Forget Harry, Christian groups now after The Golden Compass

In all honesty, what's wrong with Atheist values? At least they make sense....

The thing about these people is that they're afraid that their children will find out that their parents' religion makes no sense.

FEAR drives people to ban/boycott movies and books. Information is nothing to fear. Entertainment is nothing to fear.

Silly Christians, religion is a choice!

Shame on Phillip Pullman for writing a wonderful story that urges he questioning of the infallible! He's infecting our kids with his heinous atheism! These kids need to understand that if they aren't perfect, the devil will hold them for an eternity of punishment and condemnation. Atheism is indoctrinating them with terroristic dogma, and not letting them believe the undisputable truth of creation. Pullman is not leaving it up to our children to choose Christianity. Boycott Pullman's movie so he can learn that lies don't sell. [satire]

Perhaps the Atheists should do it like the Christians did back in the day, and use military force, spiritual terrorism, and public/private torture.

The anti-Compass folks are just worried that their kids will be brainwashed into a "false" mindset.
If I were brainwashed, I'd want the same for my kid.
Get 'em while their minds are mushy and soft!
God forbid they look at the world without cataracts for even a second.
Why wait for them make the conscious decision to blind themselves, when you can just shove a red hot poker into your kid's eye and be done with it?
Makes sense. Just ask God.

Silly monkeys.

Fortunately, atheists aren't the only critical thinking bunch on the planet. I

n fact, on this point, the atheists/secularists seem most incoherent in that they object to the behavior of religious groups but say there is no absolute morality that people must abide by.

believer, on the other hand, are acting consistent with their own set of beliefs. why this strikes atheists as surprising, is surprising itself.

It seems like the movie stresses the corruption of the Catholic church rather than the fallibility of religion in general. It is wattered down, but I still consider it a win for secularism.

booksbrown - What are you saying? That we shouldn't be appauled by the Catholics because they're supposed to do it? The Nuremberg defense should never work, especially with thee expression of free speach. The catholic index was horrific, and the boycotting of movies simply because they differ in message is just so. And what does absolute morality have to do with this? It's not a moral issue, it's a matter of ignorance.

DCO,

It seems as if some atheists have their knickers in a bunch bc Christians are acting like Christians, and this strikes me as hilarious.

On the other hand, Atheists are behaving incoherently because while they deny the existence of an absolute moral/behavioral standard they ALSO criticize religious folks for being intolerant and ignorant (claims that require some objective standard).

Now you might claim that all religion is incoherent by virtue of their belief in an immaterial God. I dont find anything incoherent about such a beief, but if you would be so kind as to point it out I would be SOOO appreciative. My guess, though, is that you're going to have to committ yourself to a metaphysical naturalism that strikes me as incoherent (if not abominable).

Just as a preemptive note, in addition to explaining away God as immaterial, you will then have to turn your attention to the other immaterial entity that occupy our cosmos: numbers, facts, relationships and most importantly, YOU. YOU are immaterial.
You are not your body, you have a body. you are not your brain, you have a brain.

Show me dem lions =)

booksbrown - Many tennets of Christianity (as with all religions) have been ditched to fit the zeitgeist. Though this suppression of ideological freedom is typical of biblical Christianity, so is stoning a man to death for picking up sticks on the sabbath. My point is that literal Christianity is nonexistant in modern society. No one fully obeys biblical law. So, it is understandable that a secular mind might find objection to this suppression for, while it is biblically acceptable, by today's moral standards, it is attrocious and restrictive of societal rights. I, as an atheist, deny "absolute" moral, but our current moral standard has no reason to be rejected for an older model. As I stated above, you yourself do not follow an absolute moral unless you slaughter every gay, afulterer, bestialist, stick-gatherer. Even if the moral is God-given, circumstances change with time: if God says you must sacrifice ten gazelles every month to sbe a good person, and you eventually kill them all, it is impossible to keep this moral absolute. Our "objective standard" is the current societal standard, as it is the most up to date and applicable.
By immaterial, do you refer to substance or principle? I'll assume the former.
I find an immaterial God incoherent because If it were immaterial (in substance), it would simply be an idea. This doesn't groove with the concept of a creator. God, typically speaking, is not just a moral absolute, it is a supernatural (omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent) force that has or has had some governance in our existance. The idea of a self, however, is merely a summation of all parts of one's being... or self. True, your heart and brain are just that, but they are part of a whole. So, are all parts of one's self. In this respect, it is conceptual, rather than material, but it does not posess any supernatural power, and consists of material things. So self is not as God. All other "immaterial" concepts that you mentioned are not so much immaterial as they are arbitrary. We have subsituted them as definitions for complex material things. For example, if you put a rock next to a rock, you can say that the "number" of rocks is two, deux, dos, etc., but it is a constant that there are 2 ( I I ). The names (facts, numbers, words, Self) are arbitrary, but the concepts they reperesent are concrete, solid. So we have concluded that God, as an immaterial yet powerful force is incoherent, but that the lack of such a God is not. Furthermore, that the words we apply for material concepts are coherent, in that they are arbitrary, not immaterial. Sorry for the long message; I suggest we continue this conversation via current e-mail. More personnal.

I must say I'm more than a little impressed by your interest and passion for the topic. Your profile tells me you're still in high school but are taking college level courses-- nuff respect.

Part of the reason I felt compelled to respond to the post is because I'm tired of the gross misrepresentations and caricatures of religious belief, mostly Christian. Sadly, many of your comments fall under this category. I'm hopeful our conversation might generate more light than heat, so I'd like to keep it on the general board versus taking it to private email.

Your post argued for several points I disagree with.

First, I'm unclear what pointing to diminished forms of Christianity is supposed to demonstrate? That some modern believers practive a Christianity that is disimilar to ancient forms should come as little surprise. But this doesnt preclude modern beleivers from practicing a faith identical in substance as early believers. In fact, the early church (1 and 2nd century) is filled with CREEDS that have been passed down, so as to ensure similarity. So what if SOME interpretations have changed? I dont see the force of that point.

As it relates to morality, I was simply demonstarting the incoherency of a belief system that denies moral standards yet criticisez people for failing to abide by some subjective (even if contemporary) moral code. If , as you seem to suggest, morality is a societal convention, why think your criticism has any real value? Furthermore, you;re commitment to atheism might drive you to think that all statements are meaningless, as 'meanings' are constructed on that view.

By immaterial, I mean lacking the properties of matter: height, weight, color, extension and location. To say that numbers are material is to say that the number TWO weighs such and such, and is so and so long and is located at such and such. This strikes most people as absurd. It should strike you similarly. Remember, while the number two might be represented in a number of arbitrary ways, the concept is immaterial.

sonrisa,
again, i think the opinion piece caricatures religious belief. I'm a little surprised that he's comfortable replacing straw man argumentation with any real point.

Arguing that religion is an impediment to human progress ignores the role religion has played in providing a framework for science (e.g., science rests on the assumption the universe and its laws are intelligeble) and moral progress (Dr. King, anyone?).

That some people find some religious behavior foolish is neither interesting nor provocative. Now, gettting at the grounds for the critique is more interesting bc thats when atheists are forced to admit they have no grounds for their critique.

BooksBrown- I had a feeling that Morford's editorial would get someone going... But that's the point, we all come from very different backgrounds with very different beliefs that ring true to us as individuals.

I'm not an atheist but I do find it both interesting and provocative that there are people out there that feel threatened by movies like the Golden Compass or the naming of a children's teddy bear Muhammad. So, perhaps that editorial or the article about The Golden Compass is not valid to you, but obviously it is to a lot of people, particularly those that cannot imagine being threatened by these actions.

To me, the challenging of beliefs should be welcomed as a chance to strengthen and shape faith, not something to fear. I'm personally not arguing against the merits of religion but rather the closed-minded attributes of many extremist groups. Perhaps you don't see it that way, but that's the great thing about life- we're each entitled to our own free will and opinion.

You say that you are surprised that Morford is comfortable with his arguments whereas you cannot understand why others are surprised by the actions of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. Do you not see the parallel in opposing viewpoints?

And, finally, I interpreted Morford's argument differently than you did. Instead of saying that religion is an impediment to progress, I felt that he was emphasizing that extremism is the obstacle and that there is often hypocrisy to organized religion. I also think he was pushing the boundaries of what is "blasphemous" in order to make a point that it's all a matter of perspective. I'm sure you especially enjoyed it when he called God a woman at the end ;) But that's the fun of it.

BooksBrown - Why are you classifying secular morality as a contradiction? I don't fully understand.

Sonrisa,
I think you;re right. The opinion piece did get conversation going, but it did so by caricaturing religious belief. And that's simply unfair (or to put it more strongly, illogical).

And here it might be important to note that Im arguing my position from history an philosophy, and not as a believer per se. I've objected to the historically inaccurate and philosophically wanting arguments posted here on the board. All this to say, religion by no means requires you to set aside your intellect. Please disabuse yourself from this notion.

I was surprised Morford was comforatble with his argument bc he didnt provide any argumentation. I wasnt surprised at his conclusion, only by how he arrived to it. By setting up straw men and knocking them down.

To think that beleivers are "threatened" by a movie is to caricature folks. Yes, Christians are hiding their kids in closets and not taking them to bookstores so as to avoid the threat of the Moral Compass? No. People are objecting to material they find offensive (GOD IS DEAD) and going about the actions of an organized group with a clear goal.
Why is that surprising?

Do you agree in principle that parents have the right to monitor the type fo content their children receive? If so, on your view, your FEARFUL and AFRAID.

And when the author claims that ALL religious belief is irrational (or the enemy of reason), he demonstrates his ignorance. Village folk atheism is really unrefined.

I’m with Ira, why is secular morality a contradiction? In calling it that, aren’t you “caricaturing” atheists? Have you ever noticed how most religions teach the same basic tenants about what is right and wrong? Have you ever considered that perhaps all human beings have an intrinsic sense for this that is not dependent on God? I know, I know, I’m opening Pandora’s Box by even asking these questions.

And, honestly, I probably will not respond to whatever you post next because you don’t seem to understand what I’m saying, (which is just as likely my fault as yours), so what's the point. If I believed that religion and intellect were incompatible, I’d be an atheist, which I’m not. Fearful and afraid are the same thing, and I’m neither. If I were threatened by members of conservative religious groups I wouldn’t start open dialogue about them on the internet. I would not take away the right of parents to censor what their children are exposed to, I just don’t understand why they think that these movies will brainwash their children, but I get it, that’s my opinion, not theirs. Cheers.

Sonrias,
I guess its fine if you dont respond. But I think the point of the discussion is to help ourselves think through some of these issues w/o resorting to emotional shouting contests.

But I did not caricature atheists by claiming that there ethical system is bankrupt. I

'd be caricaturing them if I took one facet of their belief system, exaggerated it and presented it as the whole...not unlike those funny cartoons we get made of ourselves at carnivals.

What the op-ed writer did was jsut that, he took the extreme behavior of some religious fundamentalist to make the claim that all serious religious folks are irrationally fearful.

I thought I gave reasons to reject atheistic morality (over theistic morality), its because atheistic morality reduces to mere social convention about what a group of people at any given time find right or wrong. The obvious problem with teh view is that social convention change and we have a moral impulse that says some actions are ALWAYS (regardless of time or location, culture or creed) WRONG.

You are right about most cultures adopting a similar ethic. And I think you are onto something when you say that it might be a natural moral impulse. But that simply pushes the question back for the atheist. How do molecules amount to moralit? My answer is that matter can never be moral. Therefore, we are not matter and the convictions of some atheists are false.

I think I do understand what you;re saying: parents have the right to monitor what their children take in.
Some parents disagree in practice over what should be permitted, but most people agree in principle.

If people beleive this in principle, why are others surprised? You draw the line here, others over there.

Amelinda,
Thanks for engaing the topic and I like what you had to say about people from both sides of the debate doing conversation damage by making statements that arent grounded in reason.

That said, I think you make the mistake of misrepresenting my position re: morality and atheism.
While I did say atheistic morality is bankrupt, I did not say atheist are morally bankrupt. That is an important distinction.

Here, I am in line with thousands of years of Catholic thought, so dont think what I'm saying is peculiar to my 21st century perspective: Atheists can behave more morally than a theist. No serious, thinking believer can doubt that possibility. But thats not the PHILOSOPHICAL point being made. The philosophical point is that ATHEIST cannot rationally justify their ethical system. That is, they cannot convincingly provide reason to think that certain acts or ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE wrong bc on the strict, metaphysical naturalist point of view, all things are ultimately matter in motion and matter doesnt have categories of RIGHT and WRONG, it simply is.

Now, you might want to debate this by providing a means by which evolution could have provided this moral capacity but I dont think its going to get you anywhwere.

So, stop saying Christian think atheists are immoral. That is not necesarrily true. Some atheist might be immoral. Some theists might be immoral. My argument focused on teh JUSTIFICATION of belief not behavior. Ya dig the difference?

Re: protest, you're right to think that parents have the right to monitor and censor their childrens media intake. What I dont see is how protesting is an assualt on others, or even if it is an "assault" its not clear that its dissimilar from other forms of protest. So , are you against any and all protests that challenge people who disagree? I hope not, as we are a world in dire need of more protests!

Hi BooksBrown. I don't think that you really understand atheism, in much the same way that a lot of atheists, Morford potentially included, do not understand true Christianity. I'm an atheist and have been since high school, where I grew up in the highly religious area of Lancaster County, PA. I have many friends who are the real Christians you speak of, and I know that, even here - they'd agree with me. Precisely because people like you don't understand atheism and a lot of people like me don't understand real Christianity is why we should all just stay out of it and stop trying to sway members of the opposite cult to our side, or restrict/censor/denounce pieces of art that are meant merely to provoke thought. It's not as if New Line is promoting this film as The Truth. No, it's a work of art, like Harry Potter, like The Chronicles of Narnia - and sure, they all have messages, but if you're a logical parent, I don't see why you can't approach the subject with your children with care and open-mindedness - "Yes Billy, that's the way Phillip Pullman thought - how do you feel about it?"

As for atheist morality, I do hope that you're aware there are other objective systems of ethics that have nothing to do with any sort of religion. Utilitarianism, natural law, social contract, and a number of others - oftentimes these theories will supplant the instructions of religious doctrine in an atheist's mind, although many are still moral relativists, a fact that, alone, I don't believe is worthy of scorn. So your next point is, I'll assume, what holds atheists to their ethics of choice? I know it may be a difficult concept to grasp, but for certain people (atheists, agnostics, etc.), fear of judgment in the afterlife is not needed in order to live a good life. Rather, I believe the biggest judge in an atheists' mind (or at least in mine) is the self, and secondly, society. The idea that there are not consequences for atheists is absurd and naive - of course there are consequences. We exist, and we are aware of our own existence and we certainly don't want to shorten it, considering we believe life is a one-shot deal. Sure, we won't be answering to St. Peter at the gates of heaven, but if we do have to live on this earth - I think most atheists would agree they'd rather not do it in a jail cell. Not to mention the horrible reputation faith-holding members of humanity have given us - I'm sure many atheists wouldn't even consider performing heinous acts solely to prove the point that we don't need religion to be moral! Not to mention the insignificant fact that behaving wrongly is not pleasurable. Like I said, I've been an atheist for many years now and am very firmly set in my moral stance - and when I do something wrong (granted, these are little somethings like white lies or accidentally bumping into a stranger), I feel remorse, not based on any doctrine, but out of a deep and sincere respect for all members of humanity and this earth. I simply do not see how, if you knew real atheists, you can call such a system morally bankrupt. I'm not even going to begin refuting Christianity here; I merely wanted you to understand true atheism (albeit slightly swayed to my personal version).

Now, back to the topic at hand. Protests, in essence, are means to combat an act that one is against, particularly when one has no other option and/or collective action is needed. What I believe most of the atheists are confounded by (and I'm speaking primarily of myself) is what exactly Christians hope to gain through these protests. Religious tolerance is guaranteed through the constitution and I believe, should be applied to those without religion as well. Tolerance (well and maybe a little reflection on your aims) is all many of these commenters are asking for, most likely the same sort of tolerance Christians would have asked for, if atheists had picketed outside of theaters showing The Chronicles of Narnia shouting that the Christians were corrupting our unbelieving children. Here's my point - if you are a Christian, and you don't want your child to see the movie, don't let them. Heck, even spread your opinion among your friends and family. But don't assault complete strangers with your judgment, especially when it's so biased and unfounded and cannot have any productive ends other than censorship - which is exactly the abstract notion a free nation such as America should be against.

The story has nothing to do with atheism the idead of it is that the magestrium (christians- church) want nothing more than to control every mind in this world to belive in god and that free thinking not be allowed when people protest it the only prove the book / movie correct. The writer is not atheist he is agnotstic which is beliving in a god but not worshiping a specific one. That is the problem that many people do not understand what exactly the movie is about!! but when you bicker about what you dont understand it only prove you wrong and the opponent correct it dosent teach a young mind atheism its a story!!!