What's Happening

Troperville

Tools

collapse/expand topics back to Main/Religulous

 

TrevMUN
topic
05:06:00 PM Dec 1st 2011
edited by TrevMUN
I've restored examples that Ki TA either edited or removed, which he wrongly labeled as "single-issue natter." This is patently impossible according to the definition of the term; natter is Conversation in the Main Page, not "Examples You Don't Like."

Natter consists of conversational edits of people replying to examples with sub-examples in an attempt to argue against what was previously written, and often (but does not always) include first-person language. The use of sub-examples to create a multi-part list under a primary example is not a case of natter. That Ki TA labeled the examples he removed as "single-issue natter" strikes me as a dishonest attempt to sweep legitimate examples under the rug by disguising it as a violation of TV Tropes Administrivia.

Ki TA included some glaring examples of factual error in the examples he didn't remove. Under Manipulative Editing, he stated that BeliefNet is a "Christian blog," when in actuality, BeliefNet is a multi-faith community, including atheism in its mix as well as smaller but still extant religions (such as Zoroastrianism). BeliefNet is not itself affiliated with any specific religious, spiritual, or nonreligious organization or movement; it functions as an open forum for everyone, no matter what they believe.
KiTA
06:16:56 PM Dec 1st 2011
I was attempting to be polite. Your edits were slanted with a heavy (although possibly subconscious) anti-Bill Maher bias and your sources are a (formerly) Fox News owned Mythology Blog post (the fact that the site has a forum does not change the fact that the linked article is a blog post).

Some of the edits were square peg round trope — for example, calling Maher — a noted Athiest / Agnostic — a Fundamentalist? That... really doesn't fit, and is on the "no real life examples, please" list. Smug Snake — no real life examples, per the trope page (I should have just removed it outright, and shall shortly). Also, please review the following paragraph on the Author Tract page:

Please do not use this page as an excuse to complain about an author you don't like. Keep in mind that, for a work to qualify here, the message has to be obvious and heavy handed. Don't use this page to Complain About Messages You Disagree With.

You obviously disagree with the message of his work, and while the entry for Author Tract may arguably fit, potholing it over and over again is unnecessary, especially when using it to back up your opinion on what the work's goals are — it really comes across at first glance as a synonym for the aforementioned "complaining about messages you disagree with."

In addition, your claim that the "whole point" of the documentary is to make religious people look like idiots is an opinion, as the stated goal of the documentary is to question why otherwise rational people believe in irrational things. Thus, by definition his point isn't that these believers are stupid, it's that they're believing in something that, when disconnected from all tradition, faith, and Religious connotations, comes across as pure fantasy. Jonah and the Whale, for example, as the quote from Maher shows.

The fact that when questioned the irrationality of these things comes to the forefront and the fact that these otherwise intelligent people have trouble explaining and articulating why they believe them is a concept called Cognitive Dissonance — when someone believes in two contradictory things.

The fact that they look like idiots when questioned about it is a side effect of the Cognitive Dissonance, not the actual (direct) point of the film.

Remember, a Documentary of this style's point isn't to provide answers, just to ask questions. It also has to be entertaining, and nowhere in the description is neutrality required.
TrevMUN
06:33:26 PM Dec 1st 2011
edited by TrevMUN
"... your sources are a (formerly) Fox News owned Mythology Blog post (the fact that the site has a forum does not change the fact that the linked article is a blog post)."

The fact you are insisting on calling religion "mythology" tells me right off the bat you are not trying to be polite.

I've tried looking into your claim that BeliefNet was formerly owned by Fox News. What I've been able to find is that BeliefNet has partnerships with The Wall Street Journal, Chicken Soup for the Soul, and Fox Faith. The site was not created by Fox Entertainment Group. It's been around since 1999. It was briefly acquired by News Corp (the parent company of Fox News) for a few years; it's currently owned by BN Media, who bought it in 2010.

However, that's not even the main issue here. Justifying your labeling of BeliefNet as a "Christian blog" because you say that it was once owned by Fox News strikes me as a Chewbacca Defense.

Furthermore, you are also incorrectly claiming that Seed Magazine, the other source provided, was formerly owned by Fox News. Seed Magazine is an online magazine published by the Seed Media Group that focuses on science. It has nothing to do with BeliefNet.

"Some of the edits were square peg round trope for example, calling Maher a noted Athiest / Agnostic a Fundamentalist? That... really doesn't fit, and is on the "no real life examples, please" list."

Bill Maher qualifies as a fundamentalist according to the trope definition, which you will note is not restricted to religious examples, and includes many ideologies that have little or nothing to do with religious belief. Claiming "he doesn't fit" just because he's an atheist or agnostic is incorrect.

You are right, though, on that trope it requests that no one add Real Life examples. In that case, the example should be removed entirely.

"Remember, a Documentary of this style's point isn't to provide answers, just to ask questions. It also has to be entertaining, and nowhere in the description is neutrality required."

This comes off to me as contradictory. On one hand you wag your finger and claim documentaries are subjective, not objective, and don't seek to provide answers—but then you tell me that neutrality is not required in documentaries.

Religulous is clearly a documentary that seeks to influence the audience, not inform it. It's one of many documentaries made in recent decades that tries to do so.

Further, that Bill Maher "only asks questions" is clearly not what happens in this film. Even reviewers who liked the film, such as Roger Ebert, point this out: "Or maybe 'talks with' is not quite the right phrase. It's more that he lines them up and shoots them down. He interrupts, talks over, slaps on subtitles, edits in movie and TV clips, and doesn't play fair."
KiTA
07:16:58 PM Dec 1st 2011
edited by KiTA
Lets agree to disagree about some of the above, with one caveat — Mythology is the correct word choice. The fact that it's in reference to an active religion and not say, the worship of Thor, makes no difference.

Manipulative Editing. The trope entry as you have provided has incorrect whitespacing, which is why I continue to try to prune it down. Double slashes to add whitespaces isn't appropriate styling in a trope entry. I believe you are trying to include a quote, but not marking it as such — and the quote is nearly the same size as the entry, which means it probably shouldn't be there. Lets prune it down to two bullet points, and ditch the quote entirely.
TrevMUN
09:03:14 PM Dec 1st 2011
edited by TrevMUN
"Lets agree to disagree about some of the above ..."

As far as the most recent edit you've made, I would be willing to accept that, save for the two things below:

"... with one caveat Mythology is the correct word choice. The fact that it's in reference to an active religion and not say, the worship of Thor, makes no difference."

No. Religion and mythology differ. Academics use the word "mythology" to refer to any body of stories and the study of myths—different academics have different criteria for what stories they consider to be myth. Religion is a broader term that encompasses morality, theology, and doctrines; it's inappropriate to refer to religion as mythology on those grounds.

Furthermore, you know as well as I do that "myth" is a loaded term, as it is primarily used to mean something false, invented, or imaginary in the public eye. "Mythology" is associated with this because it contains that word; such an association is not new. C.S. Lewis wrote in his biography that when he was still an atheist, he maintained that "All religions, that is all mythologies, to give them their proper name, are merely man's own invention—Christ as much as Loki." That was back in 1916, from a letter he wrote to a friend. As that was almost a hundred years ago, it demonstrates just how long the word "mythology" has been used disparagingly to regard all religions as fiction.

In that context, when you insist on using the word "mythology" to refer to religion, especially when you know "religion" would be the more appropriate word to use, you are consciously, deliberately, and explicitly trying to incite a flame war. It says a lot about your personal beliefs, your opinions of all forms of religion, and your motives for editing this article when you tell me that religion is merely a synonym for mythology, to say nothing of your insistence on using the latter word in all case where it would be appropriate to use the former instead—you're using the academic meaning of the word as an excuse to foist your opinion that "all religions are bunk" on topics like this, and that is not cool.

Oh, and by the way. People still worship Thor, which renders your statements about "active" religions moot. My objection to your usage of the word "mythology" has nothing to do with whether a religion is alive or dead, or how many believers practice it today.

Also, I'm going to remove this sub-example you keep adding:

** Having said that, John Adams (like many of the founding fathers) was noted to lean towards Deism in his other writings — the belief in Christian wisdom but the disbelief in the Supernatural, not unlike many modern day Agnostics or Athiests.

You're clearly adding this to argue against the evidence that Bill Maher engaged in Quote Mining John Adams; i.e. you're trying to prove with a not-so-Justifying Edit that John Adams meant exactly what Bill Maher deceives the audience into thinking he meant in his letter to Thomas Jefferson.

Furthermore, it's incorrect. John Adams wasn't a Deist; he was a Unitarian (a Christian denomination) that incorporated Humanist and Deist concepts into some of his philosophy, according to historians Gregg L. Frazer and David L. Holmes.

Even if he was actually a full-fledged Deist, your point would have been irrelevant. John Adams' words speak for themselves. Your "Justifying" Edit also puts forth the assumption that Deists were "proto-Atheists" who died out once someone was "brave enough" to embrace full Atheism. That is offensively incorrect; Deists are still very much around today, and they aren't particularly fond of being labeled "proto-Atheists" even if their beliefs reject "revealed religion."
CuriousCat
04:50:52 PM Jul 24th 2012
How bout we all leave our religious views at the door? Honestly, this whole thing is Your Mileage May Vary, So everyone take a bloody breather and stop making yourselves look bad by fighting.
back to Main/Religulous

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy