Religulous - £7.49 (DVD) @ HMV - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
180Expired

Religulous - £7.49 (DVD) @ HMV

RadioactiveJack Avatar
7y, 4m agoFound 7 years, 4 months ago
Next best is £9.38 @ Amazon

Helmed by the director of both Borat and Bruno, Larry Charles, Religulous follows Bill Maher as he investigates the facts, influence and people of religion in this comedic look at some of the most powerful institutions in the world.
Deal Tags:
More From HMV :

All Comments

(313) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
#1
Funny and Scary. Voted hot. Spread the Word !

;)
#2
Hot, great price and great movie
#3
Fr Reginald Foster is a hoot!
#4
obviously he believes in kaballah so he needs to promote his idealogy on us that their is no god so he can please his lord lucifer. he does not believe in judism anymore because his new friends in black kaballah teach him make fun of religous so he is praised my lucifer(satan,iblis). believe in 1 god and it is the same god the christian,muslims and jews believe in. peace
banned#5
Daddyd1976
obviously he believes in kaballah so he needs to promote his idealogy on us that their is no god so he can please his lord lucifer. he does not believe in judism anymore because his new friends in black kaballah teach him make fun of religous so he is praised my lucifer(satan,iblis). believe in 1 god and it is the same god the christian,muslims and jews believe in. peace


Religion + Ridiculous = Religulous
#6
this looks great
#7
Great film. Treats those burdened with "the delusion" with more respect than your average atheist rant film.

One aspect that does leave a bad taste in the mouth however is the anti-islam bias subtly displayed throughout.
1 Like #8
Daddyd1976
obviously he believes in kaballah so he needs to promote his idealogy on us that their is no god so he can please his lord lucifer. he does not believe in judism anymore because his new friends in black kaballah teach him make fun of religous so he is praised my lucifer(satan,iblis). believe in 1 god and it is the same god the christian,muslims and jews believe in. peace


Im sorry, but really ???

a) People who believe in kabbalah believe in God.
b) Pretty pretty certain Bill Mather does not believe in Kabbalah ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Maher#Views_on_religion )
c) The kind of idiocy where you say someone worships satan, just because they don't believe in god, puts you in the "Crazy Nutter" category by my reckoning.
1 Like #9
one of the best documentaries i have watched in ages basically says " NO RELIGION = NO WAR"
#10
djfluff
Im sorry, but really ???

a) People who believe in kabbalah believe in God.
b) Pretty pretty certain Bill Mather does not believe in Kabbalah ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Maher#Views_on_religion )
c) The kind of idiocy where you say someone worships satan, just because they don't believe in god, puts you in the "Crazy Nutter" category by my reckoning.


+1
#11
blob
one of the best documentaries i have watched in ages basically says " NO RELIGION = NO WAR"


So communist Russia never committed any acts of war then?

Voted hot as I like Bill, and do not believe in a sentient supreme being either.

However, the idea that religion is the cause of all the worlds ills is stupid. Human nature creates war, and some use religion as a justification. Religion causes some of the worlds ills.
#12
Bill Maher is very funny. But I disagree with NO RELIGION = NO WAR. WW II wasn't a religion war (though it was arguably an ideological one). I think NO DOGMA = NO WAR would be a more accurate statement.
#13
Brilliant film voted hot
#14
Daddyd1976
obviously he believes in kaballah so he needs to promote his idealogy on us that their is no god so he can please his lord lucifer. he does not believe in judism anymore because his new friends in black kaballah teach him make fun of religous so he is praised my lucifer(satan,iblis). believe in 1 god and it is the same god the christian,muslims and jews believe in. peace


lol Ur a great advertisement for the film.
#15
gslgregory
+1


Hot: great film, love the sarcastic but subtle approach:thumbsup:
#16
Daddyd1976
obviously he believes in kaballah so he needs to promote his idealogy on us that their is no god so he can please his lord lucifer. he does not believe in judism anymore because his new friends in black kaballah teach him make fun of religous so he is praised my lucifer(satan,iblis). believe in 1 god and it is the same god the christian,muslims and jews believe in. peace


Ha ha ha - fantastic, sums up the whole thing in one paragraph dripping with insanity.

I enjoyed this film, and it bluntly does point out the borderline madness that's inherent in all religion. However, I went through the "none of it makes sense to me" phase when I was about 14, so this film is preaching to the converted.

I'd be interested in hearing the response to the film of someone who is rational and intelligent and still believes in God. And that's not a dig....I know there's plenty out there. I've just never met one whose willing to watch a film like this or read a book like The God Delusion.
banned#17
cheapo;5789673
So communist Russia never committed any acts of war then?

Voted hot as I like Bill, and do not believe in a sentient supreme being either.

However, the idea that religion is the cause of all the worlds ills is stupid. Human nature creates war, and some use religion as a justification. Religion causes some of the worlds ills.

What has communism in Russia got to do with it? Russians are still religious lol
#18
Rubisco

One aspect that does leave a bad taste in the mouth however is the anti-islam bias subtly displayed throughout.


I disagree. I don't think there is an anti-Islamic bias throughout the film. I watched it last night and thought Bill used 'Socratic questioning' with proportionate measure when discussing each of the religions he discussed.

I think that Bill was coming from the position of a-theism rather than anti-theism. Theists and anti-theists (such as Richard Dawkins) make positive claims to know something, whereas what Bill does in the film, is to examine some of the statements made by theists. Bill does not claim to know something, Bill simply wants to make sense of the statements that have been made by, or on behalf of, Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, Islam et cetera.

I suppose that Bill thinks the aforementioned religions have made statements that seem to him to be illogical or incoherent; presumably even after he subjected them to rational scrutiny.
#19
Superb film. Shows religion for what it really is, i.e. something for those with weaker, easier to manipulate minds.

That's not a bad thing, if people want to believe in something that cannot / will not be proved that's entirely up to them. I just wish they'd leave the rest of us out of it.
#20
Fantastic film, well edited and thought-provoking too. My friend with a theology degree also thoroughly enjoyed it. Heat! :thumbsup:
banned#21
blob
one of the best documentaries i have watched in ages basically says " NO RELIGION = NO WAR"


That's not true though. Even without religion, we'd still fight over land. That's what most religious wars were about.

Religion just happens to be a good motivator.
#22
stick with louis therox , this guy is a bit pants
#23
csiman
Oh dear! I dont recall God having sex with Mary in the bible :whistling:


It's in the director's cut :-D

Seriously though, if I went around impregnating 12 year olds by artificial insemination, wouldn't that be classed as child abuse?
banned#24
Rubisco;5791205
It's in the director's cut :-D

Seriously though, if I went around impregnating 12 year olds by artificial insemination, wouldn't that be classed as child abuse?

Oh dear! I dont recall Mary having artificial insemination either in the bible :-D

its all a load of rollox anyway :thumbsup:

religion = worldwide brainwashing to control the masses
#25
windhoek
I disagree. I don't think there is an anti-Islamic bias throughout the film. I watched it last night and thought Bill used 'Socratic questioning' with proportionate measure when discussing each of the religions he discussed.

I think that Bill was coming from the position of a-theism rather than anti-theism. Theists and anti-theists (such as Richard Dawkins) make positive claims to know something, whereas what Bill does in the film, is to examine some of the statements made by theists. Bill does not claim to know something, Bill simply wants to make sense of the statements that have been made by, or on behalf of, Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, Islam et cetera.

I suppose that Bill thinks the aforementioned religions have made statements that seem to him to be illogical or incoherent; presumably even after he subjected them to rational scrutiny.


Richard Dawkins does not claim that there is no god, just that it is very unlikely, given the lack of evidence. And the onus is on the deluded to provide the evidence, personal revelation, and "I want there to be one", don't count. Neither do contradictory collections of mythologies.
#26
LOL everyone thinks mohammed is a crazy abusing paedo when in actual fact at that time arabs thought of the female race as "inferior human beings" and would bury their daughters alive, sell their sisters and degrade women to the lowest of the lowest.

Mohammed changed the whole of the arab world's view on women by this: "God enjoins you to treat women well, for they are your mothers, daughters and aunts." He never lay a finger on any of his wives (oh wait "but he had multiple wives" i hear u say? yes he did, most of which were widows and he supported them financially and helped them tremendously) he never hit his children, he promoted women's rights at a time when women were looked upon as pigs or worse. He prohibited and stopped the ignorant arabs murdering their daughters and told them their daughters are a "blessing" and NOT a curse.

and no he didn't marry a 12 year old, 9 year old or 5 year old LOL.
#27
No she was 7, Aisha.

I'm sure she was a widow and he was just looking after her. I'm sure most of them were...but when you get to double-figures and 1500 years later it's all hard to pin down.

On the plus side, at least the muslim world doesn't engage in honour killings and all that nonsense from 1500 years ago.
eh?
oh....
#28
Rubisco
Great film. Treats those burdened with "the delusion" with more respect than your average atheist rant film.

One aspect that does leave a bad taste in the mouth however is the anti-islam bias subtly displayed throughout.


'swrong with anti islam? ;-)
#29
al-animal

Mohammed changed the whole of the arab world's view on women

LOL, did he? This is news to me.
And the arabs!
#30
csiman
What has communism in Russia got to do with it? Russians are still religious lol


As a communist nation, Russia took part in acts of war to defend and expand its land, not as a religious nation.

Ergo, not all causes or justifications for war are religious in nature.

A discussion on mans' 'will to power' is much more fertile ground for discussion.

Not that I am criticizing the documentary. I take issue with the idea that all war is created by religion. That is rubbish.
#31
Film is great, voted hawt
#32
Great film and price.

In response to some of the earlier comments, I'd like to point out that religions are responsible for adding to ethnicity, nationality, etc. yet another (unnecessary) difference and source of conflict for humans. Without religions, there would still be wars but fewer of them.

Atheism doesn't compel a person to do anything. No-one ever strapped explosives to their body and blew themselves up in the name of atheism. A person who is an atheist may do things for political or other reasons, but their atheism is rarely the cause of any of their behaviour.

Here are a couple of good books on the subject, for anyone interested:

Fighting Words by Hector Avalos
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fighting-Words-Origins-Religious-Violence/dp/1591022843

Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Letter-Christian-Nation-Sam-Harris/dp/0593058976

Why I Am Not a Muslim by Ibn Warraq
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-I-Am-Not-Muslim/dp/1591020115

Biblical Errancy by C.Dennis McKinsey
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Encyclopedia-Biblical-Errancy-C-Dennis-McKinsey/dp/0879759267

2000 Years of Disbelief by James A. Haught
http://www.amazon.co.uk/2000-Years-Disbelief-Famous-Courage/dp/1573920673
#33
fsm65
Richard Dawkins does not claim that there is no god, just that it is very unlikely, given the lack of evidence. And the onus is on the deluded to provide the evidence, personal revelation, and "I want there to be one", don't count. Neither do contradictory collections of mythologies.


I disagree. To say something is unlikely is still to make a positive statement which can presumably be backed up. When Dawkins makes the claim that 'it's unlikely', the onus of proof is on him to demonstrate why it's unlikely just as much as those that claim it's likely have to demonstrate why it's likely.

Only a-theists have a neutral position in this debate because thesists and anti-theists claim to know something, and as Dawkins claims it's unlikely, he can't be considered an a-theist; he's therefore, an anti-theist.

p.s. I write atheist as a-theist because I'm using the 'a' in its original Greek prefix to highlight the impartiality of the atheist. For it's not that the atheist doesn't believe in the existence/ non-existence of God, but rather, as I'm sure you'll agree, the atheist has yet to be convinced that there is or isn't a God.
#34
windhoek
I disagree. To say something is unlikely is still to make a positive statement which can presumably be backed up. When Dawkins makes the claim that 'it's unlikely', the onus of proof is on him to demonstrate why it's unlikely just as much as those that claim it's likely have to demonstrate why it's likely.

Only a-theists have a neutral position in this debate because thesists and anti-theists claim to know something, and as Dawkins claims it's unlikely, he can't be considered an a-theist; he's therefore, an anti-theist.

p.s. I write atheist as a-theist because I'm using the 'a' in its original Greek prefix to highlight the impartiality of the atheist. For it's not that the atheist doesn't believe in the existence/ non-existence of God, but rather, as I'm sure you'll agree, the atheist has yet to be convinced that there is or isn't a God.

It's unlikely because there is absolutely no evidence for it.
I don't have to defend my position for not believing in dragons...
#35
windhoek
I disagree. To say something is unlikely is still to make a positive statement which can presumably be backed up. When Dawkins makes the claim that 'it's unlikely', the onus of proof is on him to demonstrate why it's unlikely just as much as those that claim it's likely have to demonstrate why it's likely.

Only a-theists have a neutral position in this debate because thesists and anti-theists claim to know something, and as Dawkins claims it's unlikely, he can't be considered an a-theist; he's therefore, an anti-theist.

p.s. I write atheist as a-theist because I'm using the 'a' in its original Greek prefix to highlight the impartiality of the atheist. For it's not that the atheist doesn't believe in the existence/ non-existence of God, but rather, as I'm sure you'll agree, the atheist has yet to be convinced that there is or isn't a God.




The dictionary would disagree with you:

"a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings".
#36
Ignorant Pom
It's unlikely because there is absolutely no evidence for it.
I don't have to defend my position for not believing in dragons...


Why is it unlikely because there's no evidence for it? Would you say the same with regard to life on other planets? Even though there's no evidence for life on other planets, is it unlikely that there's life on other planets?

I agree that you don't have to defend your position of not believing in dragons, although only so long as you don't claim that it's unlikely that they exist. If you claim that it's unlikely that dragons exist, it's fair to expect you to demonstrate why.
1 Like #37
ourdave
The dictionary would disagree with you:

"a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings".


That's an example of why dictionaries are rarely cited in academic journals, essays, books et cetera. Dictionaries fail to give definitions that can be used legitimately in logical and coherent discussion.

In this context, the definition of atheism you provided (I presume that's what it is?) is not equal to the definition I mentioned above. The definition you offer is inadequate for this discussion in that it precludes the position of neutrality. To deny or disbelieve the existence of a supreme being is an active position.

For example, does a new born baby believe or disbelieve in the existence of a supreme being? I would say that it neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a supreme being. As such, the baby is devoid of an opinion and can be regarded as an a-theist as it is completely neutral in this matter.
#38
ourdave
Ha ha ha - fantastic, sums up the whole thing in one paragraph dripping with insanity.

I enjoyed this film, and it bluntly does point out the borderline madness that's inherent in all religion. However, I went through the "none of it makes sense to me" phase when I was about 14, so this film is preaching to the converted.

I'd be interested in hearing the response to the film of someone who is rational and intelligent and still believes in God. And that's not a dig....I know there's plenty out there. I've just never met one whose willing to watch a film like this or read a book like The God Delusion.


I've done both.

Unfortunately you can't 'rationally debate' a subject like this based on sources like that. From the outset you make the assumption that 'Religulous' or 'God Delusion' are, in fact, true and accurate accounts which is a rational impossibility because both are effectively attempts to argue against caricatures which are the construct of the author. Both accounts attempt to pose the 'atheists' answer to a combination of the atheists most extreme antagonistic misrepresentations, and also, as you've seen, to the expressions of irrationality manifested by the most irrational and least informed of all theistic believers, rather than actually contending on historical facts. On the subject of history, they tend to fail to pose arguments based on what historians objectively regard as good history, but instead pose philosophically prejudiced arguments against philosophically prejudiced assumptions about a philosophically tainted revision or rendering of history which simply causes credible academics to shrug and say 'what's the point in debating fact, if you're just going to make up your position fictitiously.'

In the case of 'God Delusion', even atheists have distanced themselves from Dawkins because they see him as 'religiously atheist' and with an over-reliance on presenting his personal religiously anti-religious bias as being the epitome of logical and rational thought, when in reality he relies extensively on 'exposing' and 'critiquing' misrepresentative caricatures of EXPRESSIONS of religious faith, themselves deviated from the core original doctrines. Specifically, Dawkins, like Brown in 'The DaVinci Code' sets out to debunk 2000 year old Christian faith based on claimed eyewitness testimony by laughing at his own assumed grossly-misrepresentative characterisations of 1000 year old Catholic dogmas, and by framing sophomoric philosophical arguments based on relativistic notions of morality or 'reasonableness' as if those have any bearing on the objective existence of a being, 'God.' For example, in Dawkins world his objection to the idea that God could allow people to be unkind to each other means that God does not exist. On the contrary, rationally speaking it says nothing about the existence of God, only what Dawkins would think of God. But it then poses the question as to why Dawkins invented such strange criteria for the existence of God, since his own rejection of the idea of God means that if God did exist, Darwin would be the last person to understand his nature or motivation, and therefore would be the last person to be able to comprehend or judge the so-called 'morality' of God's decisions and involvement in human existence.

Dawkins, without using the term, has made a career out of the invention of religious misrepresentation and the dumbing down of intellectual arguments, in much the same way as he would if he turned the debunking of the 'flying spaghetti monster' into a serious science and wrote books about it.

Objective observance acknowledges compelling and persistant truths, persistent beliefs, in much the same way as it acknowledges the likely existence of multiple dimensions beyond our own awareness in which quantum mechanics are at work. What Dawkins does, and indeed the Maher film to a great extent, is to try, in the metaphor, to argue against the very possibility of additional imperceptible dimensions and quantum mechanics at work by effectively picking out a fringe 'supporter' argument that it is one-legged Irish pixies that ride cosmic dragons which cause these unseen forces or anomalies, and appealing to the incredulity of philosophically like minded (and closed minded so-called 'rationalist') readers in regard to the Irish pixies, thereby dismisses the entire compelling argument that the unseen might be nonetheless startlingly real and of great, albeit seemingly imperceptible, bearing on our own existence. These become doctrines of denial, invalidated by the inescapable irrationality of the prepositions, assumptions, misrepresentations and churlish characterisations themselves. These kind of 'documentarians' and academics are observed to cherry pick those they choose to 'show up' or debate from a list of 'easy targets' which fulfil stereotypes, and are equally noted for dodging the bullet of debating serious and credible academics who disagree with their conclusions entirely, both theist and atheist. In Dawkins case particularly, he dismisses the idea of debating anyone who doesn't believe what he believes because he claims that to do so would be beneath him and to give their ideas the appearance of credibility. Once again, his flaw is the arrogance of his conclusion that his assumptions are the 'standard' of truth from which all else should be measured. Many atheist academics refuse to make that kind of irrational and intellectually suicidal leap. It's what makes Dawkins a popular commentator, but a lousy academic.
#39
Q-Tec
Superb film. Shows religion for what it really is, i.e. something for those with weaker, easier to manipulate minds.

That's not a bad thing, if people want to believe in something that cannot / will not be proved that's entirely up to them. I just wish they'd leave the rest of us out of it.



That, frankly, is arrogant crap.

How can you credibly state that a certain persuasion of belief is in any way a reflection on the character or intelligence of the believer, if you cannot yourself prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is unequivocally wrong?

You're on losing ground with that argument from the outset, simply by virtue of the fact that contrary to popular belief (and accusation), theists are more open-minded than atheists, and anecdotal evidence exists to suggest that they are generally happier, more productive, more ethical people with slightly higher IQ's who are demonstrably more able in various forms of problem solving than their unbelieving counterparts. Just because people have minds that work in different ways to the rest of the 'masses' or because they defy whatever is the 'popular philosophy' of the sheeple today, doesn't make ANY comment at all on their intelligence or whether they are right to believe what they believe. Until you can disprove them, you've absolutely no right to make such comments, except in illustrating your own stupidity and prejudice.

I know theists who can out-think most of the 'popular atheist thinkers' you can possibly imagine, and note that it is demonstrable that most popular 'atheist' argument is mindlessly recited by people who've never actually considered the subject in any depth on their own behalf, without any regard for its irrationality, in spite of claims that it represents 'rational' thinking.
#40
FilthAndFurry
That's not true though. Even without religion, we'd still fight over land. That's what most religious wars were about.

Religion just happens to be a good motivator.



More like a good 'excuse', in the most part one revisionistically applied by relatively 'modern' humanists and atheists. The majority of the discernable 'religious' wars of modern history have been conducted almost exclusively by two main groups: muslims and catholics, who have both made victims out of absolutely every other religious group they came across, and both functioned not as a religion, but as a societally-controlling imperialist system using religion as a force of control and manipulation. Of course, it isn't politically correct to be historically factual and objective, because to be so would mean that we have to actually tell the truth, and single out problem patterns with problem groups, which they tend not to like to hear.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!