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.

Are all religions being attacked here, or just Christianity?

And atheism.

Also, a strange point of view on rape: Animals rape each other. Dogs do, monkeys do, etc...

I don't think it's clear that what animals do would fit the human definition of rape.

And - why? Why do humans have an "instinct" that goes against other species' basic natures?

Because we aren't dogs? :smile2: Why would we do things that help dogs survive if we aren't dogs and they don't help us survive? I guess I don't get this question.

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.

Well, in my personal life, one's opinions of me sometimes matter. If someone calls me an idiot to my face, and depending on who they are, I either laugh, walk away or flatten them on their ass.

On LBT, I was pretty sure the name calling was a no-no. Am I wrong?

Well, in my personal life, one's opinions of me sometimes matter. If someone calls me an idiot to my face, and depending on who they are, I either laugh, walk away or flatten them on their ass.

On LBT, I was pretty sure the name calling was a no-no. Am I wrong?

I think the rule is to attack the topic, not the person. I do not agree with the person that wrote the idiot comment, but I'm not quite sure if it is actually breaking a rule in R&R or not since he wasn't directing the comment at an individual person.

I think hard nosed republicans that vote according to religion vs. the issues are idiots. I don't think that is breaking any rules so I doubt TommyO was breaking rules but I could be wrong.

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?

Animal rape is generally speaking a matter of establishing social dominance and does not come out of a twisted desire to hurt and humiliate. Most animals do not kill for the sport of it. They will kill in order to eat or in order to protect themselves from predators. Humans are also animals, members of the mammalian class, but are arguably the most complex of all animals.

There are many societies which are far more secular (the Scandanavian countries are notable examples) than Americans are, and there are societies which are much more devout. It certainly cannot be said that a Lord of the Flies situation flourishes in any of those very secular Scandanavian countries. Many of the Islamic countries are very devout but one cannot call these societies successful by most of our western criteria. Indeed, some of those countries do sound considerably closer to a Lord of the Flies scenario, don't you think?

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?

For that matter, some animals eat their young. What about that cries "survival of the group"? Embryonic sand tiger sharks eat their siblings in utero. Not so "survival of the group" there either.

And atheism.

Good point. However, *I* have not called any one an idiot for their beliefs, and it would be nice for some to keep this civil. On both sides. :smile2: I believe that people need to come to their own beliefs and I'm not arguing as much as just curious to know how/what others think. (I'll argue the idiot point, though, because it's *wrong*...ha - couldn't resist.)

I don't think it's clear that what animals do would fit the human definition of rape.

Why not? Usually it's domination not sexual pleasure for humans and, I believe it's the same with other animals - at least, from what I've read about the behavior.

Because we aren't dogs? :tongue2: Why would we do things that help dogs survive if we aren't dogs and they don't help us survive? I guess I don't get this question.

Well, I certainly wasn't saying humans are dogs (although I've dated my share, I guess). I was saying we're animals, and pack animals at that. One argument is that humans *shouldn't* rape because it's morally wrong. And that those morals are based on the fact that we're here for the good of the group.

But, as with dogs, their nature is the "good of the group", too. So, what makes them kill and rape? If it's for the good of the group, which their actions should be since they are pack animals, then why shouldn't humans kill/rape, too?

On LBT, I was pretty sure the name calling was a no-no. Am I wrong?

You're not wrong, but it isn't well enforced, especially in R&R. The response I have heard in the past from moderators is "well, you're in R&R, what do you expect?"

Lets be clear, I did not call Chrsitians idiots, I was not referring to any group in my statement and I think if you read my post you will discover this to be true. I have no control over how you intepreted my comments and I can't understand how you could draw that conlusion from my statement. I was not refering to Christians I was refering to anyone who believes that you must believe in God to have morals. I mean it is an idiotic premise that only those people who believe in a God can be moral people. We only need to take a look at the world we live in or throughout history to discover many people of high morals who do not believe in God.

So I stand by statement that anyone who thinks that only people who believe in God can be moral is an idiot. I know many Christians that believe very strongly that their Athiest freinds are moral so this does not in any way single out Christians, only idiots.

Lets be clear, I did not call Chrsitians idiots, I was not referring to any group in my statement and I think if you read my post you will discover this to be true. I have no control over how you intepreted my comments and I can't understand how you could draw that conlusion from my statement. I was not refering to Christians I was refering to anyone who believes that you must believe in God to have morals. I mean it is an idiotic premise that only those people who believe in a God can be moral people. We only need to take a look at the world we live in or throughout history to discover many people of high morals who do not believe in God.

So I stand by statement that anyone who thinks that only people who believe in God can be moral is an idiot. I know many Christians that believe very strongly that their Athiest freinds are moral so this does not in any way single out Christians, only idiots.

I'd have to agree with you then. I didn't go back to look at the post and I was going by memory. But as you explain it here, I fully agree.

Lets be clear, I did not call Chrsitians idiots, I was not referring to any group in my statement and I think if you read my post you will discover this to be true. I have no control over how you intepreted my comments and I can't understand how you could draw that conlusion from my statement. I was not refering to Christians I was refering to anyone who believes that you must believe in God to have morals. I mean it is an idiotic premise that only those people who believe in a God can be moral people. We only need to take a look at the world we live in or throughout history to discover many people of high morals who do not believe in God.

So I stand by statement that anyone who thinks that only people who believe in God can be moral is an idiot. I know many Christians that believe very strongly that their Athiest freinds are moral so this does not in any way single out Christians, only idiots.

Well, I appreciate the clarification. I did read it wrong. Or, rather, read a more broad stroke of "idiot" than intended.

I have been reading all this and mostly staying quiet because 1) no one's mind is going to be changed on this, so why bother? and 2) most of what I've been thinking (or more, in some cases) has been said.

I've been on both sides. I've doubted and not believed, then came back to my religion (not my denomination, but a belief in something greater.)

What made me jump in was that it seems to me that the anti-Christians are being ruder than the anti-athiests. I could be wrong, and I could be reading more into than there is, as I did w/you, TommyO.

Are any athiests feeling angry as they read this, the way I am as a Christian?

I *feel* that, with the exception of a few posters on either side, the underlying tone is hatred towards Christians in this thread, when the opening question was rather innocent. (Again, in my opinion - which could be way off.)

Gloucester- I've felt that way too.

Are any athiests feeling angry as they read this, the way I am as a Christian?

Nope, not angry. I do get frustrated with ignorance sometimes (many believe if we don't worship a god we must eat babies or something) but overall I'm used to it. It doesn't bother me anymore like it used to.

Now I just consider the source.

Nope, not angry. I do get frustrated with ignorance sometimes (many believe if we don't worship a god we must eat babies or something) but overall I'm used to it. It doesn't bother me anymore like it used to.

Now I just consider the source.

Okay, well, right there: What does that mean about consider the source?

Am I taking that wrong? Am I being over-sensitive?

I've dated so many athiests (actually - all past bf's aside from the current one) and been friends with so many that it doesn't bother me, either. I've known dumb ones - and extremely smart ones.

I don't think any of them ate babies...but, if they were athiest babies, I wouldn't mind.

:smile2:

Okay, well, right there: What does that mean about consider the source?

Am I taking that wrong? Am I being over-sensitive?

I've dated so many athiests (actually - all past bf's aside from the current one) and been friends with so many that it doesn't bother me, either. I've known dumb ones - and extremely smart ones.

I don't think any of them ate babies...but, if they were athiest babies, I wouldn't mind.

:smile2:

I think you are being overly sensitive. I was in no way referring to you. You asked if atheists are angry about the insults. I said I consider the source. How does that infer you?

Well, I've been telling people you eat babies....sorry.

I am sorry - I took it to mean you consider the source of the Christian, not the *idiots* who think you eat babies.