NPR was doing a segment this morning on a very large Christian movement to have the new movie, The Golden Compass, boycotted. Of the three Pullman (a professed rejector of organized religion and atheist), this one (based on Northern Lights) has the least occurence of "anti-religion" themes - the last having the most. He is seen as being anti-Christian and anti-Catholic, but if you're familiar with him, he is much more anti-religion in the most general sense.

People are trying to stop their children from seeing this movie, out of fear that interest in the movie will generate interest in the books and *gasp* expose their children to themes of anti-religion.

I really don't understand this.

Why would someone be afraid that their child might learn that there's such a thing as atheism or agnosticism?

Why does the Harry Potter series terrify parents? Is it horrible if children know that there's a fantasy world of magic, or IF they can make the more cognitive connections, that witchcraft is out there?

As an atheist, I would not prevent my child from reading books which presented religion or a diety as a good thing, or books that presented atheism as a bad thing, or books that taught about ideas outside of whatever. If my child wanted to go to church, I would not prevent it. If they wanted to read the bible, I would buy them one. I would hope that my child understands there are different things that are right for different people, and eventually gathers the information needed to make the decision that is right for them... whether it aligns with my personal beliefs is irrelevant. What's right for me isn't right for everyone, and everyone includes my own family.

<P>

I would look at anyone with a raised eyebrow if their only reason for not harming people, killing adults, raping children... was because they would be afraid to go to hell if they did.

</P>

<P> </P>

<P>So we agree that killing adults and raping children is wrong. Why? Is it wrong because it doesn't gel with a nice society or is there more to it? Perhaps killing adults and raping children is wrong because of the inherent worth and significance of our fellow human beings, which transcends living in a nice society.

If torturing babies for fun was suddenly an acceptable practice within our culture would that make it morally acceptable?</P>

<P>If my only purpose is to propagate my genes into the next generation, nothing more nothing less, then why is anything wrong?</P>

Morality is a pesky little bugger and it seems most athiest live their lives by some moral code, yet if there is no objective truth outside of ourselves or our nice society, then living that way seems to me to be rather irrational. Just a thought...

<P></P>

<P> </P>

<P>So we agree that killing adults and raping children is wrong. Why? Is it wrong because it doesn't gel with a nice society or is there more to it? Perhaps killing adults and raping children is wrong because of the inherent worth and significance of our fellow human beings, which transcends living in a nice society.

If torturing babies for fun was suddenly an acceptable practice within our culture would that make it morally acceptable?</P>

<P>If my only purpose is to propagate my genes into the next generation, nothing more nothing less, then why is anything wrong?</P>

Morality is a pesky little bugger and it seems most athiest live their lives by some moral code, yet if there is no objective truth outside of ourselves or our nice society, then living that way seems to me to be rather irrational. Just a thought...

Oh, I don't know. I kind of think that creating a deity to answer an unanswerable question is kind of irrational. That works both ways.

Why do you suppose they had rules of society and laws before Christianity existed? Were they just filling time? Or did they want order within society?

Morality existed long before Christianity, many Christians seem to be under the assumption that their religion created morality. Not so, actually Christianity copied their rules for conduct from the two previous religions, Egyptian and Hinduism.

You are correct, morality changes as society changes. I have a book from the Civil War era. It is one of two of that title that exist today. It explains in detail how slavery is justified by the bible. Thankfully, we have come a long way since that line of thinking and we know today that regardless of what the bible says, slavery is not morally acceptable today.

I don't think it is reasonable to suggest that people depend on their religion to teach them right from wrong, or what is moral. When we did that we owned black people, we took little Native American children from their homes and family and forced them into assimilation so they could be good Christians too. Today we know that was wrong. Just 100 years ago we thought that was peachy.

When it comes to morality one needs to draw from common sense, how we want to be treated, and a place of compassion. Most religions today are seriously lacking in compassion. So we have to draw upon other things like common sense.

From what you are saying any atheist should be okay with someone raping their child because there are no consequences to pay. Does that sound reasonable to you?

Somehow atheist seem to miss this point. Why be a good human?

No, theists miss the point... Doing good in the world has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in God.

First of all, all systems have behavior that benefits the system and behavior that does not. Humans are social animals who want to live together in packs. Therefore, they behave in ways that benefit the system. Those who don't get removed from the pack and that's a horrible fate for a social animal.

Secondly, there are plenty of people who believe in God (or Gods) who don't do good in the world and there are plenty of atheists who do good in the world. Therefore, empirical evidence shows that a belief in God is not a requirement for being good.

No, theists miss the point... Doing good in the world has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in God.

First of all, all systems have behavior that benefits the system and behavior that does not. Humans are social animals who want to live together in packs. Therefore, they behave in ways that benefit the system. Those who don't get removed from the pack and that's a horrible fate for a social animal.

So, in abbreviated form, your reasoning goes like this: I ought to be unselfish because it is better for the system, which is better for the species, which is better for me. So why ought I be unselfish? Because it is better for me. But looking at what is better for me, is selfishness. So all of this so-called description of where morality comes from, gets reduced to this ludicrous statement: I morally ought to be unselfish so that I can be more thoroughly selfish. That is silly. Because we know that morality can't be reduced to selfishness. Why do we know that? Because our moral rules are against selfishness and for altruism. They are against selfishness and for the opposite. When you think about what it is that morality entails, you don't believe that morality is really about being selfish. Morality is about being unselfish, or at least it entails that. Which makes my point that this description, based on evolution, does not do the job. It doesn't explain what it is supposedly meant to explain. It doesn't explain morality. It is simply reduced to a promotion of selfishness which isn't morality at all.

So, in abbreviated form, your reasoning goes like this: I ought to be unselfish because it is better for the system, which is better for the species, which is better for me. So why ought I be unselfish? Because it is better for me. But looking at what is better for me, is selfishness. So all of this so-called description of where morality comes from, gets reduced to this ludicrous statement: I morally ought to be unselfish so that I can be more thoroughly selfish. That is silly. Because we know that morality can't be reduced to selfishness. Why do we know that? Because our moral rules are against selfishness and for altruism. They are against selfishness and for the opposite. When you think about what it is that morality entails, you don't believe that morality is really about being selfish. Morality is about being unselfish, or at least it entails that. Which makes my point that this description, based on evolution, does not do the job. It doesn't explain what it is supposedly meant to explain. It doesn't explain morality. It is simply reduced to a promotion of selfishness which isn't morality at all.

Let me ask you something.

Why don't you rape little children and kill little old ladies? Is the ONLY reason you don't do these things a fear of prison and hell? If it wasn't for punishment, would you do these acts?

And do YOU believe true morality is not doing something only for a fear of punishment?

That is silly.

No, what is silly is your inability to see another POV.

No, what is silly is your inability to see another POV.

I don't think it is silly, I think it is spooky.

If the only reason someone does not rape children and kill little old ladies is because of a fear of hell, that tells me someone doesn't have a clue what true morality is. There are some people that should keep believing, society needs it.

Let me ask you something.

Why don't you rape little children and kill little old ladies? Is the ONLY reason you don't do these things a fear of prison and hell? If it wasn't for punishment, would you do these acts?

And do YOU believe true morality is not doing something only for a fear of punishment?

Well, well, must have hit a nerve. I've already stated my belief that human beings have inherent worth and significance. I'm still waiting for your answer as to why the things you stated above are wrong. It is your belief system that fails to actually live what you proclaim to believe. For if we came from nothing and are bound for nothing then why the audacity to believe we should have some significance in the interim.

True morality is doing the right thing even at great personal sacrifice. Like the Christian leaders who opposed slavery and brought about the end of the practice. Not merely a convoluted attempt at circular reasoning. I do good things so so good things will happen to me, that's not morality!

Let me ask you something.

Why don't you rape little children and kill little old ladies? Is the ONLY reason you don't do these things a fear of prison and hell? If it wasn't for punishment, would you do these acts?

And do YOU believe true morality is not doing something only for a fear of punishment?

No, what is silly is your inability to see another POV.

I see your POV and it seems like I might understand it better than you do. But calling me silly doesn't make your arguments any better.

Goodnight, ladies. It's been fun! We'll have to do this again sometime.

Well, well, must have hit a nerve. I've already stated my belief that human beings have inherent worth and significance. I'm still waiting for your answer as to why the things you stated above are wrong. It is your belief system that fails to actually live what you proclaim to believe. For if we came from nothing and are bound for nothing then why the audacity to believe we should have some significance in the interim.

True morality is doing the right thing even at great personal sacrifice. Like the Christian leaders who opposed slavery and brought about the end of the practice. Not merely a convoluted attempt at circular reasoning. I do good things so so good things will happen to me, that's not morality!

No, you are changing the meaning of morality. Nowhere in the dictionary does it state that morality must mean personal sacrifice. That is a Christian twist to inflict guilt. But that isn't the true meaning of the word.

And speaking of circular logic, you have some there. ;o)

Now, would you answer the questions I posed to you? Assuming it would not be a personal sacrifice for you to refrain from raping a child or killing a little old lady, is the only reason you refrain from these behaviors is because you fear punishment? Is it so that you can earn a seat in heaven? Or is it something else?

Now, would you answer the questions I posed to you? Assuming it would not be a personal sacrifice for you to refrain from raping a child or killing a little old lady, is the only reason you refrain from these behaviors is because you fear punishment? Is it so that you can earn a seat in heaven? Or is it something else?

The question was answered . . .

I've already stated my belief that human beings have inherent worth and significance.

But not by you . . .

I'm still waiting for your answer as to why the things you stated above are wrong. It is your belief system that fails to actually live what you proclaim to believe. For if we came from nothing and are bound for nothing then why the audacity to believe we should have some significance in the interim.

I see your POV and it seems like I might understand it better than you do.

You don't understand it at all. Or you wouldn't keep telling me that I must believe things that don't logically follow, even from your flawed premises of what you think I must believe.

First of all, you seem to think only your God makes people have worth. I believe they have worth just because all things have worth. They don't have to be created by some supreme being to have worth.

Secondly, you seem to think that altruism must come from believing in God as well. I actually took a class on altruism in college, back when I was a religion major, and studied the psychology of it. It appears that human beings are programmed to be altruistic. When they act that way, chemicals are released that make them feel good, among other things. They can be trained out of it, but the basic instinct is there and is often acted upon.

If you believe that God created human beings, then He had to have done that. Therefore, God created a species that can't act selflessly because they are being altruistic because it's programmed into them and they get an inherent reward. At least, that is your logic -- that it's not true altruism because it's not selfless.

I don't buy that, myself. I have seen people make great personal sacrifices to do the right thing and I don't think you can wave away that sacrifice just because it comes with some endorphins.

I'm sorry but anyone who thinks that there must be a God for humans to be moral is an idiot.

First of all, you seem to think only your God makes people have worth. I believe they have worth just because all things have worth. They don't have to be created by some supreme being to have worth.

So they have worth because you feel they have worth? Adolph Hitler felt that some people had worth and that a lot of others didn't and there in lies the rub with moral relativism. If there is no objectve truth outside of you and me then the men with the most guns decide who has worth. Which falls right in line with Darwinian philosophy, survival of the fittest or in this case, the most well armed.

It appears that human beings are programmed to be altruistic. When they act that way, chemicals are released that make them feel good, among other things. They can be trained out of it, but the basic instinct is there and is often acted upon.

It appears that the altruistic release of endorphines supercedes the survival instinct in a lot people, which is counterintuitive to Darwinian philosophy. When a soldier throws himself on a grenade to protect his buddies at what point does the blind random programming of altruism take a back to seat to the survival instinct? What would cause a person to turn their back on material wealth and comfort to spend a lifetime toiling in anonymity to serve those less fortunate, a rush of endorphines? I hardly think so.

If you believe that God created human beings, then He had to have done that. Therefore, God created a species that can't act selflessly because they are being altruistic because it's programmed into them and they get an inherent reward. At least, that is your logic -- that it's not true altruism because it's not selfless.

I don't buy that, myself. I have seen people make great personal sacrifices to do the right thing and I don't think you can wave away that sacrifice just because it comes with some endorphins.

What is the right thing?