The Golden Compass

[CrashBomb]

Besides atheists are just as unreasonable as the religious.

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to back that one up. I realize that extremism and fundamentalism on either side is ridiculous, flawed, and represents a serious glitch in the human psyche. But to make broad sweeping generalizations that argue the atheists are as "unreasonable" as the religious population indicates a serious lack of understanding of the central issue in this debate.

Atheists, for the most part, are logical, scientific, free thinking, and yes, eminently REASONABLE people who are just tired of being fed the same dogma that has silenced and prevented free thought and progress for thousands of years. Of course there are loud mouthed and closed minded atheists out there, just as there are similar Christians or Muslims or Hindus. But those irrational viewpoints are much rarer in the atheist camp than they are on the Judeo-Christian-Islamic side of the equation.

Atheists are not the ones perpetrating the wars, suppressing scientific discovery, oppressing members of contrary religions, trying to kill anyone who doesn't believe exactly what they believe to the letter, or refusing chemotherapy and radiation treatment because they believe that they can cure their children's cancer with prayer.

 

[Revlis]

Guys its just a movie!

What's funny is I have no idea who the Author is, what the movie is about, or why someone would be offended...

I just know that in a FREE society, ANY sort of conversation from religious fanatics wanting to shut something down, or block it out is going down the wrong path.

 

[Busa Jules]

You know I just had one of my students tell me about this book (she read the series) and how it is anti-religion and now they are turning it into a kids movie. See not all teenagers are dumb. Crazy stuff

And since it has been since the first Pirates of the Carribean since I went to the movies, I'll probably forget about it by the time it makes it to DVD!

 

[VaBusa]

What I find amusing is that in recent memory, no less than 3 series of films comes to mind as possibly being perceived as "challenging organized religion" in that they bring our existence down to only GOOD vs. EVIL, they rely heavily on the "magical" aspects of mythical landscapes, and there was NO hype or attempts to boycott said films...

The Harry Potter series
Lord of the Rings
The Matrix trilogy

Toss in all of the Star Wars films and I'm honestly shocked we aren't boycotting more

I'll make my final judgments AFTER I've watched the film and/or read the books...

 

[jessup]

You either have your own relationship with God or the spaghetti monster or whatever which is firm and unshakeable OR you rely on someone else's perception and judgement and dislikes and bleat like every other sheep out there.

Don't hear anyone complaining about those bratz dolls which I find more dangerous than any movie.

 

[LCB]

Don't hear anyone complaining about those bratz dolls which I find more dangerous than any movie.

I second that - AND they have a movie out now too.... conspiracy???

 

[RedBusa]

Besides atheists are just as unreasonable as the religious.

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to back that one up. I realize that extremism and fundamentalism on either side is ridiculous, flawed, and represents a serious glitch in the human psyche. But to make broad sweeping generalizations that argue the atheists are as "unreasonable" as the religious population indicates a serious lack of understanding of the central issue in this debate.

Atheists, for the most part, are logical, scientific, free thinking, and yes, eminently REASONABLE people who are just tired of being fed the same dogma that has silenced and prevented free thought and progress for thousands of years. Of course there are loud mouthed and closed minded atheists out there, just as there are similar Christians or Muslims or Hindus. But those irrational viewpoints are much rarer in the atheist camp than they are on the Judeo-Christian-Islamic side of the equation.

Atheists are not the ones perpetrating the wars, suppressing scientific discovery, oppressing members of contrary religions, trying to kill anyone who doesn't believe exactly what they believe to the letter, or refusing chemotherapy and radiation treatment because they believe that they can cure their children's cancer with prayer.

I agree with everything you just stated. I'm quite anti-religious. Its the atheists that lack understanding of their own position from a philosophical point of view. They just know they don't believe in God but never try to be consistent in thought. Most atheists are agnostics, they just don't know any better,

I take the atheists position as, rejecting the idea of a God, "¦as either believing that God does not exist or knowing that God does not exist. Yet as they would admit, since the human mind's scope of operation is limited to sense experience, they are stepping outside their rational bounds if they are to make such statements in a positive sense, and are as irrational if they are to rely on "Ëœbelief'.

The proper position should be agnosticism, which I take to be, accepting that the idea of God is unknowable in principal due to the nature of phenomenal experience which we are inherently limited to.

 

[CrashBomb]

What I find amusing is that in recent memory, no less than 3 series of films comes to mind as possibly being perceived as "challenging organized religion" in that they bring our existence down to only GOOD vs. EVIL, they rely heavily on the "magical" aspects of mythical landscapes, and there was NO hype or attempts to boycott said films...

The Harry Potter series
Lord of the Rings
The Matrix trilogy

Toss in all of the Star Wars films and I'm honestly shocked we aren't boycotting more

I'll make my final judgments AFTER I've watched the film and/or read the books...

There was a lot of Christian boycott movements against the early Harry Potter novels. By the time the movies rolled around the story was tired and the media was no longer covering the protests. Tolkien's work has always invoked ire from the fundamentalists, not so much the LOTR trilogy as The Silmarillion, as it deals with the creation of the universe in a different way than most Christians believe. Once again, by the time Peter Jackson got around to making the movies the controversy had largely died off.

I'd argue that there have been a LOT more films that challenged the accepted idea of organized religion.

The Last Temptation of the Christ showed the world a Jesus that many Christians were totally unable to accept.

The Life of Brian is a scathing satire of organized religion.

What's That Knocking At My Door from 1968 is Scorsese's indictment of the Catholic church's prehistoric views on human sexuality.

Heaven Help Us dealt with Catholic indoctrination and Second Time Lucky provided a revisionist "Adam and Eve" story that virtually reversed the roles of God and Satan.

There are many others, The Mission, The Name of the Rose, Salvation, and even Diane Keaton's directorial debut Heaven.

Recently, fundamentalists and the religious right have protested The Da Vinci Code, (both the book and the movie) because it provides an alternate view of the life of Christ, all the Harry Potter junk because they believe it will turn children to witchcraft, and yes, even the Star Wars series because it dares to suggest the fact that what some people call "god" may be nothing more than molecular chemistry inside the human body.

This is not a new trend in Hollywood.

 

[dadofthree]

You guys are pushing me; can't think of a way to Ho this thread

 

[RedBusa]

The "spaghetti monster" theorem (B.Russell?), is a poor analogy to the concept of a God. The "Ëœspaghetti monster' idea would never have independently occurred to people on every corner of the planet. The idea of a God is not as arbitrary as that.

 

[RedBusa]

You guys are pushing me; can't think of a way to Ho this thread

huh?

 

[VaBusa]

What I find amusing is that in recent memory, no less than 3 series of films comes to mind as possibly being perceived as "challenging organized religion" in that they bring our existence down to only GOOD vs. EVIL, they rely heavily on the "magical" aspects of mythical landscapes, and there was NO hype or attempts to boycott said films...

The Harry Potter series
Lord of the Rings
The Matrix trilogy

Toss in all of the Star Wars films and I'm honestly shocked we aren't boycotting more

I'll make my final judgments AFTER I've watched the film and/or read the books...

There was a lot of Christian boycott movements against the early Harry Potter novels. By the time the movies rolled around the story was tired and the media was no longer covering the protests. Tolkien's work has always invoked ire from the fundamentalists, not so much the LOTR trilogy as The Silmarillion, as it deals with the creation of the universe in a different way than most Christians believe. Once again, by the time Peter Jackson got around to making the movies the controversy had largely died off.

I'd argue that there have been a LOT more films that challenged the accepted idea of organized religion.

The Last Temptation of the Christ showed the world a Jesus that many Christians were totally unable to accept.

The Life of Brian is a scathing satire of organized religion.

What's That Knocking At My Door from 1968 is Scorsese's indictment of the Catholic church's prehistoric views on human sexuality.

Heaven Help Us dealt with Catholic indoctrination and Second Time Lucky provided a revisionist "Adam and Eve" story that virtually reversed the roles of God and Satan.

There are many others, The Mission, The Name of the Rose, Salvation, and even Diane Keaton's directorial debut Heaven.

Recently, fundamentalists and the religious right have protested The Da Vinci Code, (both the book and the movie) because it provides an alternate view of the life of Christ, all the Harry Potter junk because they believe it will turn children to witchcraft, and yes, even the Star Wars series because it dares to suggest the fact that what some people call "god" may be nothing more than molecular chemistry inside the human body.

This is not a new trend in Hollywood.

Fortunately I was living under my rock and missed the Potter boycotting; figured that only began AFTER the author took her left turn at Albuquerque and said Dumbledore was gay

I do recall the chaos before, during and after the Last Temptation of Christ. Before the drama, I had no interest in watching the film, but because of all of the hype, I did...I had no issues with the movie at all, but I feel I'm in a small minority there...

The Life of Brian is arguably one of the funniest films ever...

I think I'll go rent it

It's just funny what "bandwagon" some ultra religious organizations opt to jump on...honestly, put this energy in to something that will make a difference in peoples' lives...go help the homeless or raise money to cover the costs of so many in therapy after being molested by religious leaders...I find it ironic that that which bothers some the most (a movie) means the least to the masses... *sigh*

Flying Spaghetti Monster...now that is some hysterical banter, if you can see it for what it is...RAmen...

 

[VaBusa]

You guys are pushing me; can't think of a way to Ho this thread

huh?

dadofthree just likes to post 'ho...pay him no mind and he may go away

 

[CrashBomb]

I'm quite anti-religious. Its the atheists that lack understanding of their own position from a philosophical point of view. They just know they don't believe in God but never try to be consistent in thought. Most atheists are agnostics, they just know any better,

You're splitting hairs on the definition of agnosticism and atheism, but modern religion lumps them both together as some kind of combined enemy. According to most western religious traditions, agnostics ARE atheists simply because they don't believe in the prescribed notion of a Christian god. Atheists don't lack philosophical understanding of their view point, if they did lack that understanding they wouldn't have come to said view point. Atheism REQUIRES consistency of thought, applying the same understanding we as humans have of the physical universe to the so called "spiritual universe." Scientific atheists are unwilling to compartmentalize their scientific thought processes and separate them from the human need to believe in some force larger than us.

As Carl Sagan said, "I'd like to believe, on some days I wish I could. I'm willing to reconsider my position if you show me evidence, but it has to be MY evidence on MY terms."

Anyway, the difference between atheists and agnostics is not the issue. You're still going to have to back up your statement that the atheist/agnostic camp is unreasonable in the same way that the fundamentally religious camp is unreasonable. That is the statement I was debating, not the semantics of the situation.

"There have been many gods in human history, you don't believe in all of them. In a way we're all atheists, I just go one god further." -Richard Dawkins

 

[ks-waterbug]

Oh and Nothing but love Sonny... You know that.  

I'm feeling it here my Brother....  

No all kidding aside interesting to see who thinks what, but most importantly why? I'm sure its a lot like a fist fight in that no matter who strikes the biggest blow neither side will concede to a loss.. I mean after all if you pumel someone they don't really pick themselves back up and dust themselves off to then instantly agree to what ever you were just arguing about now do they? But, its still very very interesting...

 

[CrashBomb]

The "spaghetti monster" theorem (B.Russell?), is a poor analogy to the concept of a God. The "Ëœspaghetti monster' idea would never have independently occurred to people on every corner of the planet. The idea of a God is not as arbitrary as that.

That statement presupposes that for the concept of "god" to be valid it must be widely imagined or conceived by more than one person. Where does it say that the idea of God must be independently arrived at simultaneously by various different individuals?

 

[VaBusa]

It's a good subject Sonny; kind of shocked it didn't show up weeks ago when I first heard the controversy over the film...WWJD's fallen asleep at the wheel here

I guess I always wonder, at the heart of controversies such as this, why so many will "just believe whatever they read or hear" over actually making a determination for themselves. I guess since the Catholic Church says it's bad, everyone's just supposed to fall in line and believe what's being boycotted? I don't fall for that line of thinking; never have, never will...doesn't matter what my beliefs may be, I like deciding what's good for me, myself...I don't need anyone else deciding for me...

At the heart of this controversy is the simple fact that the author is atheist, plain and simple. It would be amusing to see, before the fast-paced technologically driven society we have today, just how many works of art admired by so many in various avenues of the arts were done by atheists. You're essentially taking an entire person and breaking them down in to one thing, basing everything you feel about that one thing and passing judgment. I've never understood that part of religion at all...to me, it is exactly what you should never do, but I interpret things differently I suppose.

 

[dadofthree]

I'm quite anti-religious. Its the atheists that lack understanding of their own position from a philosophical point of view. They just know they don't believe in God but never try to be consistent in thought. Most atheists are agnostics, they just know any better,

You're splitting hairs on the definition of agnosticism and atheism, but modern religion lumps them both together as some kind of combined enemy. According to most western religious traditions, agnostics ARE atheists simply because they don't believe in the prescribed notion of a Christian god. Atheists don't lack philosophical understanding of their view point, if they did lack that understanding they wouldn't have come to said view point. Atheism REQUIRES consistency of thought, applying the same understanding we as humans have of the physical universe to the so called "spiritual universe." Scientific atheists are unwilling to compartmentalize their scientific thought processes and separate them from the human need to believe in some force larger than us.

As Carl Sagan said, "I'd like to believe, on some days I wish I could. I'm willing to reconsider my position if you show me evidence, but it has to be MY evidence on MY terms."

Anyway, the difference between atheists and agnostics is not the issue. You're still going to have to back up your statement that the atheist/agnostic camp is unreasonable in the same way that the fundamentally religious camp is unreasonable. That is the statement I was debating, not the semantics of the situation.

"There have been many gods in human history, you don't believe in all of them. In a way we're all atheists, I just go one god further." -Richard Dawkins

"Christian God" He's a little better than that, technically I think we share Him with everyone, but especially Jews, and Muslims. I digress


Going away now.

 

[WWJD]

hahahahhaha! fun reading

 

[CrashBomb]

"Christian God" He's a little better than that, technically I think we share Him with everyone, but especially Jews, and Muslims. I digress


Going away now.

I agree with that sentiment. The three largest monotheistic traditions in the world all arguably share the same deity, yet those three religions have historically been first in line to slaughter the other two because of their minor differences of interpretation.

But my point wasn't that the "Christian God" is limited to only Christians. My point was that the definition of "atheist" has lately been changed by the religious right from "a person who does not hold a belief in ANY divine being of any form," to "any person who doesn't believe what I believe."