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.

"Angry" is the wrong word. The correct word is "irritated" at your assumption that as an atheist, I couldn't have read the bible because if I had, I would have been smitten by its "obvious truth"; and at your assumption that the reason I don't believe in a god is because I am "angry" at him.

My belief system is complex and I have spent a lot of my life thinking about it and how it was derived. There is too much to go into detail, but it can be summarised thus:

* I believe that the physical world is a logical, rational and knowable thing, which can be explained by science and knowledge. While we may not know all the details as yet, the overall theories are sound, internally consistant and our knowledge of the facts is expanding every day. Each branch of science, from astrophysics to geology & plate techtonics to biology, reinforces the concepts in the other branches and makes a logical coherent whole.

* That the "spiritual" world is entirely and completely a construct of Man's imagination and every part of it, from the deeply felt emotion of "being touched by god" to the sense of wonder at the beauty of the world, can be explained in this way.

* That the concept of all religion, and most especially Christianity, is internally inconsistant, contradictory, inherently illogical and impossible. That the persona presented by Christianity as a god, if it were to exist, would be the most evil monster we have yet to conceive.

* That people who believe in this delusion are either weak irrational people who need to seek outside themselves for a crutch to get them through life and/or are deliberately blind to rational thought. The irony is that in reality they are not weak at all - the strength they think comes to them from a god is in actuality their own inner strength, disguised into a form they can believe in, because they don't believe enough in their own power.

Edited June 9, 200818 yr by Fanny Adams

Before you leave could you re-read your posts and try to imagine why they may be taken offensively

Let’s behave like adults here. We can do without the aggression (passive and otherwise) and without accusing each other of being “angry” (by which we really mean irrational).

One way I’ve found that religious people are able to understand atheism is to think about their position on every other of the hundreds (thousands?) of deities that civilizations have believed in throughout history. Basically, an Atheist agrees with you about all of them, and thinks the same thing about the one you believe in. An Atheist just believes in one less god than you do.

Another way to put it is this: civilizations throughout history have developed belief systems to satisfy certain human needs that most of us share: the need to believe that existence continues after death, the need to believe that we will one day reunite with our deceased loved ones, the need to have an explanation for those things that the sum of all human knowledge up to that particular point in time has not yet explained (for example, the need to come up with a God of Thunder before the development of meteorology). Certain of those needs are stronger for some people than for other people, and for some people, none of those are very strong at all. Some people are OK with existence ending with death, they have made peace with never seeing their deceased loved ones again, they can wait for science to continue its Quest to fill the holes in our shared body of knowledge without having to fill those holes with supernatural explanations. Those people are likely to be Atheists.

For those sincere about their wish for understanding how an Atheist thinks, this is some good reading:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Beginners-Handbook-wanted-atheism/dp/0595427375]Amazon.com: Atheism: A Beginner's Handbook: All you wanted to know about atheism and why: Philip A Stahl: Books[/ame]

There is a place for both science and religion in human life, the key is to narrowly define the areas that each has authority over. Just like you wouldn't look to science to elevate the soul and help you be a better, kinder human being, you shouldn't look to religion to explain the natural world.

Edited June 9, 200818 yr by Baires

We should vote for an inexperienced politician based on the color of his skin or perhaps because of their gender. That's much more logical and intelligent.

Stating that people choose their candidate based on skin color or genitalia is meant to denigrate their intelligence. People will vote for the candidate who most closely matches their position on the issues. In my case, for example, I intend to vote for Obama over McCain for the same reason I voted for Obama over Clinton: he is the most liberal of the two. If Dennis Kucinich had still been in the race by the time my local primaries came along, I would have voted for him over Obama. Someone of the conservative persuasion would vote for McCain over Obama for the same reason, not because he is a white male.

Yet stating people choose their candidates based on their religion or their veteran status, somehow that's completely acceptable and not insulting? This is my problem with this entire discussion... somehow attacking christianity or religion in general is acceptable because clearly those who choose to believe in something are not logical or "weak" needing a "crutch" (thanks for editing, but you didn't fix the concept). When an argument is sent the direction of an atheist, we're "denigrating their intelligence" or sounding angry. Clearly this isn't an equal debate, you can't discuss or debate with a group of people who want to keep screaming "I'm a victim" without getting down to any issues.

Everyone in this country has a choice to believe or not believe. No one is shoving anything down anyone's throats... do I share my beliefs, YES. Why? Because knowing what I know about God, Christ, the here after has brought me happiness. Being a kind person, I want others to share this happiness. They can choose to accept it or reject it. I don't believe in God... I KNOW God lives. We want to talk about freedom of speech... apparentely that portion of our country's beliefs only apply to those who are minorities in their thoughts.

And realtor's comment about atheists being angry at God? Maybe it doesn't apply to you, but it applies to the majority of atheists I've met.

It's understandable, someone who doesn't understand God's love and our purpose here on earth, I would be angry too.

And realtor's comment about atheists being angry at God? Maybe it doesn't apply to you, but it applies to the majority of atheists I've met.

It's understandable, someone who doesn't understand God's love and our purpose here on earth, I would be angry too.

I think by definition, someone angry at God wouldn't be an Atheist, he would be a person who believes in God and for whatever reason is angry at him.

Maybe you mean that you know Atheists who are angered by people's belief in deities, which there certainly are some. I don't see a reason to be angered by what someone else believes. You could, though, be angered by what that belief drives them to do (such as, for example, wage war against those who don't share their beliefs, or discriminate against others based on those beliefs, etc). That does make more sense.

Yet stating people choose their candidates based on their religion or their veteran status, somehow that's completely acceptable and not insulting?

Please refer to where I said that people voting for McCain will do it based on him being the candidate that most closely matches their position on the issues, same as those voting for anyone else.

(thanks for editing, but you didn't fix the concept).

I don't know what you are referring to. Is that directed at me?

Edited June 9, 200818 yr by Baires

I think by definition, someone angry at God wouldn't be an Atheist, he would be a person who believes in God and for whatever reason is angry at him.

Maybe you mean that you know Atheists who are angered by people's belief in deities, which there certainly are some. I don't see a reason to be angered by what someone else believes. You could, though, be angered by what that belief drives them to do (such as, for example, wage war against those who don't share their beliefs, or discriminate against others based on those beliefs, etc). That does make more sense.

Exactly. If someone is "angry at God," then they are absolutely NOT an Atheist, since the whole concept behind Atheism is that we don't believe in a higher power, period. You have to believe in something or someone in order to be angry with it/him/her. Otherwise, there's nothing to be "angry" about, because it doesn't exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrsFlipFlops

(thanks for editing, but you didn't fix the concept).

I don't know what you are referring to. Is that directed at me?I don't know what you are referring to. Is that directed at me?

I think it was directed at me, re my comments on those who do believe in a religion.

Way to start something Fanny!

I should be in bed but I dyed my hair so I'm up late, again but I have to say something in all honesty here. I know sometimes I kid around about stuff but in all seriousness I have something to say on this matter.

As one who was raised Catholic and attended Catholic schools for 12 years and then pretty much after my mother died, the Catholic guide of my life I pretty much left the church, not because she died but because she wasn't around to make me go anymore.

I really never felt comfortable with organized religion in general and as I've grown and learned more about history and have seen the horrors that have gone along with the Catholic church I've chosen not to have it be a part of my life. I still though consider myself to be spiritual but not necessarily need to label myself anything anyway.

As I had children I had inside known I would not raise them Catholic and did not have them baptized either which most of you who were raised Catholic would think of this as probably horrible. I also was not married in the Catholic Church as the priest would not marry us because we were living in sin. Anyway so there was an amicable break up between myself and the Catholic Church.

I found that since I could not be sincere in my beliefs in the Catholic Church that I could not raise my daughters in the Church and brought them up to be good people, which they are, and to make the decision on their own. I know a lot of people think that's wrong but I'm not here to be right.

To make a long story short/or longer depending on how you look at it, my youngest 19 considers herself to be pagan and my eldest has said she is atheist or possibly agnostic, but I think she leans more towards atheism.

To end this, the reason I bring this up is because I have had twinges of guilt for not baptizing them or bringing them up with some form of Christian religion, especially the eldest because I felt prior that I must have been a really horrible mother because my daughter considered herself to be an atheist. But I've come to learn from this thread, that I've been drawn to for so long and it keeps popping up over and over again, that I'm wrong. The atheists who have been brave enough to come on this thread and educate us as to what atheism is and what issues you have had with discrimination and just basically teaching me your thoughts on the matter have really changed it around for me and I can now feel proud to say my daughter is an atheist and I don't have to feel guilty anymore. I think you are the most intelligent group of people I've ever listened to on this forum. I'm not a butt kisser but you've impressed me.

I'd much rather her be an atheist than an evangelical Christian who I don't think can think for herself. I don't mean to sound harsh but it's just how I feel, brandyII.:tongue2:

Edited June 9, 200818 yr by brandyII

Way to start something Fanny!:smile:

:tongue2:

Edited June 9, 200818 yr by Fanny Adams

I can't remember which poster mentioned it, but they said that no one is getting atheism or religion crammed down their throats. I disagree. No one seems to be getting atheism shoved down their throats in this country, but we are definitely getting fundamentalist christianity shoved down our throats! And in especially horrible ways.

It is being shoved down our throats by our politicians in Washington. It is being shoved down our throats by our "christian" president when he takes us into a horrible, agressive war and by his decision not to help our military when they come home even after they give up security, life and limb to fight in this unholy war he waged.

We are getting it shoved down our throats every day in so many ways. That is why so many people in America are feeling disenfranchised by our own government. That is why our country is so terribly divided and why this election is so vitally important to our future.

Barak Obama is a good man. He is very intelligent and although I do not doubt that he enjoys the headiness of running for president, I believe that he has high ideals and ambitious goals for uniting our people and even our world. He is intelligent enough to know what needs to be done to correct the terrible wrongs that are commited so often by our congress. He knows how we have been sold down the river by greed and how we are taken advantage of by unscrupulous lobbyists.

My fear, and it is a horrible gut-wrenching cold sweat fear, is that Obama will suffer the same fate that every other truly outstanding and good man has suffered in this country before him. The thing that is so terribly disappointing for me, as an American, is that the extreme right wing nut jobs get away with murder in this country and the good people just take it and shuffle along trying to pretend it didn't happen.

We better stop arguing about religion and start working toward improving our country and our world. We sure can't do it if we allow people like George Bush and Dick Cheney run us into the ground.

BJean, don't forget about the more day to day. Politics are notorious for person X imposing their religion on person Y, and if that isn't the epitome of shoving in the general throat direction, then nothing is.

We get it weekly, weekends at a minimum, to our door, on my property, DESPITE a "no soliciting" sign that churches apparently believe doesn't apply to their proselytizing. (We're repainting our front door and trading out storm doors so my No Bible Thumpers plaque is down temporarily. The plaque has helped, but we have people who opt to ignore it. To me the act of opening the mouth and spewing the spiel on our doorstep is no different from the neighbor who allows her dog to open his rear and deposit dump on our lawn (despite "no doggie poo" signs... and general courtesy). Making it clear we do not want these people at our door, and having them come anyway, and even acknowledge the sign and their choice to disregard it, classifies as some pretty serious shoving in my book.