The Golden Compass

[RedBusa]

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. That is the statement I was debating, not the semantics of the situation.

I never said Agnosticism was unreasonable; I consider myself in that camp.
The difference between atheists and agnostics is the issue if you want me to back up my statement. The confusion over the two by western religious traditions is irrelevant. It matters to atheists what atheism means and to agnostics what agnosticism means, not what their opposition wrongly confusses.

From Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Atheist: one who believes that there is no deity

Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable;

You may consider it splitting hairs, but if the atheists are so rational and scientific, then they would ensure that they split those hairs, to better understand their own position,.. because the difference is colossal philosophically.

Agnostics in effect recognize that the epistemological limits of understanding, and so the nature of the scientific method, in fact precludes them from at all speaking of non-phenomenal reality, God. So logically they cannot acknowledge such a reality, BUT nor can they reject it on the same rational grounds.

The atheist however, will and do positively reject God, rather than admitting such "Ëœthings' are not accessible to human reason and leaving it at that. It is irrational to say there is no deity, and so atheists are as irrational as the religious.

 

[RedBusa]

 

[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.

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?

It's a deductive fact if you can regard history as such, that the concept of God has in fact evolved independently in all diverse areas of the planet. Russells teapot (or spaghetti monster) would never have been independently invented like that. This does not lend one gram of evidence to proof of a God of course,.. i was just referring to a statement by Bertrand Russell; the "spaghetti monster" idea or I think he mentioned tea pots.

I think we argue from the same side, I'm non-religious and an agnostic.

 

[CrashBomb]

I never said Agnosticism was unreasonable; I consider myself in that camp.
The difference between atheists and agnostics is the issue if you want me to back up my statement. The confusion over the two by western religious traditions is irrelevant. It matters to atheists what atheism means and to agnostics what agnosticism means, not what their opposition wrongly confusses.

From Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Atheist: one who believes that there is no deity

Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable;

You may consider it splitting hairs, but if the atheists are so rational and scientific, then they would ensure that they split those hairs, to better understand their own position,.. because the difference is colossal philosophically.

Agnostics in effect recognize that the epistemological limits of understanding, and so the nature of the scientific method, in fact precludes them from at all speaking of non-phenomenal reality, God. So logically they cannot acknowledge such a reality, BUT nor can they reject it on the same rational grounds.

The atheist however, will and do positively reject God, rather than admitting such "Ëœthings' are not accessible to human reason and leaving it at that. It is irrational to say there is no deity, and so atheists are as irrational as the religious.

Much better. I suppose that, using the According to Hoyle definition of "atheism," you have a valid point. I was also arguing a different definition of the word "irrational." I agree that just sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALA there is no god," is every bit as foolish as sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "LALALALA there IS a god." And I agree that most self described "atheists" are in fact "agnostics." I just wanted you to clarify the statement you made so people would realize you weren't equating "irrational" with "wrong." And that you have done, and I applaud your eloquence.

 

[VaBusa]

*group hug*

Anyone want to go to the movies now?

 

[CrashBomb]

It's a deductive fact if you can regard history as such, that the concept of God has in fact evolved independently in all diverse areas of the planet. Russells teapot (or spaghetti monster) would never have been independently invented like that. This does not lend one gram of evidence to proof of a God of course,..

It's always interested me that many religious pundits have used this very theory to argue the existence of a particular god. The argument goes something along the lines of, "If this many people believe it independently from one another then it must be true." Curiously, logic dictates that the exact OPPOSITE is true and if that many people believe it then in all probability it has more to do with the human cognitive process than any outside divine being.

Einstein believed that god was an equation.

Terrence McKenna believed that god was a molecule.

Sagan believed that god was the sum total of the laws of physics.

Herman Hesse believed that god was our own mind and thought processes.

 

[CrashBomb]

*group hug*

Anyone want to go to the movies now?

The best movies are always the ones that make people angry.

Notice I said "best" and not "most successful," because, historically, the movies that make people angry almost always completely tank when the final box office numbers come in. But I hope no one here equates "good" with "financially successful."

Conflict is the essence of drama, and the best movies have always been the ones that create or examine conflict and inspire discourse.

 

[RedBusa]

It's a deductive fact if you can regard history as such, that the concept of God has in fact evolved independently in all diverse areas of the planet. Russells teapot (or spaghetti monster) would never have been independently invented like that. This does not lend one gram of evidence to proof of a God of course,..

It's always interested me that many religious pundits have used this very theory to argue the existence of a particular god. The argument goes something along the lines of, "If this many people believe it independently from one another then it must be true." Curiously, logic dictates that the exact OPPOSITE is true and if that many people believe it then in all probability it has more to do with the human cognitive process than any outside divine being.

Einstein believed that god was an equation.

Terrence McKenna believed that god was a molecule.

Sagan believed that god was the sum total of the laws of physics.

Herman Hesse believed that god was our own mind and thought processes.

Yes, exactly, it is a predisposed and bias view the world,... 'we make things, ...trees and mountains are things,.. He is great that made those...''. But the fact is that the universe exists and is not arbitrary, If God didn't exist we would have invented him.

Sounds like Sagan's thought on the matter is close to Spinoza, of whom Einstein much admired. Of course, Sagan's God would be the product of sense experience subjected to the preconditions and limits of human understanding, reality sifted by the mind, so he would leave 'something' out,. .. the problem of noumenal reality would still remain.

 

[CrashBomb]

Of course, Sagan's God would be the product of sense experience subjected to the preconditions and limits of human understanding, reality sifted by the mind, so he would leave 'something' out,. .. the problem of noumenal reality would still remain.

And Sagan's thoughts on THAT particular matter, in my opinion, make him one of the most forward thinking and level headed individuals who ever discussed the subject.

His lack of belief in any of the established "god" hypothesis did not belie a lack of faith oh his part. He said on many occasions that he simply did not have the evidence he felt was necessary to come to a definite and permanent conclusion. He always held out hope for certain beliefs to be proved true or false in the future. But in the mean time his scientific skepticism insisted that he postpone judgment on most matters of spirituality. He was absolutely WILLING to believe, he just required scientifically falsifiable or logically refutable evidence.

If you're interested in his views on the subject, read The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search For God which is a transcription by his wife Ann Druyan of Carl's 1985 Gifford Lectures.

Or The Demon Haunted World: Science As A Candle in the Dark, which deals less with religious matters and more with the idea of cultivating a healthy skepticism, but in several chapters he and Ann both rationally discuss at length the psychological aspects of religion (i.e. humans have a preprogrammed need to believe in something...anything) and their implications to organized religious tradition.

 

[frisbee]

I can watch any ANTI-GOD movie and still be who I am . I am solid in my faith , and don't care what anyone else thinks . That will be thier problem someday when they are face to face with the Lord .




By the way , Hold a gun to the head of an atheist and see who he pleds for !

 

[frisbee]

Think about it this way : If you are an atheist and you are right then no problem but , if you are wrong , What are you going to say ? If i'm wrong , I got no problem , if i'm right I got no problem !



And yes I do believe that we all pray to the same God . Jews, Muslims, and Christians, ECT....

 

[Gunnybusa]

by all the drama kings no suprise there

 

[CrashBomb]

By the way , Hold a gun to the head of an atheist and see who he pleds for !

But I can't be a missionary...I don't even believe in Jebus.

AHH...SAVE ME JEBUS!

Hold a gun to the head of a Hindu and see who he appeals to.

 

[CrashBomb]

Think about it this way : If you are an atheist and you are right then no problem but , if you are wrong , What are you going to say ? If i'm wrong , I got no problem , if i'm right I got no problem !

Then thank God you worship a god who's more concerned with semantics than a righteous and fulfilled life.

 

[LA Busa]

Geez, the wind is blowing on this one eh, thanks Bug!

Ok, here is my contribution, beyond my  

 posted earlier...

I get home from the office, the wife asks if I read this post (yeah, The Board enjoys that magnitude with us), I say yes, she says,"go ask your son what he was told today at school by his Coach" my son is 11.

I smirk and do so.

When I get to his room and ask he looks up from his computer and says:
"Coach told us that the Golden Compass is about a girl who is out to kill God and not to watch it".

I told him "then by golly, we wont watch it".



Honestly, I am partial to womens prison flicks anyway!
*Oh, I dont let him watch those either*

 

[ks-waterbug]

Wow... This thing really moved along! I guess the best part is your free to choose... And IMOP that says a lot about my God!
There is no fear of chosing either in this life! Free Will, one of God's greatest gifts.
Now, if your a non-believer then the same still applies you just won't have to answer to a higher power when you die  

 

[WWJD]

k, I didn't read all this.

A. I still have no Tree [no kids or family to pressure for that]

2. As a Christian, there are TONS of movies out every year that are so UNhealthy to people, that I skip them, this is simply another one, and no a movie won't shake my foundation.

R. If CHRIST has NOTHING to do with CHRISTmas, someone please explain the similar name?

%. In my lifelong study and actually LIVING of my religion, I have yet to find the part where I am supposed to kill people for it or start wars. That stuff only comes from man.

Any questions?

 

[proud dad]

Christ has everything to do with Christmas.It's the celebration of Christ birth.The giving of the gifts comes from the 3 wise men bearing gifts for the new born King.The tree is a simble of the manger,the star on top of the tree is for the north star shining bright above the manger in Bethleham.The gifts put under the tree represents the gifts the wise men set at Christ feet the day of his birth.

Human nature....rebellious and skeered of the truth.

 

[black_angel]

i just had a peek at a preview of this film and straight away the Craft was mentioneed. so for all you would be witches out there here is a quick spell to try out on yourself. it does work, though annointing oil is recommended. all i can suggest is using olive oil or maybe even mobil oil.

 

[black_angel]

and then