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.

He was also a philosopher, not a biologist, so his statements about the evidence of design in biology have no more weight than yours or mine do. He specifically retracted any suggestions that his definition of "deist" fit with traditional religious definitions of the word.

Shame on you.

Bless your heart.

As I said,

.

Nevertheless, I'm sorry you felt my statement an insult, worthy of loss of credibility, worthy of my being blocked, etc. Those are the decisions you choose to make and are wholly up to you. I stand behind my statement and will continue to do so. And if you wrote that you would welcome me into atheism with open arms, I certainly wouldn't denigrate you or block you. I would accept them as the feelings of a person who truly believes what she believes. I wouldn't agree, but I wouldn't condemn you for your beliefs, challenge your credibility, or deem you not worthy of respect.

I don't doubt your sincerity in your deisre to extend the comforts of your religion to others and don't hold that against you. However, you need to realise than many atheists feel the same compulsion to "wake you up" from what we see as your "childish fantasies".

I've stayed out of this debate until recently, as I know that once we get down to brass tacks in the debate, it is very hard for me to treat fundamentalist Christians with any measure of respect. Rather than offend people by stating my true opinion of those beliefs, I have bitten my tongue and followed my mother's advice of "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all". To me, it is like trying to have an argument with someone who is arguing with all sincerity for their belief in the little blue fairies who live at the bottom of the garden, or that Santa Claus really does live at the North Pole. They might seem to be very nice, very sweet and sincere people, but to be able to believe the "dinosaurs lived with Adam" nonsense, they obviously have a fault in their logical reasoning ability that I can't ignore when the debate gets heated.

Yeah...Yeah..ok Fanny...but have you seeeen my little one...Hannah. She is amazing!!! Wonderfully MADE, I'm tellin you.

I TOLD YOU I COULDN'T DEBATE WORTH A DARN. NOT EVEN GOING TO TRY. However, tomorrow, seriously, I will read the article. I have to go to sleep. Good night...and God bless...or, well, good luck to ya or whatever the athiest valediction may be!

I have a wonderful daughter of my own and two delightful granddaughters, so I know full well the overwhelming emotions that come when you hold them for the first time and as you watch them grow. Doesn't make me believe in a god though :tongue2:. Sleep well and, if you are interested, do take a look at that article. It is very well-reasoned and presented in understandable layman's terms.

I'm going to bed, brandyII.............................................................

it is very hard for me to treat fundamentalist Christians with any measure of respect.

I think this is precisely the anti-Christian sentiment that Gloucester was trying to pinpoint earlier. I don't disrespect you because you don't believe in God or a god or gods. I don't agree with you, but I certainly don't tell you you're an idiot or have no logical reasoning ability . . .

they obviously have a fault in their logical reasoning ability that I can't ignore when the debate gets heated.

Interestingly, I actually see this debate as having cooled down of late, rather than being heated. However, accusing people of having "a fault in their logical reasoning ability" isn't an altogether terrific way of proving -- or even stating -- your point.

I went to bed, then I got up because something was bothering me. In my posts, I repeatedly referred to myself as a "beliver" and made reference to a generic "God". I think I may have done that in an attempt to not offend anyone. I need to clarify that I am a Christian. I believe in the death, and resurrection of Christ, and the resulting gift of salvation. I fully understand that this differentiation is not important to anyone but myself, but I needed to make it. ANYWAY, this time, I am really going to bed...soon as I get the little blue fairies tucked into bed, and get Santa Claus to roll his big butt over to his side of the bed.

Per FANNY

To me, it is like trying to have an argument with someone who is arguing with all sincerity for their belief in the little blue fairies who live at the bottom of the garden, or that Santa Claus really does live at the North Pole.

I know :thumbup: I should probably take my mother's advice (I guess there's a first time for everything :tongue2:). I don't want to cause offence, but it's either shut up, lie through my teeth or cause the offence, as that really is how I feel about those views. To me they are utterly irrational and I have a very hard time taking someone seriously when they have expressed a belief in something that I find completely silly. Unfortunately, the very action of expressing my feelings about those views is taken to be disrespect by the people holding them.

Try to think about it objectively. If someone was earnestly trying to convince you about something that you found to be utterly ridiculous (like blue fairies), would you find it easy not to scoff? Would you not wonder how they could have become convinced about such things? The closest I can get is to say that I respect your right to hold your own opinion and have your own beliefs. I can't bring myself to say that I respect the actual belief itself, because I don't.

Sorry, I should just butt out now, because this forum isn't the place that I want to use to argue religious philosophies.

Unfortunately, the very action of expressing my feelings about those views is taken to be disrespect by the people holding them.

No, it isn't "taken" to be disrespect; you stated that you had disrespect. Specifically, you said

it is very hard for me to treat fundamentalist Christians with any measure of respect.

Try to think about it objectively. If someone was earnestly trying to convince you about something that you found to be utterly ridiculous (like blue fairies), would you find it easy not to scoff? Would you not wonder how they could have become convinced about such things?

There is a big difference in the fact that roughly 1/3 of the world's population consider themselves Christian. I understand that you still believe their beliefs are "utterly ridiculous", but certainly you must concede that all 2.2 billion of these don't all have "a fault in their logical reasoning ability". If you truly believe they do, I doubt you have sincerely studied Christianity. (Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying if you study it you will of course become a believer. I'm simply saying it's a legitimate discipline that has survived over thousands of years despite critics who have posed the same questions as have you.)

There is also a big difference between the beliefs of most Christians and those who subscribe to the Young Earth theories and believe that Adam and Eve co-existed with dinosaurs, which is what I would describe as "fundamentalist Christians". It is those beliefs, which fly in the face of all known science and logic, that I find utterly ridiculous. While I still don't believe in the more mainstream Christian views, I do have more respect for those spiritual beliefs that don't defy reality.

once we get down to brass tacks in the debate, it is very hard for me to treat fundamentalist Christians with any measure of respect.

That's too bad, Fanny. I'm a Christian fundamentalist (southern baptist, heehee) that doesn't believe that dinos walked with Adam and Eve. But know what? I can debate any topic and treat the opposing viewpoint with respect. As Christians, we're mandated to love, forgive, and not to judge...so that's what I try and do.

I find it interesting how you worded that quote. It would seem to imply that you are specifically biased against fundamentalist Christians. It implies that you could debate a Jew or Muslim or Buddhist and have no problem treating them with respect, yet they all have their own ideas of God.

I think it is probably a definition thing, Plain. As I said in my response to Gadgetlady, I tend to equate "fundamentalist" with the young earth and Adam-riding-dinosaurs beliefs. I've had many debates with mainstream Christians, where I have been able to afford them the respect of their beliefs, but the dino thing really does get my "scoff factor" going. I'm also not very good at distinguishing all the subtle variations in the US religious scene. It doesn't really matter though, as I don't believe in ANY of the concepts, so it is only a matter of degree.

I've never had the opportunity to debate with a Jewish person with deep religious convictions. There are very few Jewish people in Australia (I looked it up once and I think it was only about 12,000). I think it is likely that it would end up in acrimony though, as I find the persona portrayed as God in the Old Testament to be a despicable, murderous, megalomaniac and that's hardly likely to lead to a civil debate :tongue2:.

I can debate with people who hold Buddhist beliefs, as those tend towards spiritual concepts and leave the science to the scientists, but I am just as skeptical about those who believe in the physical reality of Krishna (there's a blue fairy at the bottom of the garden for you!) or those who follow Druidism or believe in the power of crystals, tarot and astrology.

Idiot means the same regardless of personal belief. An insult is an insult, period.

That's what I said.

Your religion does not make you more feeling or caring about slams due to a belief or lack of belief.

Not my religion...just faith itself. To believe there is something greater than you, we're not just defending an idea or a science - we're defending our GOD. How can that not be more personal? If someone says athiesm is wrong, you can argue that because it's what you thought to choose. It's a choice you're defending.

For many Christians (for ME) it's a feeling of something deeper and greater than a choice. I didn't choose it, it chose me. The athiests I've known could take a religious debate or not...it wasn't personal to them. They'd rather talk about the weather or politics, or just watch a movie...It wasn't a matter of deep importance to them.

Maybe it's different to you. Maybe you take non-practicing as deep and personal as religious people take their God. If you had a choice between life/death if you denounced your NON-faith, would you? Would you die for your non-belief? Many Christians would, and that's the level of intensity their feelings of their belief is.

We have feelings too, this is a point many Christians forget when they start loving us.

Maybe I missed it...like I said, I've been reading this one-sided, but did anyone call you names here? Perhaps you need to consider the source - as you said. I think most people here on LBT are open (with an exception here and there) but no minds are going to be changed on a discussion board.

In your real life, if someone calls you an idiot, child eating, burn-in-hell- witch, I'd wonder about their sanity. Again, it's not that I'm against the labeling of idiots. People can do dumb things - and when they do them all the fricking time, I label them an idiot. But I either try not to deal with those people, or if I have to, I restrain myself out of politeness for the company I'm with.

I haven't been attacking you, or trying to hurt your feelings. I haven't been that sarcastic, and when I have it was an obscure joke. Most of the sarcasm here has come from you - and I'm not sure it was warranted. You've called religion - something that is very personal to me and many others - a superstition. You've labeled that as something beneath you, and not worthy of believing in. Well, great - kudos to you. My point is that, if someone were to dismiss a belief of yours (say DS vs Lapband, maybe?) you wouldn't tolerate it very well and would put up a greater fight than if it were something you didn't care about or have a personal interest in.

I have noticed that although 1/3 of the world is Christian as soon as someoen points out when anyone of those 2.2 billion people does something bad it is decided that they weren't really Christians. I guess saying you are a Christian only counts when you need some stats to validate a point of view.