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.

The world is populated with moral and immoral people, some of these people believe in God and some don't. Morality is not exclusive to those who believe in God nor is it exclusive to those who don't. To argue anything different is ludicrous, you may very well believe you need God to be moral, you would be wrong but you can believe it.

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?

Okay, let's go over this one more time. Every human being has worth and significance, because, to borrow a phrase, "they are endowed by their creator with certain inaliable rights".

I do not rape or kill because of fear of hell or prison but because it is wrong. And that is not determined by cultural acceptance but by an objective truth that's transcends you and I.

It is not right for me to inflict pain or death upon someone else simply beacuse I want to, which by the way is completely consistent with my worldview. Your philosophy on the other hand is some kind of cosmic tit for tat and while the subjects of child rape and serial murder, which seems to be an obssesion of yours since you've brought it up at least three times now, may be unpleasent for you, you are left without moral judgement on these crimes since you see morality as merely a mechanism to maintian a nice society and to be good for goodness sake.

Now I've answered your question again, please be so kind as to answer my question from the original post. Why are child rape and serial murder bad?

No species can survive if the individuals who make up the species do not behave a fashion which furthers the health of the group. This is as true of wolf packs as it is true of human beings. We have hardwired in us an altruistic sense of the collectivity or group because this is as necessary for our survival as the simpler ego-based needs are for our own personal survival.

And as for anyone who feels he needs the Big Hall Monitor in the Sky to prevent himself from committing anti-social acts, well, I would be inclined to suspect that this individual has some pretty big personal problems.

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.

You said Hitler. Therefore, I am calling in Godwin's Law ... which is that the first person to bring in Hitler loses the argument. :thumbup:

Of course, I never made an argument for moral relativism. You are deciding what I think again and then explaining why what you've decided I believe is wrong. It's very hard to have a discussion when people do that.

Anyway, it's fairly clear that everyone thinks that a) things have worth and most people (all?) think that :eek: not everything has equal worth.

If you didn't think that not everything has equal worth, you would be a fruititarian, for example. (A fruititarian is someone who only eats the by-products of plants so that the actual plants don't die -- so only fruits and nuts.) I'm suspecting you aren't a fruititarian. In fact, I am guessing you eat meat. So apparently your life is worth more than a cow's in your moral code. Or, if you don't eat meat, more than a carrot's.

As I said... everyone assigns relative worth to the things around them.

What isn't clear is what the relative value of each thing is. Some people believe humans have more worth than some other things because God made them in his image. Other people might think that humans are worth the most because they are at the top of the food chain. I.e., they've earned their place. Still others don't think humans are worth the most.

We don't really know which of these views is right and we can't really know. We make educated guesses based on our collective understanding of the world at the time. That understanding changes. So at one time we thought slavery was okay because slaves weren't worth as much as free people. Now we don't think that.

That doesn't mean there isn't an absolute truth. It just means our understanding of it is relative.

There doesn't have to be a God for there to be absolute truth. I know that 2+2 always equals 4, for example. This is an absolute truth. I believe there are other absolute truths, such as why you should do good or how much people are worth relative to animals, but we aren't capable of knowing them absolutely at this time (and maybe never).

Let's put it this way, in the slavery example, we changed our mind about the relative value of certain groups of people compared to each other. But the truth didn't change. The relative value of people is what it is and whether we have a good understanding or a poor understanding of that doesn't change it. Just like if someone believes that 2+2=5 and manages to convince everyone else in the universe that this is true so that it even gets taught that way to school children, it doesn't make it true.

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.

I see in addition to not understanding my point of view, you don't understand Darwinism, either. But again, I never said there wasn't an objective truth.

It appears that the altruistic release of endorphines supercedes the survival instinct in a lot people, which is counterintuitive to Darwinian philosophy.

It isn't really. Darwinism is about survival of the species, not the individual. Altruism helps the species survive even though sometimes it's at the expense of the individual.

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.

Wow, what a lot of assumptions that don't logically follow. You are assuming that material wealth and comfort is the natural pick and that "toiling in anonymity" is foreign and so we need God to tell us to do that. I don't make that assumption at all.

It seems to me that you think people are innately selfish (original sin?) and they need a Higher Power to force them to be good. I don't think people are innately selfish at all. I think they are programmed to be good, in fact. The reason they do bad things is that their programming gets screwed up.

Child rape and serial murder are bad because they have a negative impact on the well-being of the tribe. Most people, I believe, understand this on a basic level. Thus the majority of us do not need our civil laws nor threats from a diety in order to keep us in line. Civil laws and dieties which threaten Hellfire are there in order to exert a measure of control over those of us who are psychologically damaged and are thus unable to behave in a manner which protects the well-being of the tribe.

Atheists are as interested in matters of right and wrong as theists. Philosophers are folks who have made it their business to study ethical questions.

Okay, let's go over this one more time. Every human being has worth and significance, because, to borrow a phrase, "they are endowed by their creator with certain inaliable rights".

I do not rape or kill because of fear of hell or prison but because it is wrong. And that is not determined by cultural acceptance but by an objective truth that's transcends you and I.

That "truth" tends to change with society. If society changes, people change. Again - slavery, abducting young Native American children from their homes, burning people alive because they might be a witch, the list is endless. People are social animals and they can potentially tend to behave like a pack. Many do as they are told. There are leaders and followers. Who the leaders are tends to change the view of society as to what is right and wrong.

You are a product of your upbringing, society, and your own moral code with a few other details thrown in for good measure. Had you been born in a different time, different place you might be an African believing in female circumcision, you might be a Jew, an atheist, a wife beater, a pedophile, a <name your label>. It is not believable to assume that regardless of your upbringing, your culture, the era you were born, etc, that you would have the same beliefs and opinions as you do now.

It is not right for me to inflict pain or death upon someone else simply beacuse I want to, which by the way is completely consistent with my worldview. Your philosophy on the other hand is some kind of cosmic tit for tat...

No, that is exactly not my world view. That seems to be the point of view of some Christians posting in this thread.

...and while the subjects of child rape and serial murder, which seems to be an obssesion of yours since you've brought it up at least three times now, ...

It can be like pulling teeth to get some people to answer questions. There are some that won't respond and they just go running from the topic with their tail between their legs and others who seem to give half ass answers to just about everything.

Now I've answered your question again, please be so kind as to answer my question from the original post. Why are child rape and serial murder bad?

I believe I have, we all have repeatedly. Please see previous responses to this topic.

Was Hitler a Christian? Just curious, brandyII

Yes, he was:

Hitler's religious beliefs and fanaticism

I didn't answer the child rape and killing question because I thought was boring....

But I'll have a go. Killing is sometimes wrong and sometimes not depending on the circumstances. If you believe in self-defense, euthensia or eat meat, you agree with me. :smile2: Therefore, I can not answer why "killing is wrong" because the answer would takes hours of typing.

Child rape is wrong for at least one reason -- because rape is wrong. Rape is wrong because it is violence for violence's sake. It's not violence that benefits the species. In the system we call life, one human being is not valued over another so one person's will should not be allowed to overcome another person's without their consent.

Now, I know the next question will be "how do you know this?" This is how I know it:

The universe is a system. (In fact, it's a system of systems.) All systems have algorithms which you may call rules or laws if you prefer. These rules govern the behavior of objects within the system. That includes human beings and it includes all our behavior, not just the physical -- such as taking in 3500 calories less than you expend will cause you to lose a pound -- but also how we treat each other.

The way I see it, the main difference between an atheist and a theist is that a theist believes this system was constructed by something/someone, the Creator. If that is true, then the Creator designed the Rules Engine. An antheist, OTOH, doesn't believe the system has a Creator. But that doesn't mean the system doesn't have a Rules Engine. All systems have them.

Hitler practiced mysticism. He was not a Christian.

Was Hitler a Christian? Just curious, brandyII

Hitler was as Christian as I am. ;o) He was raised Christian but later it is clear he used Christianity to gain political power. Had he been honest about his religious beliefs he would have never been voted in office and he would have never obtained political power.

If you look at his quotes during political speeches and anywhere in public he was quite Catholic. However, if you look at his quotes when he was in private and in front of friends he made fun of Christianity and made it more than clear what his true feelings were. He was most likely deist.

There are many claims he was anti-animal cruelty (a load) because he didn't eat meat. Many have made assumptions about his religious beliefs based on his veggie diet. Truth is, he got sick when he ate meat. That is the real reason why he did not eat critter.

I have links on my PC that explain this in more detail, but I'm on my laptop. ;o)

There is a book written by his secretary that defends much of what his friends claimed about his personal views on religion. I don't recall the title, I have the book and if I can find it I will post the title. It's really quite interesting.

Yes, he was:

Hitler's religious beliefs and fanaticism

We disagree.

Adolf Hitler - Christian, Atheist, or Neither?

>>13th December, 1941, midnight

• "Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... <here insults people who believe transubstantiation>....
  "When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease." (p 118-119)
  

<<

He used Christianity to get what he wanted. People in politics know what sells. Religion sells. This is what happens when people vote according to religion and not the issues.

Are all religions being attacked here, or just Christianity?

And, is it really being said that if we believe in God, we're idiots?

Just want to be clear on that...

Also, a strange point of view on rape: Animals rape each other. Dogs do, monkeys do, etc... I have no idea if a dog or monkey believes in God or evolution, but either way if rape is wrong because it doesn't do well for the species then why would pack animals rape each other, when all that is ingrained in them is survival of the group? They rely on basic instinct, and that instinct is to kill and rape.

If humans instinct is animal in nature (and, isn't it?) then what moral code is ingrained in us? And - why? Why do humans have an "instinct" that goes against other species' basic natures?

I guess this brings us more towards a "Lord of the Flies" discussion, huh?

And, is it really being said that if we believe in God, we're idiots?

Just want to be clear on that...

People have opinions, doesn't mean they speak for everyone.

There are plenty who say if one is an atheist they are an idiot.

Who cares what a minority of people think, does it matter?

Instinct... there is a huge difference between instinct and behavior. Raping is not an instinct, it is a behavior. World of difference.

ALL animals don't go around raping other animals. It is not common behavior even in animals.