First, let's talk about the reasons for watching this film (note that I use the word 'movie' instead of 'documentary'), one of which is that religion is such an important part of making up culture that I have never had After a systematic understanding, I hope to use the cauldron of freedom of speech in the old and the United States to stir up this topic, and look at the opinions of religious opponents. Second, Bill Maher, the talk show host whom I liked by the anchor Jiang Shengyang, made a point of mocking and satirizing such a sensitive topic. It is said that Tumoto also recommended it. There is no expectation in the academic context of penetrating and penetrating analysis, after all, this is a matter of the academic world.
However, I wanted to flip the table when I saw it halfway through. What, it's just a funny master showing off his eloquence and sophistry. If you have the sincerity to interview the interviewee face to face, I ask you to ridicule everything in your bones. Those who come to sell skepticism, I am afraid that whoever sells mine will pay for it.
You get a bunch of devout, down-to-earth country believers and you stand on the pulpit and start preaching 'your religion is a bunch of shit'. You're leisurely doing it in your comfortable interview car, chatting with a few of your filming entourage about how absurd the interviewee's remarks just now are, and adding your contemptuous ability that seems to be a personal mark Laughter that interrupts someone's train of thought. Oh, you are invincible and you say 'If you think the salvation and mercy of religion is death, then why don't you die? ' That lovely old grandfather who believed in miracles could only smile bitterly: 'I still have an unfinished mission in this world'. KAO, your rascal temperament is really ready to show. When religion was born, it faced its own development and the division of different viewpoints. The sects that have been differentiated from itself are already endless and have different viewpoints. How can you use your three inches Not bad tongue and the single argument of 'there is no proof that God exists' to refute everyone's 'religion' one by one.
As the lovely Vatican cardinal said, religion was born before science, and there is a long gap in between, and you can't try to discover scientific things from religion. I think what he wants to express is that in the age of ignorance, religion replaced the task of science, and because it has a long history of development, it has participated in almost all changes in the cognitive world of human beings and developed side by side with human history. It has evolved into a deeply rooted culture, not only for believers but also for atheists and agnostics. Of course, this is not because the culture itself does not have any absurdity, it is just that you directly pointed out whether there is such an incomprehensible God at the beginning instead of asking the interviewee to give an answer in black and white, if you have not seriously thought about this The person in question will be speechless for a while, because the religion they understand is no longer the 'God-worshiping religion' that you said traced back to its origin, but a kind of 'idol' that may have nothing to do with spiritual beliefs. You are discussing what kind of people God likes in the same article, and what God wants us to do. Do you know how many of the things we observe are clearly specified in the Old and New Testaments after the reformation of religion for so many years, and how many are human beings? Modified according to the doctrinal understanding of God's will.
If you are still talking about being stuck with boring church services every weekend as a child, talking about the potential impact of the religious structure of your family on you, and even pulling your mother out to reluctantly comment on your point of view (although the elderly also give The undeniable conclusion, but it's not as you said, we lost our faith, it's just that we were abandoned by the now alienated Catholicism) is to win a little sympathy from the audience, thinking that you are a child who has struggled to survive in the shackles of religion since childhood. The trick of an innocent little life is that after you become a middle-class carefree and can run the train with your mouth full, you will ridicule it with various loopholes in religion, and then stand on the commanding heights of faith and say a particularly handsome saying, "No faith is a luxury now." ', this is like a chicken talking to a duck. After talking about the duck's low IQ and no discernment, he has to straighten his noble tie and solemnly declare that the chicken is as sublime as the nobility, not to mention whether this statement is correct or not. The simple and crude method of arguing without any arguments is inherently absurd.
Hey, originally I calmly analyzed it based on several perspectives, argued with you with reason, and doubted it, so I could practice the only thing I learned from you - skepticism. But after writing for a long time, I found out that it was all about venting anger. Below, I will briefly sort out my thoughts based on the short comments of Douyou I agree with.
1 Christianity = The Bible?
According to my incomplete viewing experience, uncle, you are entangled in a few short stories in the Bible, such as the pregnancy of the Virgin Mary, the shroud, the objection to homosexuality in the Book of Leviticus of the Old Testament, and God is a man and a God, etc. It is undeniable that this A few stories that are really enough to be called the foundation of Christianity, are so popular that even a guy like me who is not familiar with religion listens to them as fairy tales. But after all, this is a story that cannot be tested by today's science, and you are also asking ordinary believers who may not even know which denomination they belong to, rather than religious historians, scholars or scientists, so as to give everyone a clear picture It appears that, if we just keep asking these questions, the interviewees can’t answer, and people who gloat at misfortune have no way to refute their own views. How about such a comprehensive system/is it fair to a religion with a huge theoretical system? It was also a relentless violation of the respondents' own religious beliefs. Sociological investigations are either based on extensive systematic sampling surveys, or based on historical data verification and regression, although you are an anchor, you can always find a decent professional consultant. The form of the hodgepodge of well-established arguments may not be so sensational in appearance, but at least there is no such thing as piggyback looking in the mirror. It is not the end of people. Religious people are half-dead. Ugly and offend.
2. Attitude
I would like to question your role in this 'documentary'. First of all, you are a semi-journalist who leads everyone to contact social resources and interview religious people from all walks of life. The best way is to ask questions skillfully, Let the audience clarify the American public's religious views from the respondents' answers. Whether or not you can prove your false views on religion depends on your question. You better not try to control the audience. Maybe you are on a talk show. I'm used to controlling the audience in the show, and now that you are so far away from the audience, you can only vent your control on the poor interviewee. Maybe you are a star in the show and a bitch loves you, but don't forget to follow the oppression. It is actually quite shameless for the interviewer to let them passively express your point of view.
3 The Battle of the Stereotypes
Although all parties are staying on the island of their own views, even drifting farther and farther, and sticking to each other's prejudices, but I have seen the way the two sides exchanged views, the Christian faction showed more tolerance for dissent and calm exchanges (Is it the spiritual forgiveness of Christianity to the Lost Lamb?) And uncle, you are like an old angry youth, you are definitely not here for collegiality (of course there is no need for collegiality), you are here for trouble.
4 Conclusion
Religious issues have always been a hot potato. I saw a report a few days ago that even President Obama's flattery of religion is greater than science, and he would rather invest in solving religious issues than the poor few sciences. Spending money on the project shows that it is not something that you can solve with a few questions to move this big stone that is a mixture of history, culture, politics and even economics. It requires more prudent scholars from all sides to pry it open a little bit. Of course we admit it. Your original intention is really infinitely good.
View more about Religulous reviews
