you’d be surprised (or maybe not) that there is a large and fairly hard-core christian + Jewish + other religion contingents within the place.

    Wasn’t it Einstein that said, “Religion without Science is daft, but science without religion is lame?”

    I find the phrase militantly atheist or atheist fundamentalism to be stemming from already paranoid religion denominations that can’t get their head around the rise of simply secular lifestyles. It’s the Internet and Ipods and otherwise general 1st world sense of isolation, methinks anyway, but leave it to even somewhat rational churches to go on a crusade against “atheist fundamentalism”

    On Bill Maher. I guess he is entertaining enough, but I find him smug even as I agree with him. Like Michael Moore and other liberal ‘personalities’ he makes me often embarrassed to share the same views, but I guess I just label him as ‘mostly harmless’

    As you can see I have no point, just rambling after coming into the fray after all this (My IP is banned at work. boo. less Filmjunk for me).

    Let us also agree that the argument/debate in most, if not all comment sections and forums, is more or less finished once “Hitler” or “Nazis” come in as a talking point…

    Have fun Gents.

  • “On Bill Maher. I guess he is entertaining enough, but I find him smug even as I agree with him. Like Michael Moore and other liberal ‘personalities’ he makes me often embarrassed to share the same views, but I guess I just label him as ‘mostly harmless’”

    I agree he’s a dickhead, but he’s kind of “owned” it and recognizes it. Like Chris Hitchens, he’s likeable and funny when you’re on the same team, and you want to wring his neck when you’re not.

  • “…is more or less finished once “Hitler” or “Nazis” come in as a talking point…”

    I’m more concerned that I’ve apparently pissed LD off to the degree that he feels the need to visit my personal site a dozen times over the course of 8 hours. (yes, I have a tracker) Please don’t make 15 hour trips up from Tampa to settle an internet argument. Let it go. I’m sure there’s a post about Star Wars somewhere we can argue about instead.

  • Ooops, the Einstein quote was “Blind” not “Daft”

  • Religion without Science is blind, but science without religion is lame.

    (third times a charm)

  • One thing is for certain….my website is ass

  • Goon, Ontario is too far for me. I was just checking out your work. I want to commission a picture of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and Kim Il Sung playing poker in heaven.

    Although I will forever disagree with you about Hitler being an atheist, and although we have violated Godwin’s Law, I think we can agree that we are both morons for putting this much effort into this argument.

    Quit picking on my website.

  • rot

    I thought I was clear enough Goon, but I guess not. I will make my case as concise as possible:

    Scientists are bound by what can be rationally demonstrable.
    Scientists employ their work upon the known universe.
    Theologians are not bound by what can be rationally demonstrable.
    Theologians also employ their work upon the known universe.

    Both approach similar objects but with different perspectives. I used cloning as a very clear example of this because it is understood by most religions that there is more than the biological at work in creating a person, but science has no time for anything but that which they can quantify.

    You with me so far?

    To say that science has nothing to do with religion is to say that shade has nothing to do with light. You can compartmentalize them all you want in your delightful labels, they both have opinions about what the known universe consists of. Science, through its actions, through its most basic dogma, rejects the irrational, which includes among other things the presence of a Deity as it encroaches upon the same space that theology claims knowledge of. I am amazed you would even question this… makes me wonder how dogmatic you actually are?

    You want atheism to be a one question significance, and I used the analogy of the rapist correctly, its like all you have to do is answer the question are you an atheist or not and that is that, as if behavior, conduct, had nothing to do with the label. A scientist’s conduct rejects God with every quantification of the known universe, it is the embodiment of the atheistic approach.

    I suppose evolution and intelligent design is not really a dispute at all, the distinction is entirely between atheism and theism. Even if you say they are holding out the possibility of God, so they are only agnostic that is bullshit as well, the irrational cannot be factored into the equation.

    As for the notion of scientists who are religious, humans are capable of doublethink, capable of paradoxes, capable of believing one thing one moment and another the next. They are entirely deluding themselves if they believe what they are doing has no bearing in the religious debate. Christ everything we do can be thought of as having an opinion on the issue of theology, an atheist is an atheist in action as much as thought. The mere decision to not go to church on Sunday is a denial of some form of religion. With scientists it is more explicit because they are attempting there Tower of Babel to rival that of God… and for the most part they are successful, science is truly the deity of this century. The faith in it is ridiculous.

  • Bill Mahrer isn’t liberal, he’s a Libertarian. It’s the opposite end of the spectrum. He’s also a douchebag, those of which can be found any where along the political and ideological spectrum.

  • rot your post reads like you’re the guy who walks into a philosophy class and starts telling the teacher that teaching is futile, becase there’s no way of telling wether or not you or he/she is real, if the tables are real, if the books are real, or if the world even exists properly.

    If you’re going to put your faith in anything, might as well put it in humans, since they for all intents and purposes, exist untill proven otherwise.

  • rot

    philosophy class is futile. Wittgenstein made a pretty significant point about that.

    To prove that scientific realism is a fallacy all I have to do is look at the methodology of scientific endeavour and show its dependence on mathematics, and formal systems makes it vulnerable to Godel’s Theorem, in which case there will always be an incompleteness to the attempt at quantifying reality… therefore fundamentally scientific realism is false. To get around that fallacy you would have to undue Godel’s Theorem which from every case I am aware of is impossible, such is the genius of the theorem.

    Not unlike the religious fanatics that pick and choose what aspects fo reality substantiate their faith, scientific realists do the same with mathematics, picking and choosing which they like and which is consistent with the preconceptions of the universe, whether or not they conflict.

    science is science only in an instrumental sense, it should offer no ideology about what the universe is, and yet that is what scientific realism is, and what gets people upset whenever I challenge it.

    and Henrik, did you read the link about the Hadron Collider, Humans are willing to risk a doomsday scenario, however slim (by their incomplete calculations)… my faith in humanity is less than that of some spiritual being. with humanity I can see the mistakes clearly.

  • rot

    to be absolutely clear because I know how these things get misinterpreted… I am not against science, I am against the fanaticism that propels its culture. I am against the strand of thinking known as scientific realism, which justifies ludicrous feats of hubris like cloning and the Hadron collider. They are the equivalents of suicide bombers in religious sects, worse like I said because most people are unaware that no one is steering the ship, and the money and gull are unprecedented.

    science has uses, but it should also have limitations. it should be a tool that we use, not something that uses us… to the point we destroy ourselves over it.

  • No point in existing if not to test new ground and make new discoveries. Remember, people said that the train was not possible, because physics would rip people apart if they were to travel at such speeds. Fear of science is nothing new.

    Cloning in the Arnold Schwarzenegger sense (The 6th Day. ‘Cool’ anyone?) seems absolutely horrifying I agree, but just because some crazy idiots (usually cults based in some sort of weird worship) claim to have created doomsday machines and superhumans, we should not put the kibosh on scientific research.

    Scientific research is driven first and foremost by people who enjoy doing it, second by curiosity. There is a drive to know more, a need to answer questions which you may say ‘uses us’, but where do you define what is based in the simple enjoyment of doing something, be it science or art or craftsmanship, and where somebody feels a need to test just to test? Scientific research is rarely pointless.

    It seems your point is more or less that we can’t be sure that the answers are right anyway, so why risk anything in the pursuit of them? For that, I will reiterate that reality, for purpose of existing as a human being I’d say you have to accept this, exists, and if it claims to work in a certain way (ie. gravity) we’re better off if we accept it and work around it. Like I said, things exist untill proven otherwise.

  • rot

    tell me Henrik what percentage of probability for a doomsday scenario occuring is acceptable for the sake of knowing whether or not string theory is justified?

    ludicrous.

    Our curiosity will be the end of us because we are not grown up enough to acknowledge moral boundaries for our actions.

    The people who rage against religious fanaticism yet turn a blind eye to the same in science need to get their heads examined. The greatest fear of religious fanatics is they get there hands on nuclear weapons… well who put that weapon on the table in the first place?

    Ren and Stimpy had a great gag where Stimpy was curious to push the History eraser button and Ren kept telling him not to, and what did he do, he pushed it and everything went up in smoke. Thats untethered science in a nutshell. No amount of airplane crashes can amount to the devastation afforded the pursuit of knowledge.

    It doesn’t help either that morality has left the political sphere now too, a corporation decides what is right or wrong.
    political fanaticism, yet again the problem.

  • Well, in my opinion the pursuit of knowledge is the only thing that can justify human consciousness. So I’d rather have us annihilated in pursuing knowledge than have us exist forever in ignorance.

  • rot

    btw regarding the hadron collider, there is a court case in motion to stop it because of the three doomsday scenarios it could pose.

    http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/27/2033218&from=rss

    and Henrik I am convinced mankind will not rest until it annhilates itself and its statements like your most recent which only further justify my concern.

  • Why are you concerned with the annihilation of man? We don’t deserve special treatment, and the only thing we have over animals is our consciousness. Why should we restrict the expansion of it just to preserve ourselves? It’s much more disheartening that we will die because of something as pointless as greed, which is much more likely.

  • rot

    You’re right Henrik because our consciousness extends beyond our mortal bodies… now you have talked yourself into religion!

  • Goon

    well LD, you did bring it up. i entertained your notions and its getting into circle jerk.

    rot, what can i say, i think you’re redefining things to fit your view. worse off, sorry, i dont find the hadron thing very interesting today, and am willing to walk away for now and help let this thread die.

  • Religion is guesswork. It doesn’t expand our consciousness it diminishes it with its nonsense answers that are very easy and comforting, but in the end may doom us (ie. not giving a fuck about global warming because jesus is coming anyway, and if he doesn’t before you die, as long as you praise him everyday when you die it gets much better, so why bother?). I think Marx was right, but to update him a bit, religion is fast-food for the mind.

  • Reed Farrington

    At your request, ProjectGenesisGangster, I will settle this dispute.

    I spoke to God, but she says she doesn’t exist.

  • I still wish Lord Beetle told us what he liked so much about Jay’s specific brand of atheism

  • Pingback: Trailer: Religulous - The Documentary Blog()

  • What part of “Humans make up gods” do some people not get. Every culture all over the world independantly of each other all had the human instinct to create some magical creature(s) to explain how we got here and to provide hope that there is a life after death. It’s all part of the survival instict. It’s the 21st century people…. let’s try to catch up.