# The Golden Compass Controversy



## iansales

*Golden Compass Backlash...*

If you fancy something amusing to read try this "warning" against *The Golden Compass*' alleged anti-Christian content. Some of the comments are very funny - although there are a _lot_ of comments, and your eyes will probably start glaze about halfway down the page...

Oh, and if you think it's unfair (or even unChristian!) to scoff at these religious bigots, I'd just like to point out that not one of them has _actually seen the film or read the book_.


----------



## Majimaune

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Big woop. I'm a Christian and I love the books and hope to love the movies. Some people are just too "Ohh he said something that brushes along our belief in the wrong way. Lets down that person" I mean really its annoying.


----------



## iansales

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

It amuses that they start frothing at the mouth without actually seeing the film itself and forming their own opinion. I know it says in the Bible that the meek shall inherit the earth, but does that mean they should all behave like sheep?


----------



## Majimaune

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

I really have no idea at all. Maybe.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

I haven't read the books (or seen the film) but isn't it supposed to be quite anti-religious (or at least organised religion) in tone anyway? I seem to remember reading an interview where the author compares the church in the book with a sort of very overbearing an intolerant entity.If anything I read that the film's director toned it down for the first film. It gets much worse in the remaining two novels supposedly.


----------



## iansales

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

I've read the books. They're very good. It's about a battle against God, yes, but only inasmuch as it's based on Milton's *Paradise Lost*. It doesn't encourage people to dance naked about henges, or sacrifice goats, or burn churches... It's a fantasy, heavily influenced by Milton's poem, but ultimately a thuoght-exercise in which the Kingdom of Heaven is replaced by a republic.


----------



## Marky Lazer

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

I read the stage play (not the books, it's also not the script on which the motion picture was based) and kept thinking, "this isn't so anti-religion." Apperently, they toned it down to perform it. That said, I don't understand all these bashing all the time, if you don't agree, don't go see the movie or read the books. Why would people enjoy spoiling someone else's fun? Especially if don't even go experience it yourself. Something I'll never understand probably...


----------



## Culhwch

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Marky Lazer said:


> Why would people enjoy spoiling someone else's fun? Especially if don't even go experience it yourself. Something I'll never understand probably...


 
I don't think it's about enjoyment. I think they feel obligated to bring the good word about the evil films...


----------



## iansales

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

They're telling other people not to see it - but they're not saying that because they've seen it themselves but because they've been _told_ not to see it themselves.


----------



## Marky Lazer

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Culhwch said:


> I don't think it's about enjoyment. I think they feel obligated to bring the good word about the evil films...


Christianity (and other religions) believe they have a monopoly on the truth. And so they always feel obligated to inform me (for example) about the truth.


----------



## iansales

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Not very, er, Christian, is it?


----------



## Cayal

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Man if I ever wrote a book that seemed anti-religious, I'd be telling new line cinema change the name of the movie from [title] to 'Screw religion and God ain't real'.

The less we hear of religion the better the world will be.

I have to laugh at those comments, I can't believe those sheep believe the crap they spew.


----------



## Marky Lazer

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

That's a bit harsh, ain't it, Jaire? I think everyone should be believe whatever they want, I respect pretty much what they want to do. Is it so hard for them to respect my enjoyment when I want to watch "The Golden Compass" ?


----------



## Cayal

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

No it isn't harsh.

Religion is histories biggest monster. Just look at the Crusades and the current war on terror (killing in the name of Allah). Look at what happened to the Jews in World War II (and would it have happened if the term Jewish people never existed. Look at Palestine and Israel.

The list goes on.

No, those idiots need to wake up to reality.


----------



## Marky Lazer

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

The way you put it now you're doing exactly the same. Do you have the monopoly on the truth?


----------



## Culhwch

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Jaire said:


> No it isn't harsh.
> 
> Religion is histories biggest monster. Just look at the Crusades and the current war on terror (killing in the name of Allah). Look at what happened to the Jews in World War II (and would it have happened if the term Jewish people never existed. Look at Palestine and Israel.
> 
> The list goes on.
> 
> No, those idiots need to wake up to reality.


 
I don't understand your argument there - the Jews were persecuted for their religion, and here you are persecuting people for their religion.

In any case, though we respect your right to an opinion, we'd prefer it if you expressed it in less inflammatory ways. Religion is a touchy subject, and tends to revert to flame wars rather quickly.


----------



## iansales

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

A lot of terrorism is politically motivated - a study of Palestinian suicide bombers showed that most were acting out of patriotism. And Jews were being victimised long before the Nazi - such as these. Usury used to be a sin in Christianity (and still is in Islam), but Jews could lend money and charge interest to non-Jews... which is why they became money-lenders. It was as much their wealth and status which caused the early progroms as it was their religion or race.


----------



## Cayal

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

If Jews/christians/muslims etc were not jews/christians/muslims etc there would be none of what i mentioned above.

If they were catergorised as people and that is all, would Hitler have gathered up all Jewish people (he certainly wouldn't be gathering up 'people')? Would there be a pope to sanction the crusades? Would muslim fanatics kills in the name of Allah if there were no such thing as Allah?


----------



## iansales

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Hitler also put homosexuals, political prisoners and Romany in the death camps.


----------



## Culhwch

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Exactly, Ian. People are always going to find reasons to kill one another. Religion can be a bad thing, but it can also be a good thing. I don't think painting the whole scope of religious history as 'idiotic' is a particularly good argument, or going to solve anything.


----------



## iansales

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Culhwch said:


> Exactly, Ian. People are always going to find reasons to kill one another. Religion can be a bad thing, but it can also be a good thing. I don't think painting the whole scope of religious history as 'idiotic' is a particularly good argument, or going to solve anything.



I wasn't aware that I had (if your remark was directed elsewhere, ignore this comment).

But to return to the original point... Various people were lining up to attack *The Golden Compass*, and yet not one of them had seen the film or read the book. _That_ is "idiotic".


----------



## Culhwch

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



iansales said:


> I wasn't aware that I had (if your remark was directed elsewhere, ignore this comment).
> 
> But to return to the original point... Various people were lining up to attack *The Golden Compass*, and yet not one of them had seen the film or read the book. _That_ is "idiotic".


 
No, not at you, Ian. Apologies for the confusion.


----------



## iansales

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

I didn't think so, but I thought I'd better make sure


----------



## Briareus Delta

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Haven't seen it either but I would anticipate that the anti-religious content must be considerably played down for the American market - atheism in the US being about as popular as having membership of the Osama Bin Laden fan club. 

Loved some of the comments - of course this just has to be an anti-Christian conspiracy, it couldn't possibly  be an entertaining adventure story with a (legitimate?) message about the dangers of organised religion.


----------



## Cayal

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Culhwch said:


> Exactly, Ian. People are always going to find reasons to kill one another.



On the scale that religion has caused?


----------



## iansales

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

I don't recall either WWI or WWII being motivated by religion.


----------



## Overread

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Religion has always been a good excuse for a war, remember the crusades - a religious war for land and territory. Had there been no religion, the rulers of the time would have found other excuses to fight. That said, there are cases where religion has been the instigator in wars, but I hardly see its absence as a sign of the ending of wars.

Ian - It was either ww1 or WW2 (or both) where the Pope could have intervened and ended the war before it started by proclaiming the Vatican against the German war machine - however the Vatican stood independent.

on Pullman - I found the books not anti religious, but against the organised religion that is most practised as a form of population control through manipulation of their beliefs


----------



## iansales

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Overread said:


> Ian - It was either ww1 or WW2 (or both) where the Pope could have intervened and ended the war before it started by proclaiming the Vatican against the German war machine - however the Vatican stood independent.



I've not heard that one. I wonder if that's not attributing too much power to the papacy. After all, both Germany and Britain are (and were at the time) secular protestant states...


----------



## Overread

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

True, but I think there was a large support for the Vatican in the German ranks and society at the time and I think that it was WW2 and there was a real fear of things returning to the trenches of WW1 - people were possibly looking for a window out, and the vatican was one such window.


----------



## Brian G Turner

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Jaire said:


> If Jews/christians/muslims etc were not jews/christians/muslims etc there would be none of what i mentioned above.
> 
> If they were catergorised as people and that is all, would Hitler have gathered up all Jewish people (he certainly wouldn't be gathering up 'people')? Would there be a pope to sanction the crusades? Would muslim fanatics kills in the name of Allah if there were no such thing as Allah?



Sure - religion has always been used as a tool for social control, justifying political actions with religious oratory and ideals.

Look across to communist countries, and you see the same flaws and idealism, this time wrapped up in overt political messages, rather than hiding in religious ones.


----------



## ScottSF

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

hey I didn't know if I was interested in seeing this but if it's Anti-religion then it sounds like my cup of tea.  Theists need their world challenged.  Of course fundamentalist Christians will get upset, they know all about placing too much importance on a work of fiction.  Now my interest in the story is really peaked!


----------



## Ursa major

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

I'm not someone who believes in concepts such as original sin, but there is something in human nature (or, if you prefer, in the nature of many or most humans) that can switch to an irrational hate of "the other". How "the other" is defined is irrelevant, except in the numbers and particular individuals involved in the hating.

Sometimes this character fault is exhibited in formal ways: empires and their treatment of "the conquered"; acts against adherents of different faiths, nationalities or classes. Sometimes it is manifested in informal ways: casual racism and all the other isms we have come to recognise over the years.

So while, for example, organised religion is at the heart of much suffering, I think that in most cases it is those who have the power (or are seeking the power) within the religion (or party, or national group, or class, etc.) who use the less civilised parts of our characters to pursue their own interests.

We could, I suppose, try to excise all these excuses for violence and hatred (though I can't see how), but it wouldn't remove the real cause; that would be _us_. 

(By the way, it is amazing how many people want to show how stupid they are by complaining about things they know little or nothing about.)


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



iansales said:


> Oh, and if you think it's unfair (or even unChristian!) to scoff at these religious bigots, I'd just like to point out that not one of them has _actually seen the film or read the book_.



I read the article and most of the responses at the end of your link, Ian, and I didn't see anyone say that they hadn't read the book.  So it may be a false assumption that _none_ of them have. 

Meanwhile, none of us have seen the movie any more than they have, because it isn't out yet.  We're all discussing its merits purely on hearsay.


----------



## iansales

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

True. But I have read the book. And since the film isn't even released until 5 December, it's reasonable assume none of the commenters has seen it.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



iansales said:


> But I have read the book.



But maybe some of them have read it too.  Or at least had it described to them by people they trust.  Meanwhile, everyone who chooses _to_ see the movie without having first read the book will do so on the basis of what other people have said.  Should they be required to read the book first before deciding whether to go?

And what about the people who said they wouldn't go see _The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe_ because they didn't like what they had heard about C. S. Lewis's pro-religious agenda?  Are _they_ bigots, or just people who don't want to buy tickets and give encouragement (and money is a very big encouragement) to something they consider dangerous?


----------



## Dave

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



iansales said:


> ...since the film isn't even released until 5 December, it's reasonable to assume none of the commenters has seen it.


The first paragraph says...





> I plan to review the movie, but I haven't had the opportunity to see it yet. So, in the meantime, here is some information that will help you understand why the film has the potential to be extremely dark and dangerous.


However, the trilogy of books has been around for years so I'm sure they would have had access to them.

I don't see them as sheep, frothing at the mouth at all. It is possible to have an informed view on something or someone, without seeing it or them. Christians do seem to have been under pressure in the last few years, but the really evangelical right-wing Christians who teach Creationism do other Christians the most damage of all, whereas Richard Dawkins, mentioned there as some kind of anti-christ, actually makes a great deal of sense.

I have read the books, and Phillip Pullman's anti-religious agenda was something I found quite obvious in them. Even according to that website, the film has toned it down.


----------



## iansales

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

I didn't spot any comments that showed any familiarity with the book - in fact, the bulk of comments show an ignorance of it. (There are one or two who say they've read the book, and point out that the others don't appear to know what they're talking about.)

If someone wants to label the film as potentially anti-Christian on what appears to be quotes taken from a variety of sources, then fine. But the assorted denunciations in the comments are not so considered - I mean, "Evil Muslims"?


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



iansales said:


> I mean, "Evil Muslims"?



But you've taken that completely out of context.  That person didn't say that all Muslim's are evil, or in fact that any specific ones are evil.  It was a hypothetical statement to the effect that if attacked by evil Muslims even atheists would start praying.

Some people are instantly prepared to attack or scoff at anything said by someone who makes a point of saying they're a Christian.  Some people are equally prepared to attack or scoff at anything said by someone who makes a point of saying they're an atheist. (My hackles tend to rise in response to either statement.  I'd like to ascribe this to the noblest of motives on my part, but maybe I'm just a double bigot.)

But Pullman has said that he is glad to be considered the enemy of organized religion.  And certainly the film will be the occasion for a lot of Christian-bashing, as well as giving Pullman a wider audience to explain his views, if not through the film, through many interviews and articles.

In my opinion, this kind of thing doesn't promote tolerance on either side.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

I agree with you Teresa, but tolerance works both ways. I find religious authorities very unbending in the face of clear scientific evidence or changing cultural landscapes.
You have to be if you're following a text written 1,500 years ago I suppose. 

Personally I'm not against religion. I've seen people who have gone the extra mile and helped other precisely because they believed (rightly or wrongly) that they were doing "God's work" by their actions. By the same token I have met those who are incredibly protectionist against anyone who dares to have a different viewpoint to their own. This isn't merely limited to religion of course, but as I said, tolerance needs to be a two-way street not just placating to those who may be offended. That's political correctness gone mad and needs to be challenged


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

I just think that Philip Pullman is standing up for what he sincerely believes and that the people who are protesting against the film are standing up for what they sincerely believe.  How could a person of conscience do otherwise?  But unfortunately, when people of completely opposite views turn defensive tolerance takes a beating.

What I read at that website was the anguish of people who genuinely feel that everything they stand for is under attack.  And maybe it's all too politically correct of me, but I can feel for them even if I don't feel with them.  And twisting their words and making assumptions about what they are thinking and what they have and haven't done, doesn't seem to me to be the highest expression of tolerance, whether those assumptions are correct or not.  

The main thing I carried away from reading their remarks is that they will pray, and pray, and _pray_ that this movie will not go forth.

But this is only a threat if you believe their prayers could possibly be effective.


----------



## mosaix

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



iansales said:


> .... both Germany and Britain are (and were at the time) secular protestant states...



Can't agree Ian.

British schools were and still are, required to carry out 'a daily act of worship'.

In addition 26 Bishops sit, by right, in the House of Lords shaping the laws by which I have to live my life.

So that's education and government that religion is involved in, by law.

BTW what is a _secular protestant_?


----------



## Wiglaf

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

You have to realize, these people feel that declared atheists have been repeatedly attacking them and their beliefs.  Perhaps not too inaccurate a perception.  Islam, Budhism, Hinduism, etc. are not usually the focus of atheists.  Furthermore, those declaring themselves atheists often seem not to be atheists at all; they appear to actually believe in God but are mad as hell at Him.  While those that do not believe might think religiousness silly, they feel no need to attack it.  Besides, Pullman first got their attention with his attacks on the morality and ethics of Lewis when "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" came out.  If he said no one should want to see or produce that movie, why can't they say the same about the movie based on his book?  As for seeing it before condemning it, then they would be making him money, which is not their goal.


----------



## iansales

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



mosaix said:


> Can't agree Ian.
> 
> British schools were and still are, required to carry out 'a daily act of worship'.
> 
> In addition 26 Bishops sit, by right, in the House of Lords shaping the laws by which I have to live my life.
> 
> So that's education and government that religion is involved in, by law.
> 
> BTW what is a _secular protestant_?



We're still a secular state. We're not run by the Church. The Church does not dictate laws. Oh, and the protestant bit was because we were discussing the papacy


----------



## iansales

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

What these Christians are advocating is censoring something because it does not fit in with their belief system. And that is wrong. The original article writer "advises" people not to see the film - although she starts by ranting about an "Atheist Conspiracy" (just to get her readers frothing at the mouth). The commenters do not say they are grateful for her advice, or that they will make the decision themselves... No, they attack Pullman, the makers of the film, and anyone who isn't a Christian. Again, that is wrong. You can bend over backwards all you like, but I condemn their behaviour.


----------



## Majimaune

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

This thread seems to have turned into a religion thread instead of what it started out as.


----------



## iansales

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Well, the subject _was_ religion... inasmuch as it was about religious censorship of *The Golden Compass*...


----------



## Majimaune

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Yes but only religion and not connected with Northern Lights at all.


----------



## iansales

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

I think topic slippage is a law of nature. Or maybe it's a commandment.


----------



## Dave

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Majimaune said:


> This thread seems to have turned into a religion thread instead of what it started out as.


I thought we were discussing why some people have decided not to go to see the film without knowing anything about it. NB. That is not the same thing as censoring the film, which I would be completely against.





iansales said:


> The original article writer "advises" people not to see the film - although she starts by ranting about an "Atheist Conspiracy".


I take your point; her first paragraph is about some "Out Campaign" that has absolutely no relevance at all to the film. There are no ulterior motives for the release of the film, but if people wish to avoid it then that is their loss.


----------



## iansales

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Dave said:


> I thought we were discussing why some people have decided not to go to see the film without knowing anything about it. NB. That is not the same thing as censoring the film, which I would be completely against.



Telling people not to see the film is a form of censorship, surely?


----------



## Majimaune

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Yeah it is. Or it seems like that to me.


----------



## mosaix

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



iansales said:


> We're still a secular state. We're not run by the Church. The Church does not dictate laws. Oh, and the protestant bit was because we were discussing the papacy



Ian, Bishops by right have a hand in the law making and what's worse cannot be removed - even by the democratic process.

By comparison, what would you call a state in which the Bishops weren't involved in law making? 

According to the Secular Society the most secular state in Europe - wait for it - is Italy. The Church plays no part in Government or Education. The reason is the strong part played by Communists in Government.


----------



## Cayal

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Going off topic for a bit - I have always wondered why the Roman, Greek, Norse Gods are no longer considered Gods. That they do not exist. That the religion of it is no more (or if it is around it is not strong).

Why are those Gods non existent, fake, not real etc, but God, Allah is?

On topic - I am halfway through this book, I am starting to enjoy it. But when does the anti-religion come into it?


----------



## Ursa major

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



> Originally Posted by *Majimaune*
> This thread seems to have turned into a religion thread instead of what it started out as.


 
I think it was inevitable, Geoff. People aren't used to children's books that have the attitude to religion and God that Pullman's series seems to.

(I've sometimes thought that some of the critical accaim and enthusiasm that these books received from certain quarters was down to the books' stance on religion**. I don't want to say more, though, because I've not read the books, but only heard critics burbling on at length about them on the radio.)

** But then, I'm a bit of a cynic.


----------



## iansales

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

This is what I meant by a secular state: "A secular state also treats all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and does not give preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion over other religions. Most often it has no state religion or equivalent. If there is a state religion, this should have only a symbolic meaning, not affecting the ordinary life of its citizens, and especially not making any distinction based on someone's religion." (taken from Wikipedia)

And yet the article containing the above quote doesn't list the UK as an officially secular state. Perhaps because our head of state is also the head of our church?

Jaire - the Big Three monotheistic religions considered all deities but their own to be fake - Norse, Greek, Vedic, whatever.

Ursa major - I enjoyed the books, although I thought the first was the best of the three. I'll have to reread them one day.


----------



## Cayal

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Yes, but why do Romans themselves, whose ancestors worshiped the Ancient Gods, no longer worship them? How did those religions die out?


----------



## iansales

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Christianity was just a bit too effective. Christian missionaries were pretty canny when it came to "persuading" kings and chieftains to convert. As in, "Both of your neighbouring kings have converted, so if you don't, we'll just get them to invade you because you're not Christian."


----------



## Dave

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



iansales said:


> Telling people not to see the film is a form of censorship, surely?


Is the Church actually telling Christians to shun this film?

If so, then yes that is also a form of censorship, because it removes their free will to decide for themselves. That doesn't appear to be the case here, though it has been in the past with Mel Gibson's 'The Passion of the Christ'. There is no burning of books as was the case with Harry Potter, and the writer, who does not appear to be clergy, stated that she was going to review the film herself at some point. But now we are arguing semantics so I'm going to bail out of this discussion.


----------



## Briareus Delta

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Wiglaf said:


> You have to realize, these people feel that declared atheists have been repeatedly attacking them and their beliefs. Perhaps not too inaccurate a perception. Islam, Budhism, Hinduism, etc. are not usually the focus of atheists.


 
As an atheist, and speaking for my people(!), I don't think there is a focus. Atheism is not about attacking other peoples beliefs. It's simply a belief system, every bit as much as Christianity or Islam. Believe what you want. Worship fairies if that's your thing. I choose not to believe in an afterlife - I don't expect to be attacked/criticised for it, just as I wouldn't attack anothers beliefs. I do have issues with certain aspects of organised religion, such as the indoctrination of children, and I reserve the right to continue to raise those issues - that is not the same thing as attacking someones beliefs or being intolerant of them. 



Teresa Edgerton said:


> But Pullman has said that he is glad to be considered the enemy of organized religion.


 
Which is not, of itself, anti-Christian.


----------



## Marky Lazer

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



iansales said:


> What these Christians are advocating is censoring something because it does not fit in with their belief system. And that is wrong.


This is interesting. Let me skate on thin ice here. How about Hitler's _Mein Kampf_? I'm not in favor of censoring, but I read parts of this horrible book and think it's for the good that it isn't just censored but even outlawed in many countries. What you're saying, though I admit a bit twisted, because we sensible people don't agree with Hitler's believes and think it's good it's outlawed, we're wrong?


----------



## Briareus Delta

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Marky Lazer said:


> This is interesting. Let me skate on thin ice here. How about Hitler's _Mein Kampf_? I'm not in favor of censoring, but I read parts of this horrible book and think it's for the good that it isn't just censored but even outlawed in many countries. What you're saying, though I admit a bit twisted, because we sensible people don't agree with Hitler's believes and think it's good it's outlawed, we're wrong?


 
I can't speak for Ian, but I've read the whole of Mein Kampf (there are always ways around a ban) and I certainly disagree with banning it. That's not because I agree with Hitlers beliefs - far from it, they are abhorrent - but because I think people should have the freedom to read it and make up their own minds. The book should have a 'health' warning, of course there are passages that are extremely offensive to Jews, but this is Hitler writing what he believed at the time - no more, no less. You can't catch bigotry or fascism by reading it. It has a fantastic educational value - as an illustration as to how patriotism and national pride can so easily turn to evil (and be hijacked for evil purpose) there simply is no better book.

I can't think of a single logical argument for it being banned.


----------



## purple_kathryn

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

I find it interesting that people find atheism so evil they believe anything that might promote should be banned.

Apparently I'm a bad person and I never realised it


----------



## Wiglaf

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Did Pullman's statement that they shouldn't make nor should anyone want to view the Narnia series of movies censorship?  A warning to fundamentalist Christians that they may not want to take their children to and pay for them to see a movie that they feel is adversarial to their beliefs is warranted.  It does not affect your ability to see the movie.

Most of these people, I believe, are American.  A country where religion does not have political power.  A country where the Pledge of Allegiance and the money has come under attack for the mention of God, derrogitory statements about any religious faith except fundamentalist Christianity is condemned, and war memorials with giant crosses on hills as grave markers have been declared Unconstitutional; America seems, in their view, intent on discrediting their religion.  In this light, it would be reasonable to expect them to be a wee sensitve.  Especially when they are often portrayed by others as evil incarnate.  As for separation of church and state, in their view atheism is a evagelizing religion, one intent on converting the world in the name of science and rationalism.  Basically, in their view, atheists are acting just like medieval Christianity and Islam.

I have only read the first book, it seems to bring up the idea that if too much power is given to the leadership of organized religion, then corruption can occur.  It is a standard argument against anyone gaining too much power.  In the third book, do they go on to battle God?

Incidentally, I think some of Pullman's past comments and views have affected their thinking about the movie as much as its or the books' content.


----------



## mosaix

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Briareus Delta said:


> As an atheist, and speaking for my people(!), I don't think there is a focus. Atheism is not about attacking other peoples beliefs. It's simply a belief system, every bit as much as Christianity or Islam. Believe what you want. Worship fairies if that's your thing. I choose not to believe in an afterlife - I don't expect to be attacked/criticised for it, just as I wouldn't attack anothers beliefs.



I'm not sure about atheism being a belief system. I prefer to think of it as a no-belief system. 

I try, as far as I can and as far as my upbringing and indoctrination by the church will allow me, to 'believe' nothing, in the sense of the word that we are using it here.

I always try to think of myself as a born-again atheist. A new born believes nothing.


----------



## HoopyFrood

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



mosaix said:


> I'm not sure about atheism being a belief system. I prefer to think of it as a no-belief system.



I was trying to articulate the same earlier (and failed so I didn't post  ) but I feel the same. As an atheist, for me it's not a case of not believing in god. Personally, I have no need for religion or a god so it's not that I don't believe, it's just something that doesn't feature in my life.


----------



## Wiglaf

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Just a note, there are those that don't believe in God and a group that seems to be militantly against Christianity.  Biareus Delta's statements might apply to the majority, but the ones that make all the noise are a different group.  Think Christian vs. Fundamentalist Christian, Muslim vs. Fundamentalist Muslim, and Atheist vs. a new category of, for lack of a better term, Fundamentalist Atheist.  One group of Atheists think that religious people are in err but that it is their business; the other group feels the need to convert all others or damn them to marginization as sub-human superstitious cretins.

From statements he has made, they put Pullman in the second group.  Hence the urging other members of their group not to add to his income by seeing the movie.


----------



## iansales

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Briareus Delta said:


> I can't speak for Ian, but I've read the whole of Mein Kampf (there are always ways around a ban) and I certainly disagree with banning it.



I've never read Mein Kampf. Never really wanted to. But I agree that the book should not be banned. No book should be.


----------



## mosaix

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Wiglaf said:


> Just a note, there are those that don't believe in God and a group that seems to be militantly against Christianity.  Biareus Delta's statements might apply to the majority, but the ones that make all the noise are a different group.  Think Christian vs. Fundamentalist Christian, Muslim vs. Fundamentalist Muslim, and Atheist vs. a new category of, for lack of a better term, Fundamentalist Atheist.  One group of Atheists think that religious people are in err but that it is their business; the other group feels the need to convert all others or damn them to marginization as sub-human superstitious cretins.
> 
> From statements he has made, they put Pullman in the second group.  Hence the urging other members of their group not to add to his income by seeing the movie.



Wiglaf, I am not 'against' religious people as such. In my view people are better off without religion so it's not surprising that I wouldn't want to bring my children up as believers.

However, and in the United States I know it is different, but here in the UK as I have said above, a 'daily act of worship' in schools is still the law. And also, as I've said above, Church Of England Bishops are, by right, part of the law making process. 

Every single day the BBC broadcasts a program entitled 'Thought For The Day' and every single day it some kind of religious leader who gives us the benefits of his thoughts - like no-one else's count.

I make no apology therefore for being one of those atheists that 'makes a noise' and I will continue to do so until there's a level playing field.


----------



## mosaix

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



iansales said:


> I've never read Mein Kampf. Never really wanted to. But I agree that the book should not be banned. No book should be.



Ian, I thought the same until I read _American Psycho_ (there's a thread about this somewhere). 

It's a thoroughly nasty book. It put thoughts into my head about 20 years ago that have never gone away, thoughts that I wish weren't there. Reading that book changed me, and not for the better.


----------



## Wiglaf

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Hoopyfrood, would you be more of an Agnostic then?

Mosaix, I thought the House of Lords had about the same power as the Monarchy, none outside of public opinion.  Am I wrong?
Here a daily act of worship in a public school would be illegal.  The argument is more about crosses at old war memorials and changing the name of Christmas in the Park to whatever the current name is.  Oh, and nativity scenes in front of churches.


----------



## mosaix

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Wiglaf said:


> Mosaix, I thought the House of Lords had about the same power as the Monarchy, none outside of public opinion.  Am I wrong?



Yep. All legislation that goes through Parliament also has to go through the second chamber - the House Of Lords.

Now they recognise that they are an endangered species and so are VERY careful about what they vote down. They wouldn't dare vote down a finance bill for instance. But if they really feel strongly about something - they vote it down.

And it's not just the Bishop's - not one single member of the House Of Lords is elected - bonkers or what?


----------



## HoopyFrood

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

I don't think so, Wiglaf -- agnostic is the idea of being unsure or doubtful about god, or can also mean that it's impossible to know whether god exists or not. That's not even an issue for me; what I'm trying to say is that knowing that there is or isn't a god is not something that concerns me. It's hard to define what I mean. It's not that I don't _believe_ in god or religion or am doubtful about it -- it's just something that doesn't play a part in my life at all. It's like...like customs in other cultures -- you know about them and you know there are people that follow them, but have no effect on you; you have no reason to personally believe or disbelieve in them because they play no part in your own life. So for want of a word, atheist suits because I'm very sure that a god(s) does not have a place in my personal life. 

See, now you know why I was having difficulty posting earlier...

Anyway, it seems we've deviated from the main feature...so...Golden Compass, yes?


----------



## iansales

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



mosaix said:


> Ian, I thought the same until I read _American Psycho_ (there's a thread about this somewhere).



I've read that. And seen the film. In fact, I like Bret Easton Ellis' novels.


----------



## iansales

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



mosaix said:


> Yep. All legislation that goes through Parliament also has to go through the second chamber - the House Of Lords.
> 
> Now they recognise that they are an endangered species and so are VERY careful about what they vote down. They wouldn't dare vote down a finance bill for instance. But if they really feel strongly about something - they vote it down.
> 
> And it's not just the Bishop's - not one single member of the House Of Lords is elected - bonkers or what?



The House of Lords has very little power. They can't veto a bill, they can only send it back to the House of Commons. Not that it happens very often - the governments of the day like to stack the odds in their favour with life peerages handed out for services rendered...


----------



## mosaix

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



iansales said:


> They can't veto a bill, they can only send it back to the House of Commons...



...for amendment.

So the elected government of the day put through legislation in the Commons, it is debated by them and the opposition and voted on by all the elected MPs and passed.

Then it goes to the House of Lords where an unelected bunch of people have the power to say 'No we don't like that - think again'.

And it isn't stacked, when a Government comes to power the House of Lords is filled with all the cronies from all the administrations from the last 50 years. In fact the more I describe this the more I realise how stupid it all is.

But to get back to the original point, the Bishops are there by right - nothing to do with any Government, in fact nothing to do with anyone - certainly not the electorate.


----------



## Brigitte

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

_Therefore, without yet seeing the film, at least one pro-family group -- the __American Family Association__ -- is alerting Christians to the potential dangers of The Golden Compass_

Alerting Christians?  I'm sorry, but when I read that, I crack up.  It reminds me of the Homeland Security color-coded alert system.  Terror alert Orange!  Oh, boy.  Would this be a Christian alert orange?  Or maybe red?  Oh no!

By the way, I am a Christian for the most part.  I agree with a post made way back about how some Christians are not offended my these movies.  I'm certainly not.  I think that, while they don't agree with my beliefs, they serve as a good ground for discussion and open opinions.  And, they strengthen your faith if you can still find what you believe in (but that's as theological as I'm going to get)

In a way, for Simpsons fans out there, this "alert" reminds me of Flanders's church, with the "Rapture Alert: Yellow" sign out front.


----------



## iansales

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

I still think your attributing more power to the House of Lords than it has.

And this thread seems to have covered almost everything now - we've done religion, and now politics... what's left? quantum mechanics?


----------



## Dave

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



iansales said:


> And this thread seems to have covered almost everything now - we've done religion, and now politics... what's left? quantum mechanics?


Actually, I don't think the books properly explained the portals between the worlds.


----------



## Majimaune

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Dave said:


> Actually, I don't think the books properly explained the portals between the worlds.


Well as far as I understood it, you could create a rip in the fabric of the universe if you had the right instrument, the knife. I have no idea how the knife did it though.


----------



## iansales

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Yes, but was the cat alive or dead?


----------



## Majimaune

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Alive I think.


----------



## iansales

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

You peeked!


----------



## Majimaune

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Never! I read them all.


----------



## mosaix

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



iansales said:


> I still think your attributing more power to the House of Lords than it has.
> 
> And this thread seems to have covered almost everything now - we've done religion, and now politics... what's left? quantum mechanics?



Good threads tend to do that!


----------



## Junomidge

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

It is interesting how wide-spread this controversy is. I first began investigating the books after seeing a film poster with a girl and an armoured polar bear. It looked just so amazing that I looked it up and found the books. They had been around for a very long time, but I have never come across them. I read them all, rabidly, and have been planning to see the movie for months. This exact discussion has come up on every message board I frequent now. That includes GSD dogs, cats, horses, quadding and local news message boards. I was in the bank today and the tellers and I were talking about it. What great advertising for the series and movie.

I have more reason than some to despise religion, having a mother who was yanked from her home to be placed in a catholic boarding school. What happened there is still being investigated. Following first contact with the european colonists to our coast, my people were decimated and then assimilated in the name of religion.

I didn't read a whole lot in the books to suggest the author's desire to kill god. It brings to mind RA MacAvoy's Damiano's series, where god and lucifer are used as simply as characters. People just attach too much importance to things, and it gets out of hand. I have read multiple articles and interviews with Pullman. Yes, he is a self-declared atheist, so what? If a christian's faith is so shaky that a book is going to drag him/her down, then maybe it wasn't real in the first place.


----------



## purple_kathryn

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Junomidge said:


> If a christian's faith is so shaky that a book is going to drag him/her down, then maybe it wasn't real in the first place.


 
That was my thought as well.

Also it goes to show exactly what some believers think of atheists (ie if you're an atheist you are so completely morally corrupt that any movie that would seem to be pro atheist should be banned for the children!).  Ironically while still pretending to be the persecuted one (oh the film is anti my religion)


----------



## Cayal

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Maybe they just feeling left out because no one listens to them anymore they just gotta start something to get some attention.


----------



## steve12553

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

I have seen the ads and today I read a small article about some of the author's controversial statements. Six long pages of discussion later, I have my answers (and then some).  I suspected from the ads that it was based on a childrens book. I went to one of the Harry Potter movies (midnight show) with my daughter because the person who had promised to go with her got sick. I slept in the theater chair for 75% of the movie and had no idea what happened. I saw the Narnia film with two young relatives and found it quite simplistic. I probably won't spend the time to see the movie. As far as the religion, I was once (or maybe twice) a serious Christian. I was never deeply into the politics of the church but I firmly believed. I still believe in many of the so called moral principles. (I haven't killed anybody this week or last). I still enjoy the music presented at Christmas (the old stuff) and I find the poetry of the Christmas story to be magic, but I do see the politics of nearly every church breaking its own rules. The science that we understand today contradicts the Bible and all of the old religious texts but I'm sure that a thousand years from now our decendants will look upon us as crude and ignorant. I am no longer a Christian but neither am I an Atheist or an Agnostic. I am waiting for answers. Standing in an open field on a warm day listening to nature functioning without the help of humanity tells me there is a God. Watching the interaction of Science and Religion tells me He's not the god of any religion yet defined. And with this I've probably only missed thirty-five interesting points brought up in this thread.


----------



## Pyan

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Junomidge said:


> If a christian's faith is so shaky that a book is going to drag him/her down, then maybe it wasn't real in the first place.


Exactly, Junomidge - And it's *fiction! *You know, that stuff that's made up! Not real! Imaginary!

Sheesh!


----------



## Cayal

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



pyan said:


> Exactly, Junomidge - And it's *fiction! *You know, that stuff that's made up! Not real! Imaginary!
> 
> Sheesh!



Exactly. I'd figure they'd be focusing on books such as these:












(I must read this one)


----------



## Ursa major

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

I guess, Jaire, that they're thinking the Golden Compass will have a much bigger audience (one that, ironically, their publicity could increase).

Oh, and it's aimed at children, unlike the titles you've posted.


----------



## Strife

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

i'm popping into the debate a little late, but why are a few people here saying that the author of His Dark Materials is antireligious? someone who spends three books talking about the rebellion against an organised church and a little god who has usurped the kingdom of heaven is not antireligious. On the contrary, the guy is very religious, but in a different way (well, this was in the essay i wrote on P. Pullman last week, sorry).


----------



## Mad Tam McC

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

I'm going to add my wee bit into the various things said in this debate.

1) My religious views - None, but if god/God exists then he/she or it is beyond our comprehension so there's no point even trying. I dislike organised religions.

2) The house of Lords. Most people would want an elected house of Lords except the government. The reason they don't is because an elected (by proportional representation?!?) House of Lords would begin to rival the House of Commons.

3) I want to see the film. If religious organisations are allowed to make films promoting religions (e.g. Mel Gibson's film - which I didn't see and have no desire to see because watching a film where someone is tortured to death is not something I want to see) then I don't see why you can't have anti-religious films. I also think that making a fuss over a film will just make more people see it (as what happened in the Father Ted episode).

4) As for the anti-religious bits in the first book (plot spolier coming up) the magesterium (i.e. the other universe's Catholic Church) is experimenting on children to try and remove original sin. Pretty powerful stuff.

5) I disagree with censorship but there are several books I have no desire to read. Two of which have been mentioned in previous posts. Absolute hate and the idea of inflicting pain for fun are things that I just cannot understand.

6) I think the religious organisations have too much unquestioned power. On the Cable TV we have a God TV channel. I want there to be an athiest one (for balance) that spends 24 hours a day telling people why religions are wrong. I believe religious people should be constantly questioned.

7) We still have faith schools in Scotland (and I think they are very devisive - not on purpose but because children don't mix with other religions) They are state run Catholic schools. I would like them to be scrapped. The sad thing is other religions want there to be state sposored ones of theirs. But if we are going to have state religious schools, I want there to be state sposored Jedi ones (4th biggest religious grouping in Britain), where May the 4th (be with you) is a holy day. If I ever become really rich I may just open one up.

Anyway that's enough of my rant. I hope I haven't upset anyone (because I don't mean to) or come over as Mr. Angry.


----------



## Majimaune

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Don't you people read? God disappeared in a puff of logic


----------



## Wiglaf

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

In response to Jaire's last post, I think the idea is that you might not want to unwittingly take your young child to a movie that conflicts with your beliefs.  I see no problem with that.  If a movie has a thread about how Atheism sucks and preaches about the One True Religion, Atheists could tell other Atheists that the film was propeganda they would be better off avoiding.  What is wrong with letting people be aware that the movie isn't overly kind to organized religion?  It merely provides them with info to use in deciding if they want to view it.  As for _The Atheist Manifesto_, I do not think there is any concern that anyone will pick it up without knowing that it is pro-Atheism.  It would be like Atheists sending warnings to each other warning that the writings of St. Paul were pro-Christianity.  In those cases a warning is unnecessary.


----------



## Cayal

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Wiglaf said:


> I think the idea is that you might not want to unwittingly take your young child to a movie that conflicts with your beliefs.




I am reading the book now, 2/3rds of the way through and I have yet to see any mention of God, or any religious values what so ever.

And it is a fictional book.




> What is wrong with letting people be aware that the movie isn't overly kind to organized religion?



If their faith is as strong as they say it is, they shouldn't be persuaded by a piece of fantasy fiction that has (thus far) no mention of God or Christianity.


----------



## Overread

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Ok I am comming back with this - I said it somewhere else and runs of memory that is several years old but here are my thoughts (again)
I first read the book when I was young - like Lewis, it was an adventure tale which borrowed bits from religeon, though more blatently in Northern Lights. The other thing I noticed as I got older was the the tale is not against the idea of religion, but rather against those who are in control of the belief of religion. Remember that at the end of the 3rd book Lyra speaks to Pan of creating the republic of heavon and also the her partents went into the abyss fighting the darkness.dark angle, who took over the control from "god". I took this to mean he was the devil - thus could see nothing wrong for him falling forever. As for the death of god incident, one which is often picked upon for being a major reason of hate against the film, I just saw it as showing that god in this world was more like us, able to be flawed, controled and abused.


----------



## Majimaune

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

I'm not sure if someone else said this but when Dante did the Divine Comody, he was ridiculed for just writing things of how he saw it. He was basically going with the Church but saying that you could get all the way through Hell and then get to Heaven, without dying. Then get back again.


----------



## Omphalos

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Id like to find out who these "leading atheist writers," are.  I wonder if they put that on their resume?


----------



## Majimaune

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Oh I would put it there. See how many jobs I get turned away from.


----------



## iansales

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

They say any publicity is good publicity. See here.


----------



## Dave

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Dave said:


> Is the Church actually telling Christians to shun this film?


Your link says that this *is* now occurring, even if it wasn't before, so therefore I withdraw my previous comments.


----------



## iansales

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Too late! The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on.


----------



## ScottSF

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Mad Tam McC said:


> Anyway that's enough of my rant. I hope I haven't upset anyone (because I don't mean to) or come over as Mr. Angry.


 
It's funny how many of us are on the same page   People who read and think for themselves tend to come to similar conclusions I guess.  Going to a bible forum or something more mainstream and you might get some upset reactions.  There are some atheist stories on youtube and there you'll see more conflict on the user comments.  I think the people at AtheistForums.com would be interested to hear your take on religion in schools in Scotland.  

So I wonder if this Golden Compass "controversy" will turn out to be no big deal.  Sometimes media go looking for controversies where the public doesn't care all that much.  I remember when spike lee did a film about inter-racial relationships called "Jungle Fever" and the media kept calling it a controversial film but I don't remember anyone picketing the theaters or even caring that much.  I'm betting "guess who's comming to dinner" in the 60s caused a much bigger stir in it's time but perhaps the public is more sophisticated than the media give them credit.  If not, then maybe people just have a better idea of which kinds of opinions it's better to keep to themselves.  

So far this forum is the only place where I've heard about any controversy so it will be interesting to see if the main stream media picks it up.  Let us know if anyone sees a news story about it or something.


----------



## purple_kathryn

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

5 days to go!


----------



## dustinzgirl

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Majimaune said:


> Big woop. I'm a Christian and I love the books and hope to love the movies. Some people are just too "Ohh he said something that brushes along our belief in the wrong way. Lets down that person" I mean really its annoying.



I agree. For pete's sakes people, not everything has something to do with any religion. Some of its just made up stuff. Hence, the genre of fantasy rather than religious. Morons. 


Just out of curiosity has anyone seen The Golden Compass and is it worth the theatre cost or should I wait for the DVD?


----------



## Ursa major

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

A radio advert here in the UK described some aspect of the film as being "beyond imagination". I'm guessing (hoping) that the PR folks had nothing to do with the film itself.

(Although, for reasons we've been chewing over, it had better be beyond belief. )


----------



## Majimaune

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Thanks Dusty for supporting me.

The film doesn't come out til Boxing Day here and I thing I might be seeiong it on the 27th with friends. So don't wait on a review from me.


----------



## Pyan

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Is there usually such a gap, Maj? I mean, it's out this Wednesday here ; it's not as if they're sending the cans over by ship, or anything....


----------



## Majimaune

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Yeah usually is a gap that big. Beowulf only came out on Thursday.


----------



## Cayal

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Blockbuster movies are generally worldwide releases though.


----------



## Majimaune

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Not always. LotR was. Spiderman wasn't. Star Wars was.


----------



## MeccaJoost

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



ScottSF said:


> So far this forum is the only place where I've heard about any controversy so it will be interesting to see if the main stream media picks it up.  Let us know if anyone sees a news story about it or something.



Iansales pointed to a quote from The Times on Nov 27th and I've heard stuff on the radio too.  I'm spose we'll have to wait and see when the film comes out.  I remember a few arguments when the books first came out and I'm sure it's possibly one of the reasons why this series hasn't become as big as Harry Potter. Even though I think Pullman is a 100% better writer than Rowling.


----------



## MeccaJoost

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Ah here we are Nicole Kidman says it's not anti-catholic "I think there's almost an alarmist approach to it right now, and when you see the film, that will be dissipated. That's simply put."  SCI FI Wire | The News Service of the SCI FI Channel | SCIFI.COM


----------



## purple_kathryn

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Majimaune said:


> Not always. LotR was. Spiderman wasn't. Star Wars was.


and this is why piracy is so big

release movies at the same time!


----------



## Parson

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

I have not read the book or all the way through this thread, but if someone is interested in a Christian view of this debate (my apologies if someone else has posted this) here is a site which will spell out the truth of the controversy without going primeval or soft on the issue.

Culture Watch - Exploring the message behind the media

This is a site with an English author who watches the culture from a reasoned Christian view point.


----------



## Dave

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Interesting point that Daniel Craig made in that link: "They sell Dan Brown in the Vatican." _Northern Lights_ is a fantasy; the _Da Vinci Code_, but more especially, _Angels and Demons_ is a direct attack on Catholicism, and they are pitched as present-day thrillers.

Didn't _Life of Brian_ have the same kind of controversy when it first came out. That did it's box-office no harm either!


----------



## Majimaune

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



purple_kathryn said:


> and this is why piracy is so big
> 
> release movies at the same time!


My thoughts exactly.



Dave said:


> Didn't _Life of Brian_ have the same kind of controversy when it first came out. That did it's box-office no harm either!


How can anyone not like _Life Of Brian_ though?


----------



## GOLLUM

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Majimaune said:


> How can anyone not like _Life Of Brian_ though?


Quite easily actually....

_When *The Life of Brian* was first released in 1979, it caused an immediate uproar - much to the delight of Pythons Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, and Michael Palin. The Catholic Church wasted no time condemning it as blasphemous (even though almost none of those at the forefront of the boycotts had watched the movie). Countries banned it, often resulting in its becoming an underground cult classic. The movie was almost universally seen as an attack on Jesus and Christianity._


----------



## Cayal

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



MeccaJoost said:


> Ah here we are Nicole Kidman says it's not anti-catholic "I think there's almost an alarmist approach to it right now, and when you see the film, that will be dissipated. That's simply put."  SCI FI Wire | The News Service of the SCI FI Channel | SCIFI.COM



urgh Nicole Kidman. There's an affront to humanity.


----------



## Parson

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



GOLLUM said:


> Quite easily actually....
> 
> _When *The Life of Brian* was first released in 1979, it caused an immediate uproar - much to the delight of Pythons Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, and Michael Palin. The Catholic Church wasted no time condemning it as blasphemous (even though almost none of those at the forefront of the boycotts had watched the movie). Countries banned it, often resulting in its becoming an underground cult classic. The movie was almost universally seen as an attack on Jesus and Christianity._



I agree with "_The Life of Brian_" being very easy to dislike. This is a mild word for what I really think of that movie! (But then comedy is my thing, and especially satirical comedy leaves a very bad taste in my mouth!) 

But this does not really compare to _"The Golden Compass."_ The life of Brian was a "send-up" of Christianity -- _"His Dark Materials"_ can easily be seen as an attack on the Christian world view. If Philip Pullman is to be held to his public pronouncements this is exactly his goal. As he told Hanna Rosin of the The Atlantic, How Hollywood Saved God, "Why the Christian Church has spent 2,000 years condemning  this glorious moment, well, that's a mystery.  I want to confront that, I  suppose, by telling a story that the so-called original sin is anything but.   It's the thing that makes us fully human."

I knew little about this (generally disliking Fantasy as a genre) before, now I might have to see it out of self defense.


----------



## Aleksei

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

All of these strong christian views seem rather foreign to me, I have no personal experience with strongly religious people, as I live in Sweden which is one of the most secularised countries in the world, so I honestly have a hard time understanding religious people that defend their views so rabidly.

I don't understand how they think this movie can change a child's perception of their parents religion or 'convert' them to atheism. I mean sure the books have somewhat of an anti-religious-ish theme, but it is not like it is full of anti-religious propaganda nor does it say that god does not exist.


----------



## Parson

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Aleksei said:


> All of these strong christian views seem rather foreign to me, I have no personal experience with strongly religious people, as I live in Sweden which is one of the most secularised countries in the world, so I honestly have a hard time understanding religious people that defend their views so rabidly.


Are you saying that you feel that my response was "rabid?" If so, what did I say moved you toward that conclusion?



> I don't understand how they think this movie can change a child's perception of their parents religion or 'convert' them to atheism. I mean sure the books have somewhat of an anti-religious-ish theme, but it is not like it is full of anti-religious propaganda nor does it say that god does not exist.


Certainly the vast, vast majority of children will not change their perception of things because of this movie. I doubt you could claim that there would be none. 

I have not read the books, but if what the sources say is true than I would have to conclude that there is most certainly an anti-religious theme. Read the link above. The third of the trilogy "_The Subtle Knife_" shows what is clearly supposed to be the Christian God as old, weak, and feeble (Pullman's view of the church, I'm sure.) and killed rather easily. [So not dead per se, but can easily be ignored and killed.] And although it is not a reverse of the Genesis story of the first sin (but I think Pullman thinks it is) the 13 year-old hero and heroine set creation free in a sexual act. Which is a very questionable theme to put in a movie (if the third gets filmed and released) intended tol be seen by older children 10+. 

[The original sin has nothing to do with sex. It is about people disobeying their loving parent in a futile attempt to become the equal of his/her Creator.]


----------



## Aleksei

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Parson said:


> Are you saying that you feel that my response was "rabid?" If so, what did I say moved you toward that conclusion?



No was to refering to you, but to other comments I have read on the interwebs. Sorry if it seemed like that.


Parson said:


> I have not read the books, but if what the sources say is true than I would have to conclude that there is most certainly an anti-religious theme. Read the link above. The third of the trilogy "_The Subtle Knife_" shows what is clearly supposed to be the Christian God as old, weak, and feeble (Pullman's view of the church, I'm sure.) and killed rather easily. [So not dead per se, but can easily be ignored and killed.] And although it is not a reverse of the Genesis story of the first sin (but I think Pullman thinks it is) the 13 year-old hero and heroine set creation free in a sexual act. Which is a very questionable theme to put in a movie (if the third gets filmed and released) intended tol be seen by older children 10+.
> 
> [The original sin has nothing to do with sex. It is about people disobeying their loving parent in a futile attempt to become the equal of his/her Creator.]



Ah, I have only read the beginning of the third book, which is probably why I did not know that.


----------



## Briareus Delta

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Parson said:


> I have not read the book or all the way through this thread, but if someone is interested in a Christian view of this debate (my apologies if someone else has posted this) here is a site which will spell out the truth of the controversy without going primeval or soft on the issue.
> 
> Culture Watch - Exploring the message behind the media
> 
> This is a site with an English author who watches the culture from a reasoned Christian view point.


 
Thanks for posting this. As an atheist, I thought this article provided a very well-reasoned argument, in contrast to the more 'fundamentalist christian' hysteria that has surrounded the release of the film. In particular, it urges people not to condemn the film until they have seen it. But then you went and posted this.....



Parson said:


> _"His Dark Materials"_ can easily be seen as an attack on the Christian world view. If Philip Pullman is to be held to his public pronouncements this is exactly his goal. As he told Hanna Rosin of the The Atlantic, How Hollywood Saved God, "Why the Christian Church has spent 2,000 years condemning this glorious moment, well, that's a mystery. I want to confront that, I suppose, by telling a story that the so-called original sin is anything but. It's the thing that makes us fully human."
> 
> I knew little about this (generally disliking Fantasy as a genre) before, now I might have to see it out of self defense.


 
Agh!!! Please allow me the luxury of the following rant:-

1. Phillip Pullman is an atheist. In a free society, he is perfectly entitled to express his views through literature, film, art, interpretative dance, mime, or any other medium he chooses. Just as you are free to express your Christian views.

2. It may be semantics but I don't see that by merely presenting an opposing viewpoint that he is presenting an 'attack on the Christian world view'. He is doing nothing more than expressing his own, equally valid, view of the world. I have never read that Pullman advocates banning the Bible or burning down churches - that would be an attack. See the film by all means but to state that you need to see it out of 'self-defence' is ridiculously wide of the mark.



Parson said:


> Certainly the vast, vast majority of children will not change their perception of things because of this movie. I doubt you could claim that there would be none.
> 
> I have not read the books, but if what the sources say is true than I would have to conclude that there is most certainly an anti-religious theme.


 
3. Pullman expresses his views quite openly - there are no subliminal messages in these books - the anti-religion theme is quite obvious. The books are aimed at teenagers/young adults and are not an attempt to subvert/indoctrinate children to agree with his viewpoint. You can't catch atheism by reading these books. Would you prefer that children didn't hear any alternative views? If we shelter them from atheism, then perhaps we should shelter them from learning about Buddhism, Islam, Sikhism and all the other -isms, in case they find one of them a more attractive prospect than Christianity.

But if the charge against Pullman is indoctrination, then I really have to say that the people making that charge are living in very fragile glass houses. Babies and children are 'Christened' before they are old enough to have any say in the matter. Then there are faith schools, Sunday School and, here in the UK, every school has to include a daily act of worship. Children are brought up to be religious and to follow the beliefs of their parents. It's not usually a free choice and, although some do go on to make their own choices in adulthood, it has to be said that children are the Church's main target when it comes to recruitment.

I'm against all forms of organised religion and I'm free to express that view. By expressing that view, I'm not attacking your beliefs, Parson, merely expressing my own. And now I seem to be repeating myself, so end of rant.


----------



## Mad Tam McC

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Parson said:


> The third of the trilogy "_The Subtle Knife_"
> The 13 year-old hero and heroine set creation free in a sexual act.


 
The 'subtle knife' is the second book, the third is the 'amber spyglass'.

I think they kiss and that's all!


----------



## Dave

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

I don't remember anymore than a kiss either Parson, and I think I would have.

Parson, both you and Aleksei joined this discussion rather late. If you read the comments at the end of the hyperlink in the very, very first post then some of them could quite easily be described as "rabid". I was trying to defend the indefensible up until the last page of this thread, but I give up now that the American Catholic Church has apparently decided to condem the film.

As for Original Sin, your interpretation of Genesis is surely only your own interpretation.


----------



## Parson

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Briareus Delta said:


> Agh!!! Please allow me the luxury of the following rant:-
> 
> 1. Phillip Pullman is an atheist. In a free society, he is perfectly entitled to express his views through literature, film, art, interpretative dance, mime, or any other medium he chooses. Just as you are free to express your Christian views.
> 
> 2. It may be semantics but I don't see that by merely presenting an opposing viewpoint that he is presenting an 'attack on the Christian world view'. He is doing nothing more than expressing his own, equally valid, view of the world. I have never read that Pullman advocates banning the Bible or burning down churches - that would be an attack. See the film by all means but to state that you need to see it out of 'self-defence' is ridiculously wide of the mark.


 
Agree totally with what is said under #1. As to #2 it seems to me from what Pullman is quoted as saying that his agenda is not so much to present a competing World View, that view is already out there and well stated in the world of ideas. But rather to tear down the Christian world view. This would have to be seen as an attack by a Christian.



> 3. Pullman expresses his views quite openly - there are no subliminal messages in these books - the anti-religion theme is quite obvious. The books are aimed at teenagers/young adults and are not an attempt to subvert/indoctrinate children to agree with his viewpoint. You can't catch atheism by reading these books. Would you prefer that children didn't hear any alternative views? If we shelter them from atheism, then perhaps we should shelter them from learning about Buddhism, Islam, Sikhism and all the other -isms, in case they find one of them a more attractive prospect than Christianity.



I agree that Pullman expresses his views quite openly -- all to the good. But I am convinced that they are an attempt to indoctrinate (not subvert) children to agree with his viewpoint. He wants to "set people free" of the chains of the church. As to sheltering them, it depends on their age, but on the whole no. But, everyone should be aware as they see them what they are about to see. For me, and I believe for all thinking Christians, the real worry here is not in the exchange of ideas, but in the possibility that people will uncritically buy his message, and that parents won't be concerned enough with their children to know what they have been exposed to. 



> But if the charge against Pullman is indoctrination, then I really have to say that the people making that charge are living in very fragile glass houses. Babies and children are 'Christened' before they are old enough to have any say in the matter. Then there are faith schools, Sunday School and, here in the UK, every school has to include a daily act of worship. Children are brought up to be religious and to follow the beliefs of their parents. It's not usually a free choice and, although some do go on to make their own choices in adulthood, it has to be said that children are the Church's main target when it comes to recruitment.
> 
> I'm against all forms of organised religion and I'm free to express that view. By expressing that view, I'm not attacking your beliefs, Parson, merely expressing my own. And now I seem to be repeating myself, so end of rant.



Strange that the UK a much more secular society than the US has a daily act of worship, an act which in the US would send the local law enforcement to the door of the school. It might also point to the fact that a "cultural religion" is no religion at all. I have said in other posts that "an unexamined faith is no faith at all." I fully believe that. I am utterly convinced that the Christian world view more than holds it's own in the world of ideas. What I am opposing here is an uncritical look at "_His Dark Materials_." 

I seem to be repeating myself too, so end of response. Thanks for the interesting correspondence. 

The "Parson"


----------



## jackokent

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Wow. What a lot of posts about a film no one's seen. 

What's it going to be like when we've seen it... choas? mayhem? Pullman may be guilty of unravelling the very structure of Chronicles.  I say burn his books, boycote his film and go one living in our happy world of certainties


----------



## Parson

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Dave said:


> As for Original Sin, your interpretation of Genesis is surely only your own interpretation.



The wording indeed is mine, but the interpretation is a very "Reformed" view. There are some other Christian understanding of the original sin, which (if I may be pardoned for a  personal opinion) don't measure up to the Biblical text. Perhaps reading -- rereading? -- would help. Sex is never condemned in the Genesis account. The closest that we come to that is when Eve's punishment is that "she will have desire for her husband... she will have pain in childbirth." (free translation from memory.)

I am disheartened that the American Catholic Church has condemned the picture.  I believe that it is an opportunity for the free exchange of important ideas.


----------



## Lucien21

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Well I saw the movie today and OMG did that suck.

and I've never read the books. I imagine an explosion of some sort for fans of the novel.

The SFX was very good, Nicole Kidman and Sam Neill (best voice in Holywood) were very good , but the main lead (Lyra) was Harry Potter 1 bad. The rest of the cast hardly had any screentime esp Daniel Craig.

Most of the movie was esposition trying to explain things to young lyra, but apart from Dust being inbetween parrallel worlds and somehow connected in kids between them and the Daemons i'm not sure what that was about.

The Magesterium and "Authority" are mentioned but never explained and god/religion isn't overtly mentioned that I remember.

There is about 1 decent action sequence in the polar bear fight, but the ending is just realllly reallly bad. Nice little battle a load of exposition about what to do next then the film just stops................. WTF

Avoid

4/10


----------



## Pyan

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Well, I've just got back from seeing it, but I've read the books....

9/10  - go see it.

Oh, and it would take a microscope to find any trace of an anti-god message in the film.....


----------



## Lucien21

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Wow, really 9/10.

Ah well, different horses for different courses I guess.


----------



## Lith

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

*_Jumping in rather belatedly and out of breath after nine pages..._*

Is anyone surprised about any controversy regarding this movie? I mean, given the uproar over Potter, which is essentially non-religious...

I can say though, that if I had children, they would not be seeing this movie or reading the books until they were teens. They're too much of a religious quagmire for the unsuspecting. They're not, IMO, merely denouncing "organized religion", although I don't think they're the absolute satan-spawn that some people think. 

A lot of Christians are simply not equipped to answer their children's questions that would arise out of reading/watching HDM, so they find it easier to warn each other off it than to put in the work to learn what the author is actually saying. I don't think it's quite right, but then if someone's not of an intellectual bent, it's sometimes better (or easier, take your pick) to just warn them off than engage them in a conversation that would take a LOT of explanation to get even to the beginning of the argument. 

From the article quoted, it sounds as though they are simply warning each other off it, which shouldn't surprise or upset anyone, as would a demonstration in front of a theater. Frankly I'm amazed there hasn't been more upset over this. 

Now, a question for the non-religious: if you saw someone walking toward a cliff, would you not try and warn them? Maybe the person walking toward the cliff knows exactly what they are walking toward, or has in mind to only stop at the edge and look over, or float over on a flying carpet. But you can't fault someone for thinking you need to be warned, right? You may disagree with Christians or other religious folk, but most of them are trying to do what they feel is right.

Religion and human ills- religion has been used as a pretext for war, but it's also given us education, so I don't know that you can single it out as a social ill. Besides which, all the worst killers in this century were atheists. (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc.)

And strictly speaking, the books aren't a war against God, nor are they atheistic, since the "God" of the books is not the Creator, and Pullman's concept of Dust pushes him more into pantheism than atheism. I find it more than a little ironic that he replaces one sort of dogma with another.



> I'm not sure about atheism being a belief system. I prefer to think of it as a no-belief system.


It's a belief system, whether you say you do know, don't know, or don't think it's important. 



> I make no apology therefore for being one of those atheists that 'makes a noise' and I will continue to do so until there's a level playing field.


What good is a level playing field without a game to play? (I hope that's not too facetious.)

For the record, the Bible and science aren't at odds. Only certain interpretations of the Bible are at odds with science. There can't be a difference, since Truth is Truth, and science is merely study of what happens around us.

Whether a thing's fictional or not has no bearing on whether it's compatible or contradictory to your beliefs. Fiction has always included within it moral lessons and the author's convictions. A person can't help but push their beliefs, directly or indirectly, on others, since they are beliefs, and not mere ideas. 

Parson, you might as well read them. It gives you much more solid ground to stand on, since context can change meanings a lot. (Which I ran into with HP- a lot of anti-Potter websites had things totally pulled out of context, changing their meaning 180 degrees.)



> 3. Pullman expresses his views quite openly - there are no subliminal messages in these books - the anti-religion theme is quite obvious. The books are aimed at teenagers/young adults and are not an attempt to subvert/indoctrinate children to agree with his viewpoint. You can't catch atheism by reading these books. Would you prefer that children didn't hear any alternative views? If we shelter them from atheism, then perhaps we should shelter them from learning about Buddhism, Islam, Sikhism and all the other -isms, in case they find one of them a more attractive prospect than Christianity.


Except for the possibility of being not converted so much as deceived, by one's own lack of knowledge. That's what the concern is. That through thinking something through half-way, or nine-tenths of the way, one jumps ahead and thinks they've got a hundred percent of it, when they don't. 

As for the possibility of sex in the third book- it's phrased rather ambiguously, and at first I thought they had (in addition to thinking Lyra was awfully underage!), but I guess that's not so.

Re: original sin- original sin isn't sexual in nature. It's a common misconception, even by Pullman. It simply means that because your parents were sinful, you will be sinful (since perfection doesn't come out of corruption).


----------



## Majimaune

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Jaire said:


> urgh Nicole Kidman. There's an affront to humanity.


ANd she calls herself Aussie  



Lucien21 said:


> Well I saw the movie today and OMG did that suck.
> 
> and I've never read the books. I imagine an explosion of some sort for fans of the novel.
> 
> The SFX was very good, Nicole Kidman and Sam Neill (best voice in Holywood) were very good , but the main lead (Lyra) was Harry Potter 1 bad. The rest of the cast hardly had any screentime esp Daniel Craig.
> 
> Most of the movie was esposition trying to explain things to young lyra, but apart from Dust being inbetween parrallel worlds and somehow connected in kids between them and the Daemons i'm not sure what that was about.
> 
> The Magesterium and "Authority" are mentioned but never explained and god/religion isn't overtly mentioned that I remember.
> 
> There is about 1 decent action sequence in the polar bear fight, but the ending is just realllly reallly bad. Nice little battle a load of exposition about what to do next then the film just stops................. WTF
> 
> Avoid
> 
> 4/10


That doesn't sound good and from what I have seen (the first five minutes) I didn't like it too much. Didn't like the whole voice-over thing at the start telling you all the stuff you don't find out til the end of the book or the next one.



pyan said:


> Well, I've just got back from seeing it, but I've read the books....
> 
> 9/10  - go see it.
> 
> Oh, and it would take a microscope to find any trace of an anti-god message in the film.....


Py, you make me a little hopeful.


----------



## roddglenn

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Parson said:


> Strange that the UK a much more secular society than the US has a daily act of worship, an act which in the US would send the local law enforcement to the door of the school.


 
This has been quite a discussion!  Can I just pick up on one small thing that Parson mentioned.  What act of worship in the UK would have local law enforcement knocking on the door of the school?  The UK does have a veritable mixing pot of cultures and religions, but apart from nuts trying to use religion to incite acts of terrorism, I can't see what you mean there.  Even then the police have an extremely difficult time of trying to stop them lawfully.


----------



## Briareus Delta

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Parson said:


> it seems to me from what Pullman is quoted as saying that his agenda is not so much to present a competing World View, that view is already out there and well stated in the world of ideas. But rather to tear down the Christian world view. This would have to be seen as an attack by a Christian.
> 
> I am convinced that they are an attempt to indoctrinate (not subvert) children to agree with his viewpoint ............. the real worry here is not in the exchange of ideas, but in the possibility that people will uncritically buy his message, and that parents won't be concerned enough with their children to know what they have been exposed to.
> 
> What I am opposing here is an uncritical look at "_His Dark Materials_."


 
I don't see how you can be convinced that they are an attempt to indoctrinate children when, by your own admission, you have never read the books or seen this film. As I stated previously, they are clearly aimed at the teenage/young adult market and the film over here carries a 'PG' rating (Parental Guidance). Even if Pullman was attempting to indoctrinate children (and I'm equally convinced that such a suggestion would be abhorrent to him), this would be nothing in comparison to the indoctrination that the Church unashamedly executes every single day in pursuit of its 'world view'. An issue from my last post that I notice you have neatly side-stepped. 

I really don't think you much to worry about, Parson, when it is Christianity that dominates the agenda. The Church has far more resources, wealth and political power in pursuit of its goal than Pullman could ever hope to have in pursuit of his. As has been discussed in another thread here, in the current climate, it would be absolutely impossible for an atheist to be selected as a candidate for the US Presidency or for most other political positions in the USA. And that is not a healthy state of affairs in my opinion. And because of this climate, of course, the anti-religious content has been considerably toned down for the film (otherwise it could never get made).

And finally, I don't think there is any chance whatsoever of anyone seeing this film without knowing Pullmans views. The outcry from Christian groups has pretty much made that a certainty.


----------



## Parson

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



roddglenn said:


> This has been quite a discussion!  Can I just pick up on one small thing that Parson mentioned.  What act of worship in the UK would have local law enforcement knocking on the door of the school?  The UK does have a veritable mixing pot of cultures and religions, but apart from nuts trying to use religion to incite acts of terrorism, I can't see what you mean there.  Even then the police have an extremely difficult time of trying to stop them lawfully.



I was reacting to what Briareus Delta said. I assumed "an act of worship" was a prayer, --- notice I'm from the States and have no first hand knowledge. If it is a prayer I know of some schools who were warned that they could no longer have an audible prayer during school time, or even at the graduation exercises by the courts or the "sheriff." 

If it is not a prayer, what kind of act of worship is there?


----------



## Parson

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Briareus Delta said:


> I don't see how you can be convinced that they are an attempt to indoctrinate children when, by your own admission, you have never read the books or seen this film. As I stated previously, they are clearly aimed at the teenage/young adult market and the film over here carries a 'PG' rating (Parental Guidance). Even if Pullman was attempting to indoctrinate children (and I'm equally convinced that such a suggestion would be abhorrent to him), this would be nothing in comparison to the indoctrination that the Church unashamedly executes every single day in pursuit of its 'world view'. An issue from my last post that I notice you have neatly side-stepped.



I'm afraid I have some very difficult reading ahead of me. I do not care much for Fantasy as a genre. I read the Hobbit, and just about gagged so many times I never care to read "The Lord of the Rings." I finally saw them in the theater with my son. My opinion "good not great." But I will have to read "His Dark Materials"  Blah! Because of this debate. 

I think Lilth spoke about the indoctrination point well when she said "Whether a thing's fictional or not has no bearing on whether it's compatible or contradictory to your beliefs. Fiction has always included within it moral lessons and the author's convictions. A person can't help but push their beliefs, directly or indirectly, on others, since they are beliefs, and not mere ideas." I have no doubt that Pullman is doing this directly. The big difference between sending your child to Sunday School or the theater  is that in Sunday School you expect they will be receiving Christian Education, in the theater you might believe you are dealing with escapism entertainment, and not consider that an atheist world view would be pushed.



> I really don't think you much to worry about, Parson, when it is Christianity that dominates the agenda. The Church has far more resources, wealth and political power in pursuit of its goal than Pullman could ever hope to have in pursuit of his. As has been discussed in another thread here, in the current climate, it would be absolutely impossible for an atheist to be selected as a candidate for the US Presidency or for most other political positions in the USA. And that is not a healthy state of affairs in my opinion. And because of this climate, of course, the anti-religious content has been considerably toned down for the film (otherwise it could never get made).


I would agree with this if you mean a "cultural Christian" vs. an atheist. There are certainly many politicians and officials in the US who do not in any obvious way follow the teachings and ethics of Jesus Christ.  Even President Bush who makes much of his Christianity seems to me to be woefully lacking in compassion. Illegal immigrants being being an outstanding example. 

Today a very serious Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, is not a Christian but a Mormon. (I realize Mormons will sometimes debate that point, but from my perspective it is a true statement.)



> And finally, I don't think there is any chance whatsoever of anyone seeing this film without knowing Pullmans views. The outcry from Christian groups has pretty much made that a certainty.


If this is true, which I seriously, seriously doubt. ["No one ever went broke betting on the ignorance of the masses."] Then there is reason for celebration.


----------



## roddglenn

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Parson said:


> I was reacting to what Briareus Delta said. I assumed "an act of worship" was a prayer, --- notice I'm from the States and have no first hand knowledge. If it is a prayer I know of some schools who were warned that they could no longer have an audible prayer during school time, or even at the graduation exercises by the courts or the "sheriff."
> 
> If it is not a prayer, what kind of act of worship is there?


 
There hasn't been any law passed in the UK to prohibit audible prayers of any religion during school time for an individual, but what isn't allowed is for teachers to show a preference to pupils during schooltime.  This obviously only applies to unaffiliated schools as there are many schools up and down the country that are affiliated and funded by specific religions (Catholic, Jewish, Muslim etc).  Unaffiliated schools need to be seen as neutral and as such recognised religious symbols and rituals of all faiths are allowed.

It's dangerous for people to make assumptions about other countries when they do not have all the facts.


----------



## purple_kathryn

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Parson said:


> I think Lilth spoke about the indoctrination point well when she said "Whether a thing's fictional or not has no bearing on whether it's compatible or contradictory to your beliefs. Fiction has always included within it moral lessons and the author's convictions. A person can't help but push their beliefs, directly or indirectly, on others, since they are beliefs, and not mere ideas." I have no doubt that Pullman is doing this directly. The big difference between sending your child to Sunday School or the theater is that in Sunday School you expect they will be receiving Christian Education, in the theater you might believe you are dealing with escapism entertainment, and not consider that an atheist world view would be pushed.


It's a good verus evil story like most others 

It just so happens the evil in this story is a meglomanical church type organisation


----------



## Dave

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

BBC NEWS | UK | Golden Compass author hits back



> *Golden Compass author hits back*
> _Warning: This story contains plot spoilers
> By Julian Joyce
> BBC News _
> 
> The author of the book on which the new film The Golden Compass is based has hit back at critics who accuse him of peddling "candy-coated atheism".
> 
> 
> Phillip Pullman won the Whitbread prize for the third part of his trilogy
> 
> Philip Pullman dismissed as "absolute rubbish" accusations by the US-based Catholic League that the film promotes atheism and denigrates Christianity.
> 
> "I am a story teller," he said. "If I wanted to send a message I would have written a sermon."
> 
> The Golden Compass - which stars Nicole Kidman - premiered in London on Tuesday.
> 
> Epic battle
> 
> The film also stars James Bond actor Daniel Craig and is based on the first part of Mr Pullman's best-selling His Dark Materials children's trilogy.
> 
> In the book - set in an imaginary world - the heroine Lyra fights against the Magisterium, an evil organisation some have interpreted as based on the Catholic Church.
> 
> We knew from the beginning that the producers of this film intended to leave out the anti-religious references. We think this is a great shame
> 
> Terry Sanderson, National Secular Society
> 
> The three-part series culminates in an epic battle in which God dies - at the hand of a child.
> 
> Those who have seen the film - which cost £90m to make - say the explicit anti-religious message of the books has been muted. But the Catholic League, which bills itself as America's largest Catholic civil rights organisation, has nevertheless launched a nationwide boycott campaign.
> 
> 
> Nicole Kidman and Dakota Blue Richards star in the film
> 
> The League says that parents might be taken in by the toned-down film - but will then be fooled into buying the "overtly atheistic and anti-Christian" books.
> 
> League President Bill Donohue said: "Eighty-five per cent of the people in this country are Catholic or Protestant and I'd like them to stay at home, or go see some other movie.
> 
> "Pullman is using this film as a sort of stealth campaign. He likes to play the game that he's really not atheistic and anti-Catholic. But yes he is and we have researched this.
> 
> "This movie is the bait for the books."
> 
> Too many layers
> 
> But Mr Pullman - who is attending Tuesday's premier in London's Leicester Square - dismissed the Catholic League as "a tiny, unrepresentative organisation."
> 
> He told the BBC: "The only person Bill Donohue represents is himself.
> 
> "I don't want to talk about these criticisms about atheism in my books. It's too long an argument to have, and there are too many layers to the subject."
> 
> A spokeswoman for the Catholic Church in Britain said she was unaware of a concerted UK campaign to boycott the film: "We have not seen the film yet, so we cannot comment on its message," she said.
> 
> 
> Armoured bears feature in a fantasy set in an imaginary world
> 
> Christian journalist Peter Hitchens said that while he opposed a boycott, he wanted parents to be aware of Philip Pullman's themes.
> 
> He said: "If you buy this book for your child, don't imagine for a moment that you are handing over a neutral story: this author has a purpose.
> 
> "Don't forget, this is a writer who has previously gone on the record to say he is trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief."
> 
> Anti-religious
> 
> Ironically, Mr Pullman has also come under fire from secularists - who say there's isn't enough anti-religious sentiment in the film.
> 
> Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said: "We knew from the beginning that the producers of this film intended to leave out the anti-religious references.
> 
> 
> James Bond actor Daniel Craig plays Lord Asriel
> 
> "We think this is a great shame. The fight against the Magisterium (Pullman's thinly-disguised version of the Catholic Church) is the whole point of the book. Take that away and the most original and interesting element of the story is lost."
> 
> Whether the Catholic League's campaign against the Golden Compass will succeed is open to question.
> 
> It previously spoke out against the Da Vinci Code - a fictional film that alleged Jesus married and had a child.
> 
> The film went on to become one of the highest-grossing movies of 2006


----------



## F'Lessan Amused

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

this reminds me of a time when Dogma was released...i wonder if it was this hectic when bruce/evan almighty was released??


----------



## Lith

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Dogma was funny.  

Bruce Almighty gets a pass by most Christians because though inaccurate at times, it is still essentially upholding Christian values.  It's never actually irreverent, it's just having a bit of fun (same with Dogma, though with an R rating, a lot of Christians haven't watched it).  

I'd have had much less complaint about the books, if Pullman hadn't so pointedly made his megalomaniacal church a Christian one (and an ill-understood mishmash of Church issues at that).  It's a fantasy world, if he had simply wanted to show _organized_ religion as evil, he could have invented a church easily enough, or done a better job of showing a corrupted church.  

It's kind of funny, but I don't remember any general complaint (other than by a few conservative Christians) about the toning-down of Narnia when it was filmed.  Both films are a case of maximizing box office while minimizing uproar.


----------



## 4Greg

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Lith said:


> Except for the possibility of being not converted so much as deceived, by one's own lack of knowledge. That's what the concern is. That through thinking something through half-way, or nine-tenths of the way, one jumps ahead and thinks they've got a hundred percent of it, when they don't.



Interesting.  By this logic, multitudes of young people "lacking...knowledge" have been "deceived" into Christianity - yet this practice is acceptable.  An indoctrination that has led to endless wars, an inestimable loss of life and general planetary strife; giving birth to the greatest oxy-moron of all time "holy war".

It astounds me how Christians love to protest the actions of other groups, yet they see/heed few, if any, boundaries when it comes to their prolific proselytization of others in the name of Christ.

Seemingly we are to forgive the actions of "Christians" engaged in the active pursuit of their spiritual ideals, yet there is little compassion, patience, grace or understanding; much less forgiveness - all of which are qualities exemplified by Christ, when his followers disagree with the actions of others.

If you cannot enjoy and revel in the expansive nature of your own God-given mind and soul by considering, even celebrating another point of view - particularly a creative work of fiction, without feeling that your faith and its doctrine are at stake, then you have no faith.  God is larger than our fear and pettiness...right?  Why is it that we do not endeavor to expand our souls to fit God, but rather, we shrink God to fit us.  Very sad.

If you cannot navigate a simple work of fiction and make a positive learning experience for your child - you are sorely lacking in basic, not to mention necessary parenting skills.  And, I must admit, I am so sick of Christians in particular, demanding that the world be tailored to their beliefs as a substitute for good parenting.  I personally enjoy being some one who can positively influence the young people around me....it is a GIFT I give to myself, those around me and the world at large.  Note: a GIFT...not to be taken for granted and not to be demanded.

I saw the "Golden Compass", and like "Harry Potter"...at it's heart is such a simple, beautiful message that seems to get over-looked in favor of forcing agendas upon these literary works.  In "Golden Compass" - man cannot live if he is separated from his soul or dis-allowed the God-given right to think freely.  In "...Potter" - there is no greater power than our capacity to love.  Simple...Christ-like even.

Best,
Greg


----------



## Gav

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



4Greg said:


> ... really good post ...



In fairness you could substitute just about any religion for Christianity in their.  It's the fundamentalism that breeds the intolerance.  There are many _good_ Christians out there that don't force their religion down your throat.  Just as there are many good Muslims, Buddhists, Spaghettists and so on.

Like you I find it infuriatingly stupid that some people can't enjoy a story because they allow a stupid world view to get in the way.


----------



## Lith

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

There are still plenty of deceptions running around within the Church. But you'll agree that lies ought to be fought against _wherever_ they are found, right?

Christians can't really _celebrate_ worldviews that incompatible with theirs. Differences of opinion are allowed to a point (exactly where this point is has been hotly contested since Christianity's birth), but there's a point at which world views are simply incompatible with each other. 

4Greg- I'm really not sure what to say to the rest of your post- I'd ask for more information, maybe some examples of the behaviors you find offensive, but I think that might be wandering too far off topic. 

The books are rather thorny, not because they're fiction, or even because they're written from a non-Christian viewpoint (as plenty of books are), but because Pullman's vision of the Church is riddled with inaccuracies that may seem trivial to the non-Christian, but not to the Christian. (Such as his concept of a Church trying to undo original sin, and his view that Calvin could be reconciled to the office of Pope, etc.) They're not issues children are incapable of understanding, but they're issues that even Christians frequently don't understand well (much to their own detriment), so it's difficult to just sit a child down and explain it all- it would be rather a longer conversation than I think most children are interested in having. And I'll state again that I don't think the books are a total bag of lies (because there are aspects of them that can be reconciled to a Christian worldview); they're just not something I would expose any children I had to until they were teenagers.

If the books are the philosophical marvels that some people say, then a person's worldview has a lot to do with the issue, right? They're not simply stories to be heard and enjoyed for the moment, and tossed away as the next book comes off the shelf. That there's any controversy surrounding them means that they are functioning as more than simply fiction, but as fodder for debate of the mind.  

Anyway, kind of back to topic- I haven't seen the movie yet- I might at some point, but my track record for seeing movies in the theater this year has been horrible.


----------



## 4Greg

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Lith said:


> There are still plenty of deceptions running around within the Church. But you'll agree that lies ought to be fought against _wherever_ they are found, right?



Certainly, but the church seems to exempt itself from the need for transparency in its dealings...yet Christ made things rather clear and simple.  As for truth - there are as many "truths" as there are tongues to fashion them.  The "truth", sadly, is not always simple



Lith said:


> Christians can't really _celebrate_ worldviews that incompatible with theirs. Differences of opinion are allowed to a point (exactly where this point is has been hotly contested since Christianity's birth), but there's a point at which world views are simply incompatible with each other.



"Can't", or won't?  The fear-mongers who govern church bodies should be commended for their iron-clad indoctrination into a relationship that has little equity.  I really don't think that a being as all-encompassing as God is that insecure....but, unfortunately his "church" is.  That insecurity alone divides God from his "people".  But hey - God has nothing to lose...the church, because they place value on wordly things, has everything to lose. 

I frequently will celebrate a different viewpoint by giving it respectful and reasonable, agenda-free consideration and choosing how, if and how much of it is valuable to me and my values.  

So, God himself populated a planet with beings capable of vast ideas, thoughts and feelings with the intention that some of those beings should choose a palette that is appropriate for everyone to create their lives from.  Hmmm....really?



Lith said:


> 4Greg- I'm really not sure what to say to the rest of your post- I'd ask for more information, maybe some examples of the behaviors you find offensive, but I think that might be wandering too far off topic.



I just appreciate your reading it and giving a thoughtful response.



Lith said:


> The books are rather thorny, not because they're fiction, or even because they're written from a non-Christian viewpoint (as plenty of books are), but because Pullman's vision of the Church is riddled with inaccuracies that may seem trivial to the non-Christian, but not to the Christian. (Such as his concept of a Church trying to undo original sin, and his view that Calvin could be reconciled to the office of Pope, etc.) They're not issues children are incapable of understanding, but they're issues that even Christians frequently don't understand well (much to their own detriment), so it's difficult to just sit a child down and explain it all- it would be rather a longer conversation than I think most children are interested in having. And I'll state again that I don't think the books are a total bag of lies (because there are aspects of them that can be reconciled to a Christian worldview); they're just not something I would expose any children I had to until they were teenagers.



Yet these things ARE true - within the construct of the story.  Just as "red slippers" could take a little girl home if she clicked her heels....the willing suspension of disbelief, free of outside agendas, is a beautiful thing - in fact it leads us to a beautiful, though frightening for some, place - our imagination.

Children are able to come to a story and take from it the things that resonate for them, and those things will change for them as they grow.  Why not read the book as a story...no agenda...  Then revisit it, if your child feels strongly enough to do so.  Then, consider the book from their new-found perspective - rather than acting out of fear based on an agenda that has been handed down for centuries.  I question if that is too taxing for some parents, therefore it is easier to malign it and thus create fear around it - laying a "suppressing fire", so to speak.  

My concern - our increasing fear of thinking for ourselves.  See, I believe we're supposed to engage all our faculties and then seek outside wisdom only when we have truly exhausted our own capacity, rather than the "fast food" religion of "tell me what to think".  A relationship is hard work - even a relationship with God.



Lith said:


> If the books are the philosophical marvels that some people say, then a person's worldview has a lot to do with the issue, right? They're not simply stories to be heard and enjoyed for the moment, and tossed away as the next book comes off the shelf. That there's any controversy surrounding them means that they are functioning as more than simply fiction, but as fodder for debate of the mind.



Unfortunately, I believe both sides to be guilty of wanting to be right.  Frankly, this just ain't the hill I'm gonna die on.  It's a book...of FICTION.

Best,
Greg


----------



## KateWalker

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



iansales said:


> If you fancy something amusing to read try this "warning" against *The Golden Compass*' alleged anti-Christian content. Some of the comments are very funny - although there are a _lot_ of comments, and your eyes will probably start glaze about halfway down the page...
> 
> Oh, and if you think it's unfair (or even unChristian!) to scoff at these religious bigots, *I'd just like to point out that not one of them has actually seen the film or read the book.*




That's the annoying part. I love the part about the incorrect assumptions they make about atheism in America, and atheists in general. *rolls eyes* 


I'm sooo tired of certain overly religious folks telling the rest of us what we should not read, or watch, or do, or anything else for that matter. 

This same type of silliness broke out when the Harry Potter books and movies came out.

My personal advice to anyone who has a problem with Harry Potter, The Golden Compass, or anything else like that, DON'T see them, DON'T read them. And stop telling the rest of us who want to read and see them, not to!!! 

We have the "Religious Right" in our country too. Thank goodness we ignore their craziness most of the time. Ugh. They drive me crazy.


----------



## Overread

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

hmm you reminded me of that site again Kate - and to take this thread totally off track 
read through some of the comments and its quite worrying how many of the beleivers are gearing up for the end of the world. The other thing I could never truly grasp was that Pullman went on record to say that he is not anti=religeous, but anti organised religeon, which are two totally different, but related things, yet many choose to ignor the full story and look to the shorter -he is anti religeon- and go no further


----------



## Rosemary

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

I watched the 'Making of Golden Compass' the other night.  It looked to be very well made and directed.   I'm not sure how the younger viewers will take the fight between the polar bears though.
I have yet to read the book and am now thinking of putting it on my 'to read' list!


----------



## biodroid

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

I saw the movie and thought there were no anti-christian overtones. I think people should get over themselves. Why not slate a movie like Little Nicky where they outright promote the devil and his family as fun loveable people (its cool to live in hell scenarios). I am no christian but lay off the Golden Compass already, there are far worse ant-religion movies out there that have been over looked.


----------



## GOLLUM

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

I'll be seeing the film on December 26th with a guy and his son who I originally recommended the books to, so that should be particularly nice.

The movie show on ABC TV gave it 3.5 stars out of 5.


----------



## purple_kathryn

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



KateWalker said:


> That's the annoying part. I love the part about the incorrect assumptions they make about atheism in America, and atheists in general. *rolls eyes*


 
Also why exactly is okay for the Pope to slate atheism to the entire world? If it had been done about any other group - Islam, Black people etc there would be outrage - but not when it's against atheists. 

Vatican blasts 'Golden Compass' as Godless, hopeless - Yahoo!Xtra News

Also it's quite clear from the article that the Pope at the very least hasn't seen the films and I really doubt he's read the books.  If he had he would know that this kind of nonsense is exactly what Pullman is against


----------



## KateWalker

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



biodroid said:


> I saw the movie and thought there were no anti-christian overtones. I think people should get over themselves. Why not slate a movie like *Little Nicky* where they outright promote the devil and his family as fun loveable people (its cool to live in hell scenarios). I am no christian but lay off the Golden Compass already, there are far worse ant-religion movies out there that have been over looked.



Heh, that was a great movie. 



purple_kathryn said:


> Also why exactly is okay for the Pope to slate atheism to the entire world? If it had been done about any other group - Islam, Black people etc there would be outrage - but not when it's against atheists.
> 
> Vatican blasts 'Golden Compass' as Godless, hopeless - Yahoo!Xtra News
> 
> Also it's quite clear from the article that the Pope at the very least hasn't seen the films and I really doubt he's read the books.  If he had he would know that this kind of nonsense is exactly what Pullman is against




Agreed. Atheists are still capable of being perfectly good people. _Not everyone believes in fairy tales, and The Bible, to some, is a big one._ 

But apparently, The Pope, Vatican, and other overly religious organizations, don't seem to "get" this, or realize, that atheists can still be good people, even if they don't believe in God. 

The Pope needs to chill out, man!   Watching movies like The Golden Compass is not the end of civilization.


----------



## ScottSF

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Saw the Movie, did not read the book.  If this was supposed to be Anti-christian or anti-religion it definitely had it's claws removed and was more along the if-the-shoe-fits type of allegory.  Didn't see any hopelessness either, instead saw empoweringness    If the girl had stayed with the wicked mommy figure and done what she was told, then I would have seen it has hopeless.  Pardon the strange grammararies and vocabulizations. . .


----------



## ScottSF

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

I didn't see the movie promoting atheism at all because I don't know a single Atheist who believes in Magic or talking animals (there may be some but I don't know any).  I DID see characters who were interested in the TRUTH of things; something that I'm sure plenty of religious institutions frown upon.  This is so awsome, the Catholic church just went and proved pullmans point. hmmm. . . just had a thought about organizations that secretly do horrible things to children. . .  if it hadn't been for that vatican article I wouldn't have even made the connection.  Thanks POPE!


----------



## Lith

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



> Also why exactly is okay for the Pope to slate atheism to the entire world? If it had been done about any other group - Islam, Black people etc there would be outrage - but not when it's against atheists.


Well, we are talking about the same man that recently stated that all non-Catholics do not belong to a "Church". In effect, saying that all Protestants are errant rebellious people that aren't really a part of God's kingdom (and being a Protestant, I heartily say "PssshhhhhhhTHTHSTSHHHH!!!!"). As much respect as I had for the last Pope, I think the current one is starting to lapse back into the ages-old habit of splitting hairs where there aren't any to be split. 

To answer (as quickly and succintly as I can) a couple points of 4Greg's (welcome, btw!): "Can't or won't"- the difference breaks down in the realm of belief and theology. There are instances of stubbornness and instances of covering up what ought not be covered up. There are also instances of closed-mindedness regarding the beliefs of others. BUT, there is also a point at which you either simply believe something or you don't, and if you believe it, then it follows that you can't _celebrate_ (what you really see as) error in others. Quick examples would be that you are either a monotheist or a polytheist; you can't be both (trying to accept all gods as really being the same god under different names still leaves you as a monotheist). Or another example is that you either believe in an objective reality, or you don't. 

Without getting too further off topic, the line of reasoning in general Christian thinking means that in celebrating another's religion (versus the individuals or cultures) is essentially celebrating that those people will go to Hell, which is both anti-Christian and inhuman. (I'm not talking here of assessing the relative merits and half-truths present in other religions, or about attempts to reconcile what can be reconciled, which has become something of a lost art among Christians these days, and in which case, isn't strictly a celebration of other religions.)

Okay, so that wasn't so short. And agreed on the "religion of tell me what to think", though time does tend to that in its own way, as you either have to adopt the beliefs for yourself or get rid of them entirely, as it becomes increasingly difficult to reconcile a real faith (not just the half-hearted variety which makes up rather a lot of people's faith) with real life without examining what you believe rather closely.

And on whether it's just a story, a work of fiction to be enjoyed- I agree that works ought to be approached without bias (or agenda), but this goes for both the reader and the writer. A writer that brings a strong agenda for his/her work will produce weak work (and think Pullman fits this instance). And a reader can't really understand a work without approaching it without bias, at least without as much bias as they can, since we all have natural biases which we couldn't get rid of if we tried.

Otherwise, I'm of the school that's never satisfied with a story being just a good story. I'm quite severe on fiction, because it can be so much more than just a story. Great fiction works on a number of levels beyond being merely a good yarn. 

(And I'm not apologizing for being demanding.)


----------



## Sire Of Dragons

Could someone please tell me where the complaints of so many parents came from? There was this big upset over this movie about the concept of killing God.

I just watched it, and I saw nor heard any mention such an act. Did I miss something? Seemed like any other great fantasy story to me.

Also it seems like there is meant to be a sequel. Am I too assume that this idea of Lord Asriel killing God will be up and coming then?


----------



## Erin99

Yes, it's the first of three movies. If you read the trilogy you'll see a lot more reference to god in the books than the films. I think the director decided to leave out the religious connotations in the movie, since some people are against it (and the killing of "god").


However, most of the god references come in the last book, and not so much the first and second (although book two has _some_).


----------



## j d worthington

If you'd like more of the Chrons' members take on this whole affair, try this:

http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/42327-golden-compass-backlash.html


----------



## Marky Lazer

Well, I don't think it's mentioned specifically in the movie any more, but it's easy to link some stuff together. Though I don't think children, even the most zealous, would watch the movie in that way.


----------



## ShrubChucker

Yeah most of the upfront references were taken out of the movie, but in the book it is obvious that the "bad guys" are depicted as the roman catholics (pope) would be. The author is a big time athiest.


----------



## Lacedaemonian

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

I hate religion.  Religious people no matter their extremity appear to be lackinh intellectually speaking.  Before I get spanked I would like to draw a line between religion and belief.  It is great to have belief but to embrace religion is to embrace pure ignorance.  However, in defence of religion , the world  that I live in seems to suffer with the absense of religion.  Nothing has replaced  religion in the society that I live in.  The major faiths have been around long enough now to surely have had a resounding effect on the human conscience, so there are really no excuses. 

I do not understand how the film can rmeove the religious aspects of the story.  Can somebody explain how this is done without a complete loss of theme?  

Note:  By the way aeithism requires no defence, it can not be held accountable for any great evil and is clearly the choice of the intellect.  Catholicism, Islam and Hindi have all been used to inflict great harm on humanity.


----------



## Overread

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Lacedaemonian said:


> II do not understand how the film can rmeove the religious aspects of the story. Can somebody explain how this is done without a complete loss of theme? .


 
they change it from a war agaisnt God and religion to one against a controlling power (who happen to be called the theocracy) so its a typical freedom fighting war (ironicly though they cut out the religion its still a similar concept as breaking the control of religion is at the heart of the books - not destroying beleif).

Its worked for the first film, but I wonder if they can keep it up for the others without the story falling over its cutting


----------



## Lacedaemonian

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

The films will suffer greatly especially in the third film.  I think I will give them a miss and am grateful for reading the books.  The christian nut jobs have already won it would seem.  Just one more reason to despise religion and christianity.


----------



## The Procrastinator

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Ain't religious myself but don't forget that religion is not the only cause of atrocities. Look at Soviet Russia and the millions who were killed or disappeared - Stalin was not a godbotherer, quite the contrary. People who want to do that stuff anyway just use religion as an excuse. If religion didn't exist they would use a different excuse. Reality is a little more grey than the black and white "religion is history's greatest monster". Maybe a bit cynical but I think it would be fairer to say "humanity is history's greatest monster". Severely doubt we are going to wake up to ourselves if religion vanishes.


----------



## Cayal

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



The Procrastinator said:


> Maybe a bit cynical but I think it would be fairer to say "humanity is history's greatest monster". Severely doubt we are going to wake up to ourselves if religion vanishes.



Humanity is based on the morals that religion creates which was created by humans. It's a vicious cycle.

Religion won't vanish, but if it did, extremists of all religions would be screwed.


----------



## Connavar

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Jaire said:


> Humanity is based on the morals that religion creates which was created by humans. It's a vicious cycle.
> 
> Religion won't vanish, but if it did, extremists of all religions would be screwed.



Trust me humans would find other reasons to kill other humans if there was no religions.


Religion itself is nothing if humans dont believe in the good side of it,belief,love etc or the bad side, hate,extremist etc.

I have been a religious muslim all my life and my religion has never told me to kill or hate or anything.  

If religion itself was the danger,harm and not the human part then there would be 5 billion hateful,extremist people in the world.  Seeing as how many people there are who believe in the many religions.


----------



## Urien

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

I think the danger comes from a righteous zealous belief. It seems to me that absolutism deriving from a certain interpretation of a doctrine is the root cause. That doctrine can be political or religious. 

The key is the interpretation and the transmission of that to followers who then act in the absolute knowledge that they are right, hence anything is justified if it furthers the interest of their politics/rulers or god.


----------



## Cayal

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Connavar said:


> If religion itself was the danger,harm and not the human part then there would be 5 billion hateful,extremist people in the world.  Seeing as how many people there are who believe in the many religions.




It is the danger because people are killing in the name of x religion it matters little that they misinterpret it or not. It's still being done.


----------



## The Procrastinator

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Cayal said:


> Humanity is based on the morals that religion creates which was created by humans. It's a vicious cycle.
> 
> Religion won't vanish, but if it did, extremists of all religions would be screwed.


 
Heh - don't underestimate the sticking power of extremists. If religion were to vanish they would just find something else to use as a focus for their hate, fear and small-mindedness. Those parts of the human psyche were around long before religion, I'll bet.

I will be interested to see how the filmmakers deal with the next two books in Pullman's series. The third in particular is much more anti-religious in tone, or can be more easily taken as such and will be more difficult to "tone down".


----------



## lin robinson

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



> Exactly, Ian. People are always going to find reasons to kill one another.
> 
> On the scale that religion has caused?



Hell, yeah.   Note that the Holocaust was not "caused by religion" but a state trying to stamp out a religion.   And more Jews were killed by Stalin...along with like, everybody else.

Even the Crusades and the massacres in N. American conquest are perhaps more astutely seen as state-sponsored with the cross as a handy logo and excuse.  Phillip of France certainly wasn't down there for reasons of piety, nor for certain sure was Richard Lionheart.  

Communism has FAR more notches on it's belt than the Nazi's, in general.   Again, a religion only by a stretch.  Kings kill more people than popes do.  No qu question about it.  

And by the way, Hitler did, in fact, gather up "people".   History has a heavily edited slant on that but in fact the Reich also genocided gypsies, Armenians, LOTS of people.  Non-aryans.   If they'd been successful it might have continued into a wipeout of all non-blondes   but pogroms  based on genetics are hardly "religion".


----------



## TorrnT

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

This is an age old debate, first started when Socrates declared there were no gods, he had to drink hemlock for his troubles.
Thankfully today we have freedom to express our beliefs.
As people become more and more intelligent/enlightened, religion will fade into the background.
Religion will always be with us in some form, because in this case, the proof of the pudding is not the eating of it.

I will admit, the promise of a glorious eternal after life, sure knocks the crap out of oblivion.
So why do some people choose to accept that death is the end and ignore the promise of an after life.
One answer is the obvious inconsistencies in all holy texts that highlight there crude nature (no mater how philosophical) These are over looked or reinterpreted to fit modern times, not by gods prophets, but by ordinary people like you and I.
There are many others, but i digress, Look at the uproar Life of brain created, these groups that rally against such films only end up promoting them.


----------



## Connavar

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



lin robinson said:


> Hell, yeah.   Note that the Holocaust was not "caused by religion" but a state trying to stamp out a religion.   And more Jews were killed by Stalin...along with like, everybody else.
> 
> Even the Crusades and the massacres in N. American conquest are perhaps more astutely seen as state-sponsored with the cross as a handy logo and excuse.  Phillip of France certainly wasn't down there for reasons of piety, nor for certain sure was Richard Lionheart.
> 
> Communism has FAR more notches on it's belt than the Nazi's, in general.   Again, a religion only by a stretch.  Kings kill more people than popes do.  No qu question about it.
> 
> And by the way, Hitler did, in fact, gather up "people".   History has a heavily edited slant on that but in fact the Reich also genocided gypsies, Armenians, LOTS of people.  Non-aryans.   If they'd been successful it might have continued into a wipeout of all non-blondes   but pogroms  based on genetics are hardly "religion".



Its interesting people easily forget the things you mentioned and blame everything horrible on religion.

The parts of history you mentioned was political and power,greed motivated.


I even saw a National Geography docu recently about the Philip you mentioned who destroyed The Templar order cause of his dept.  The pope was in his pocket.  Shows religion power is nothing compared the power of a king (the same with dictator later on).


----------



## The Procrastinator

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

I wouldn't say religious power is nothing compared to the power of a king, but I would say religious power can be used as another form of political power, and often is. One advantage religion has over politics is its direct access to an emotional hold over its professers, which gives it more buttons to push where it comes to social control. The medieval Roman Catholic church had great political power because of its strong following among the common people - it was able to inspire fear and loyalty in a way few kings could because of what it represented. 

Many of the "evils of religion" - though not all - are in reality politically motivated.

My guess would be that people who blame everything horrible on religion only have a superficial understanding of history. The core of many religions is a striving for betterment, and most people who would call themselves religious just want to be good people. But as with every organisation that has ever existed since we came down out of the trees (or whatever we did), the cake of religion is flavoured with a liberal sprinkling of idiots. So is the cake of Atheism.


----------



## TorrnT

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Cayal said:


> It is the danger because people are killing in the name of x religion it matters little that they misinterpret it or not. It's still being done.


Do you actually think they wouldnt find another excuse if religion wasnt available?


----------



## Connavar

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



The Procrastinator said:


> I wouldn't say religious power is nothing compared to the power of a king, but I would say religious power can be used as another form of political power, and often is. One advantage religion has over politics is its direct access to an emotional hold over its professers, which gives it more buttons to push where it comes to social control. The medieval Roman Catholic church had great political power because of its strong following among the common people - it was able to inspire fear and loyalty in a way few kings could because of what it represented.
> 
> Many of the "evils of religion" - though not all - are in reality politically motivated.
> 
> * My guess would be that people who blame everything horrible on religion only have a superficial understanding of history. The core of many religions is a striving for betterment, and most people who would call themselves religious just want to be good people.* But as with every organisation that has ever existed since we came down out of the trees (or whatever we did), the cake of religion is flavoured with a liberal sprinkling of idiots. So is the cake of Atheism.




Well said !  

I find  it sad that people think so low about religion.  Everything good i have learned is from religion.  

Have you ever felt guilty for stepping on a bug ?  I have. 
Cause in koraan school as a kid they taught that you dont even hurt a fly. Sure they scared with eternal pain too but it was effective hehe


----------



## purple_kathryn

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

But apparently blaming the evils of the world on atheists is acceptable

ABC News: Pope Says Atheism Led to 'Greatest Cruelty'
Saudi king calls for interfaith talks -Times Online

If you could perhaps get your religious leaders to stop doing this, it would be much appreciated.  I have been told by various people that I'm a kind and considerate person and certainly all the atheists that i know in RL are really nice people it's a bit baffling to be wrongfully accused.


----------



## Lith

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

We'll stop when you stop.

(That didn't get us anywhere, did it?)  

I certainly wouldn't say that _all_ atheists are nice people, and I've known a fair number.  But neither are _all_ religious people.  I've known some atheists that were stellar people too.  

Religion _can_ be used to close people's minds.  But so can atheism- the Soviets used a philosophy to try and stamp out a religion and close down all competition for their own system, through a combination of indoctrination, argument, and intimidation.


----------



## kyektulu

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



The Procrastinator said:


> I wouldn't say religious power is nothing compared to the power of a king, but I would say religious power can be used as another form of political power, and often is. One advantage religion has over politics is its direct access to an emotional hold over its professers, which gives it more buttons to push where it comes to social control. The medieval Roman Catholic church had great political power because of its strong following among the common people - it was able to inspire fear and loyalty in a way few kings could because of what it represented.
> 
> Many of the "evils of religion" - though not all - are in reality politically motivated.
> 
> My guess would be that people who blame everything horrible on religion only have a superficial understanding of history. The core of many religions is a striving for betterment, and most people who would call themselves religious just want to be good people. But as with every organisation that has ever existed since we came down out of the trees (or whatever we did), the cake of religion is flavoured with a liberal sprinkling of idiots. So is the cake of Atheism.



I have been reading this thread with interest and you have hit the nail on the head hun, its power that is the main motivator but they shroud themselves in religion to justify their actions.

I am not religious, although a friend of mine has recently converted to Christianity and I have to say the change in her is amazing. It doesnt work for me but it has for her and im all for that.
She would laugh at christians debasing this film, after all its up to the viewer to interprite as they choose.


----------



## mosaix

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Lith said:


> .....and close down all competition for their own system, through a combination of indoctrination, argument, and intimidation.



Now let's see what does that remind me of........


----------



## The Procrastinator

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



purple_kathryn said:


> But apparently blaming the evils of the world on atheists is acceptable
> 
> ABC News: Pope Says Atheism Led to 'Greatest Cruelty'
> Saudi king calls for interfaith talks -Times Online
> 
> If you could perhaps get your religious leaders to stop doing this, it would be much appreciated. I have been told by various people that I'm a kind and considerate person and certainly all the atheists that i know in RL are really nice people it's a bit baffling to be wrongfully accused.


 
Heh heh, getting religious leaders to stop doing that is like expecting the owners of McDonalds to recommend that people eat at Pizza Hut. Don't take them too seriously - I'm sure as an atheist you don't have too high an opinion of what they believe, so why rise to the bait? Old blokes in funny hats say all sorts of things, finger-pointing is probably part of their job description.

As for blaming the evils of the world on atheists, that makes just as much sense as blaming the evils of the world on religious people - ie, none - and seeing as atheism is supposed to be about making sense, I would take it all with a grain of salt if I were you.


----------



## biodroid

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

I find it quite cheesy that you get born-again christians but are still promiscuous and smoke drugs and drink till drunk and then go to church and get their sins forgiven. Hypocrits! One of the reasons I am not religious is because I don't want to hide behind a religion for my actions and say "but God will forgive me of my sins" and then I can carry on doing it.

Golden Compass was a real poor movie anyway and as far as I saw there was no religious implications made in the movie. I will definitely not be waiting for the second one, thats if they will even make a second one after this one flopped.


----------



## lin robinson

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



> But apparently blaming the evils of the world on atheists is acceptable


I've never heard world evils blamed on atheists.

I hear atheists blaming it all on God all the time.


----------



## mosaix

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



lin robinson said:


> I've never heard world evils blamed on atheists.
> 
> I hear atheists blaming it all on God all the time.



For atheists to blame anything on god would be a bit strange don't you think?


----------



## Allegra

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



mosaix said:


> For atheists to blame anything on god would be a bit strange don't you think?


 
LOL! Good one Mo.


----------



## lin robinson

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



> For atheists to blame anything on god would be a bit strange don't you think?



I'm always glad when people pick up on my material (if that's what happened here)

But seriously, in case you haven't noticed,  atheists spend more time talking about and dissing God than any other group of people.


----------



## Cayal

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Maybe I am master of the obvious here but blaming God has more to do with religion people believing in one not because Atheists believe in one.


----------



## edott

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

I have never understood how this books are considered anti christian or anti-God, perhaps anti-catholic or agaisnt organized religion. But all the characters have deep spiritual convictions.


----------



## lin robinson

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

I think it's because the author said they are.  At great length.  He might have been having a little fun, who knows?

He comes of as a priggish jerk in his commentaries, to my view, but you can't fault his artistic vision.


----------



## animal_lover_06

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

I've Read Northen Lights and seen the film and don't understand where the idea it was anti-christian came from! :S


----------



## mosaix

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



lin robinson said:


> I'm always glad when people pick up on my material (if that's what happened here)
> 
> But seriously, in case you haven't noticed,  atheists spend more time talking about and dissing God than any other group of people.



How can you diss something that doesn't exist? 

I think you need to look up the meaning of 'atheist' before posting again.


----------



## TorrnT

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Atheists, Heathens, Agnostics (the trivial interpretation), Infidels and others pigeon holes I may not know about.
Because of our societies heavy religious leanings ( Even though I do not believe in a God), psychologically, I feel those names belong to bad people,weird.


----------



## purple_kathryn

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



lin robinson said:


> I'm always glad when people pick up on my material (if that's what happened here)
> 
> But seriously, in case you haven't noticed, atheists spend more time talking about and dissing God than any other group of people.


 
I think what my fellow atheists are trying to do it point out to believers that if you believe your god is A, B & C then D, E and F contradict that.

In order to do that that have to, for the purposes of the argument, assume a gods existance. 

So for example when hurricanes happen we want to know why you don't believe your god is responsible for it or why are they ineptly punishing a group of people for what they do in their private lives. 

it doesn't actually mean they/I believe in your god or think he/she/it causes hurricanes we're trying to either understand why you believe your god exists or make you see that he/she/it doesn't.

I don't see why so many people have a problem grasping this.
Personally speaking i don't give two hoots what people believe as long as they don't think their beliefs deserve special consideration above all other, and they some how have a right to dictate what I should be doing in my life based on those beliefs.

and yes plenty of religious leaders inc the pope have declared atheism to be the problem with the world.


----------



## lin robinson

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



> How can you diss something that doesn't exist?


The big question would be Why?



> I think you need to look up the meaning of 'atheist' before posting again.



Oh, I'm well aware of the meaning of the word.  Perhaps you should learn to read a little more insightfully before posting again?


----------



## daisybee

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

This is an interesting thread thats wandered off somewhere-

I really did not want to read the Pullman books- I get stubborn like that sometimes when I feel like the world is saying do it or else! LOL.

Now I am glad I did, and in regard to the whole backlash thing, well it's hardly surprising is it? 

The books _are _rather one sided after all. However the books are negative about religious institutions/ideologies-not faith itself. Without faith the books would not exist.

People get their pants in a twist all the time over stuff like this, there is a marked difference between criticizing religious construct and religious faith.

People of faith are entitled to question their religious leaders; just as they are entitled to question their political leaders.  

Knee jerk reactions by certain factions of the religious community only serve to highlight the fact that fanatical worship of any kind is not inducive to rational thinking.


----------



## mosaix

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



lin robinson said:


> The big question would be Why?



My point was, Lin that Atheists don't 'diss' god. They just don't believe any such thing exists, so how could they?

Some, may well 'diss' the effect that the belief in god has on the world around us, but that's not the same thing.


----------



## The Procrastinator

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

They do diss the idea of god, and the belief in god. There's plenty of "Nyah nyah na nyah nyah" level arguments on both sides of that particular fence. I find it funny how some atheists seem compelled to mention their lack of belief (or belief in non-belief etc etc) as much as believers seem compelled to talk about their faith - dropping it into conversation oh so casually. Both can be preachy and come across as superior, patronising, or arrogant. Even ignorant. I guess "rational thinking" is not always conducive to rational thinking either? 

(Btw I am fully aware that most atheists are not like this, just as most religious people aren't either...)


----------



## purple_kathryn

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



The Procrastinator said:


> They do diss the idea of god, and the belief in god. There's plenty of "Nyah nyah na nyah nyah" level arguments on both sides of that particular fence. I find it funny how some atheists seem compelled to mention their lack of belief (or belief in non-belief etc etc) as much as believers seem compelled to talk about their faith - dropping it into conversation oh so casually. Both can be preachy and come across as superior, patronising, or arrogant. Even ignorant. I guess "rational thinking" is not always conducive to rational thinking either?
> 
> (Btw I am fully aware that most atheists are not like this, just as most religious people aren't either...)


 
I haven't met *any* atheists like this.  I've yet to meet an atheist who has mentioned their atheism at any other time than when it might be relevant to the discussion.  Why wouldn't it be mentioned casually btw?  Should it be some big serious announcement?  I certainly have used my atheism as an explanation as while I hold a certain opinion "but I'm an atheist anyway" (and therefore I may see it differently to you).  I don't see what could be wrong with that.

Even online anything pro atheism discussions I have come across have not been out of context .  Not, for example, while playing a game on yahoo.

The only people i have come across who are preachy or bring theism/atheism up out of context are religious people.  I appreciate that it's only a small minority andbut it's not 6 of one half a dozen of the other you're trying to make it out to be.


----------



## The Procrastinator

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Werrrrl, I have. Not many I grant you, thank god. And I will concede you're right about the 6 of one half a dozen of the other thing - that kind of behaviour is more likely to occur with religious folks - but I have run into the occasional atheistic nitwit. If you've never come across a preachy atheist, then maybe you've been lucky and I've been unlucky - or maybe there's a higher percentage of nitwits in Oz.


----------



## lin robinson

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



> My point was, Lin that Atheists don't 'diss' god. They just don't believe any such thing exists, so how could they?



Yes, that was pretty obvious.
What you seem to be missing is my assertion is that nevertheless, and despite the silliness...they DO.

And what's even funnier, their idea of what "God" means always turns out to be some simplistic judeo-christian sundayschool cartoon.  Which they tear down and piss on and feel superior about.

Atheism is the weakest theological position, but provokes streams of infighting and fundamentalist blather about God.


----------



## Ursa major

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



lin robinson said:


> Atheism is the weakest theological position....


 

Really? There are some pretty odd religions and religious views out there, even if we don't count LRH and his space lizards (or whatever). 


By the way, I agree with what you said about the cartoon version of God being easy to tear down. But this behaviour is true of a lot of so-called "debates" these days, where people simple trade their attacks on straw men of their own choosing rather than argue points of dispute with each other.


----------



## lin robinson

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

I didn't say odd.  I said weakest.    

It's basically a mathematically statement about proofs more than anything else.


----------



## Ursa major

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



lin robinson said:


> It's basically a mathematically statement about proofs more than anything else.


 
I should have guessed that you were using this staple of theological debate.



(But if you were merely stating that god plays (or gods play, for polynontheists) the least part in the belief system(s) of atheists, compared to those of a religious persuasion, I'm guessing most of us already had an inkling of this.)


----------



## kaelcarp

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



lin robinson said:


> Atheism is the weakest theological position, but provokes streams of infighting and fundamentalist blather about God.



What is weak about atheism as a theological position? 

What position is stronger, and why is it stronger?


----------



## lin robinson

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

The strongest position is agnostic.  "I don't know"--absolutely unshakeable.

Next strongest would be theism.   In the sense of "I experienced something."   

Last would be atheism.   "There is nothing to experience."   VERY difficult to prove.  Pretty much impossible in the theological area.

Mathematically it is much easier to prove than disprove.

My favorite analogy is this.   Three guys go into a room and come out.   One guy says, 
"There's a cat in that room.  I saw it."

Second guy says, "I didn't see a cat."

Third guy says, "There is NO cat in that room."

Now...who is most likely wrong.   What's funny is, that whenever the experience of God is brought up, atheists immediately start talking about coercion, hallucination, lying, etc.

But there on position...based on denying something because they didn't experience it, is always touted as being scientific and unassailable.


----------



## Ursa major

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

While your example illustrates the problem, Lin, it isn't quite the same situation. All three guys will know that there is such a thing as a cat; their dispute is about its presence in the room. The first guy was only asking the others to believe in something that was entirely possible. The guy saying "there is no cat" is calling into question the eyesight and/or perception of the first guy, not the existence of cats.

Arguing about the existence or otherwise of a deity is different. (Imagine the first guy saying: "There's God in that room. I saw him/her/it.")

The evidence is, almost by definition, inconclusive and disputed. People can suggest that there is indirect evidence, but others will dispute it.


----------



## kaelcarp

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



lin robinson said:


> Last would be atheism.   "There is nothing to experience."   VERY difficult to prove.  Pretty much impossible in the theological area.



Most atheists are not positive (or strong) atheists, but rather negative (or weak) atheists. There is a thin but important difference between agnosticism and weak atheism. A weak atheist does not believe in a god but does not say that there is not one either, though he/she might say that the evidence does not support a god and go about life as if there is none. An agnostic does not believe in the ability to determine whether there is or is not a god. You can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

I'm a weak atheist. I don't know whether there is or is not a god.

Weak and strong atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term "atheist" can be applied to anyone who does not have a belief in a god.


----------



## lin robinson

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Okay, Ursa, I'll gear it down for you.    The second guy said he say a monster in the room.  You okay now?

If you don't know and say so, then you are an agnostic.  Examine the words.

This whole thing is a recent concoction raised by atheists...and if you haven't seen discussions of this before on other forums and seen all the "scientific proofs" and scornful denials of the possibility of existence of God (often by the same people who will give you statistical probabilities of life on other planets), then you aren't really aware of the parameters...in order to have a sort of "shelter" from the logical problems of their indefensible position.

Saying there is no God is making a statement that is unprovable, has no evidence behind it, and is logically unsound.

So if somebody wants to define their postiion as being a free-range reformed Atheist type seven B to where they aren't making that statement, then they are less foolish.

Few do.


----------



## Ursa major

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

I'm not taking any position on the existence of a deity in this thread.

What I am doing is being argumentative; think of it as helping you to iron out the wrinkles in your arguments. (Trust me, this will do you good in the end. )


Sorry, you'll have to wait for my next critique. I have to be elsewhere (and since neither science nor faith will get me there instantaneously, I have to go now).


----------



## mosaix

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



lin robinson said:


> What you seem to be missing is my assertion is that nevertheless, and despite the silliness...they DO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the ones you know aren't atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what's even funnier, their idea of what "God" means always turns out to be some simplistic judeo-christian sundayschool cartoon.  Which they tear down and piss on and feel superior about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your generalising. I'm an ex Methodist lay preacher an I understand that 'god' means different things to different people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is the weakest theological position,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that relgious people like to define everyone in religious terms so that they can imply that atheists have 'something missing' in their lives.
> 
> However, I am a born-again atheist. My position and the position of many atheists is that of a new-born babe - we have no theological position.
> 
> What's your position on fairies Lin? Believe or not? Do you define yourself as a non-fairiest and is this a weak fairiestic position? I would imagine you don't define yourself in these terms at all because it just isn't relevant- now you know how I feel.
Click to expand...


----------



## mosaix

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



lin robinson said:


> "There's a cat in that room.  I saw it."
> 
> Second guy says, "I didn't see a cat."
> 
> Third guy says, "There is NO cat in that room."
> 
> Now...who is most likely wrong.



Try it again with fairies.


----------



## Reading_fanatic

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



lin robinson said:


> Saying there is no God is making a statement that is unprovable, has no evidence behind it, and is logically unsound.


But do Atheists need evidence for their belief that there is no God?? Atheists are trying to prove nothing as they don't believe in anything other then the world we already know while the Theological position requires you to argue for something more i.e.God.


----------



## lin robinson

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Somebody says they don't believe something, that's the end of the story.
They say "There is no God" and they've moved to the untenable position as I describe it.

Whatever rummaging around has been fashionable lately,  "atheism" means a beleif that there is no God.   Look at the word.


----------



## lin robinson

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

wow...TWO people chimed in on fairies.   What, fairies are bizarrer than monsters?

The ex-methodist guy has redefined the word to suit himself.   That's fine.  But I'm talking about the more commonly understood definition, not his personal one.

As far as the "understanding of religous people"  (I don't particularly understand them at all, myself)   it seems to be an understanding based in his own prejudices.


----------



## Reading_fanatic

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



lin robinson said:


> Somebody says they don't believe something, that's the end of the story.
> They say "There is no God" and they've moved to the untenable position as I describe it.
> 
> Whatever rummaging around has been fashionable lately,  "atheism" means a beleif that there is no God.   Look at the word.


Atheism means more then a belief that there is no God but also that the idea of God is incoherant and as such they not only hold that there is no God but that he cannot be defined and so as the Atheist would say there is no point in arguing something that doesn't and cannot exist (In effect you can't argue nothing).


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Ok, can out open lid go to it worms.

I know there is no god. what am I?

It's a shame really. If there was it would give me something to look forward to. (in the short...)

I wouldn't mind a few strong words with the kind of entity that is prepared to cause the horror, pain and suffering we've all seen just in the last few weeks -inaction is as bad action when it comes to the death of thousands and the apparently simple means to prevent it. There's no free will in being crushed to death under an earthquake aftermath.

If any other entity "allowed" the destruction plague famine war and anything else you'd care to mention I don't think the average person in the street wouldn't be saying 

"what a fantastic guy - you know he let a million people starve to death rather than make it rain - great guy, throws a fantastic party of on 23rd street"

As for the cats can we be sure the room exists that three, not the square root of 10, people went in or that they have yet emerged to report the existance of Bastet?

Until we are absolutely unshakably sure of the above, what foundation do we have for discussing the existance of a pigs ear never mind a figment of delusion.


----------



## booksforlunch

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



lin robinson said:


> The strongest position is agnostic.  "I don't know"--absolutely unshakeable.
> 
> Next strongest would be theism.   In the sense of "I experienced something."
> 
> Last would be atheism.   "There is nothing to experience."   VERY difficult to prove.  Pretty much impossible in the theological area.
> 
> Mathematically it is much easier to prove than disprove.
> 
> My favorite analogy is this.   Three guys go into a room and come out.   One guy says,
> "There's a cat in that room.  I saw it."
> 
> Second guy says, "I didn't see a cat."
> 
> Third guy says, "There is NO cat in that room."
> 
> Now...who is most likely wrong.   What's funny is, that whenever the experience of God is brought up, atheists immediately start talking about coercion, hallucination, lying, etc.
> 
> But there on position...based on denying something because they didn't experience it, is always touted as being scientific and unassailable.



Uhm, sorry for jumping in like that, but I think your cat example in context with atheism is flawed.
The atheist´s position would be : There is *no *cat in that room, because cats *don´t exist.
*In your example, the existence of cats seems to be commonly accepted. They probably all have seen their share of cats outside this situation.  It´s just the existence of one particular cat in one particular room that´s up to debate. And given the circumstances the third person´s position of denial  of a cat in the room gets more or less likely. If he´s there for the first time his insisting seems silly - but if it´s his own room, from which he *knows *it was hermetically shut until five minutes ago, then there´s still the small chance of a cat in there, that slipped in this five minutes, but the position he has will be the more likely.

Back to the point : 
If all the evidence of gods existence are personal and subjective (meaning: not scientifically or empiric provable ) and made by someone else but me, why is my position of saying : "No, man, you are not going to heaven and I´m not going to hell, because God & Co don´t exist" a *weaker *position than "I have never seen it, I can never prove it, but you´re going to hell if you´re not living after the rules given by god (whose existence waits to be proven, too)"?
And that´s my single problem with religion. Not that people believe in god. If it helps you, fine, more power to you. It´s the fact, that certain religious people (e.g. the churches ) demand a say in how *I* live, based on something* they* believe. And expect me to accept their subjective experience as prove. I think that´s most atheists main problem. They don´t go up the fence because you dare believe in god and they hate it. They go, sometimes rabid, against personal believe because they see it as the source of a lot of trouble in our daily life. I think, some of them don´t get that personal religion and organized religion are not the same, and that the former doesn´t have to be fought against like the letter.


----------



## lin robinson

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



> I know there is no god. what am I?



Delusionally self-impressed.

And rife with what you hear so much of from atheists...extremely primitive understanding of the area they are discussing.  (How could God "allow" bad things"? for instance, is kind of kindergarden logic.)

Of course, logic doesn't matter when you KNOW, does it?


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



lin robinson said:


> Delusionally self-impressed.
> 
> And rife with what you hear so much of from atheists...extremely primitive understanding of the area they are discussing. (How could God "allow" bad things"? for instance, is kind of kindergarden logic.)
> 
> Of course, logic doesn't matter when you KNOW, does it?


 
Right back at ya. Those wriggly worms are tempting aren't they?

That's exactly how I feel about those that believe. I couldn't give a toss about what god allows, since of course, that's not what happens. However it's interesting that your put down relies on similar arguments to those of us that are 'enlightened'. 

Let me ask you this. 

Are you a new or old testament believer?

What is the first personal insight to the existance of a god?

Was it a Damascus moment? 

How old were you? 

Have you ever considered the thought you are wrong?


----------



## lin robinson

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



> Are you a new or old testament believer?



Nope.



> What is the first personal insight to the existance of a god?



Another loopy sentence that doesn't make any sense.

Was it a Damascus moment? 



> How old were you?


Almost sixty.  So?



> Have you ever considered the thought you are wrong?



Constantly.   And frequently admit it.  But I'm not really putting forward any belief systems or anything here.   Just discussing the weakness of the "there is no god and I know it" delusion.  There's not really much to be wrong about, actually.   I just kind of assume you haven't really investigated the entrire cosmos and come to conclusions.

Nor is there much to argue about your infantile theology.   Read up a little, you might get a clue that when people talk about higher determinants in the universe they don't necessarily mean your crippled concepts of what that means.  Seriously.  You might get interested.

I'm not the missionary here.  You are.


----------



## Reading_fanatic

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



lin robinson said:


> And rife with what you hear so much of from atheists...extremely primitive understanding of the area they are discussing.  (How could God "allow" bad things"? for instance, is kind of kindergarden logic.)


Kindergarten logic. may I suggest J.L.Mackies logical refutation of God through the existence of evil as it tries to disprove the existance of God as being incompatible with the "Bad things".



lin robinson said:


> Nor is there much to argue about your infantile theology.   Read up a little, you might get a clue that when people talk about higher determinants in the universe they don't necessarily mean your crippled concepts of what that means.  Seriously.  You might get interested.


Might I inquire what _you_ mean by a higher determinant. (Specifics so we are clear on what we are arguing about)


----------



## BookStop

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Why argue at all? Folks that believe are not likely to be swayed into not believing in a forum. And folks that don't believe should know better than to try an argumentative approach.


----------



## mosaix

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



lin robinson said:


> Of course, logic doesn't matter when you KNOW, does it?



That's why believers ignore it.

PS why is everyone discussing the exitance or not of god as opposed to gods?


----------



## Ursa major

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

With polytheism, wouldn't we be parroting the same arguments anyway, mosaix?


----------



## mosaix

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



lin robinson said:


> The ex-methodist guy has redefined the word to suit himself.   That's fine.  But I'm talking about the more commonly understood definition, not his personal one.
> 
> As far as the "understanding of religous people"  (I don't particularly understand them at all, myself)   it seems to be an understanding based in his own prejudices.



I wasn't aware I'd expressed any prejudices.

But it's an interesting standpoint you have, Lin - "You're all talking about something different to me so your arguements aren't valid - therefore I am right."

Bookstop is right about this thread but not for the reason he thinks. 
You have your own view about what constitutes a god that seems to differ from that of others and so we are discussing different things - pointless.


----------



## mosaix

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Ursa major said:


> With polytheism, wouldn't we be parroting the same arguments anyway, mosaix?



My point UM was that people who talk of god rather than god are , maybe, approaching the subject from a judeo-christian standpoint and not considering the broader aspect. 

If there is one god, then why not two or three or millions?

If people believe in one god why can't they believe in two or more? It all comes down to what we have been taught. Once people realise that then maybe they will start to question what they believe and why.


----------



## Ursa major

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



mosaix said:


> My point UM was that people who talk of god rather than god are , maybe, approaching the subject from a judeo-christian standpoint and not considering the broader aspect.


 
And I was making a pun (which is a higher calling than theology, I'll let you know). 



mosaix said:


> If there is one god, then why not two or three or millions?


 
I can see what you're getting at, but I don't think it will change the argument one way or another. People believe what they believe (including those who do not believe in anything that would resemble a god or gods). Many (most?) were taught their belief(s) as children; others came to their belief(s) later on in life. I would guess that this is true of topics outside of the religion/non-religion arena, support for a soccer team, for example. Often it revolves around wanting to belong (or not belong).


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



lin robinson said:


> Nope.
> 
> Another loopy sentence that doesn't make any sense.
> 
> Was it a Damascus moment?
> 
> Almost sixty. So?
> 
> Constantly. And frequently admit it. But I'm not really putting forward any belief systems or anything here. Just discussing the weakness of the "there is no god and I know it" delusion. There's not really much to be wrong about, actually. I just kind of assume you haven't really investigated the entrire cosmos and come to conclusions.
> 
> Nor is there much to argue about your infantile theology. Read up a little, you might get a clue that when people talk about higher determinants in the universe they don't necessarily mean your crippled concepts of what that means. Seriously. You might get interested.
> 
> I'm not the missionary here. You are.


 
Well I'm sorry (and surprised) you were unable to discern the meaning and sentiment of my question given your self confessed superior mature intellect. The question does have a slight error (hint: swap was for is). 

I was trying to find out if your belief was a result of your own personal insight or as a result of indoctrination at an early age. No matter.

As to my exhaustive search of the cosmos why would I. I only have to find one place where something omnipresent dosen't exist, to establish it's non existance. I am that place.

Obviously you are entitled to agree with my position, I hope you do. In case you don't, I'm not sure suggesting someone is infantile, delusional, childish or inferior represents a valid refutation. Therefore, if you do disagree, I think it only fair that you should propose a reasoned alternative.


----------



## Foxbat

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

People. This is a friendly reminder to keep this debate civilised. So far it has not crossed the line but this subject matter has a tendency to raise emotions.

Please continue to treat each other with respect and everything will be fine. If it descends into any form of name calling, this thread will be closed.


----------



## mosaix

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



lin robinson said:


> My favorite analogy is this.   Three guys go into a room and come out.   One guy says,
> "There's a cat in that room.  I saw it."
> 
> Second guy says, "I didn't see a cat."
> 
> Third guy says, "There is NO cat in that room."
> 
> Now...who is most likely wrong.   What's funny is, that whenever the experience of God is brought up, atheists immediately start talking about coercion, hallucination, lying, etc.
> 
> But there on position...based on denying something because they didn't experience it, is always touted as being scientific and unassailable.



The analogy is not relevant to belief systems.

 This is more relevant.

  Supposing I believe that somewhere in the universe on a planet that is barren, hot, has never harboured life, never been visited by a life-form of any kind, there is sitting in the middle of a desert a Ford Mustang. This car is perfect in very respect, the battery is charged, the front tyres have 28lbs psi, the rear tyres 32lbs psi, the washer bottle is full of water, the tank full of petrol, oil in the sump, the right keys are in the ignition, there are a pair of leather driving gloves on the drivers seat, it carries the Ford badge and has a licence plate that reads CHRONS 1.

  This car came into existence by all the necessary molecules rushing together and combining in the right sequence and proportions etc.

Now this may sound unlikely but it’s even more unlikely when you consider that the car may have had a tank full of water instead of petrol, or a flat tyre, or the wrong set of keys, or no plug leads, or carries a General Motors badge, or it is a four-stroke engine but only has three cylinders, or one of the gloves has six fingers, or the licence plate reads KRONS 2.

  Anyway, I would like to propose this as a belief system. 

  Okay Chronites, does anyone believe the car exists? Is anyone ‘agnostic’ about the car? Does anyone disbelieve?

  My point here is that the possibility that the car exists cannot be disproved, but the chances that it does are so vanishingly small that disbelief is a much more rational and logical view than the agnostic standpoint. For it to exist then all the other variants of the car that I mentioned would have an equal possibility of existing, not to mention Ford Thunderbirds, Porches, Rolls Royce's and any other make of car that I choose to mention. And when I'm through with cars there's always trains, bikes and ships......

The agnostic standpoint is a cop-out. 

  As for belief - anyone believing what I have proposed please deposit donations in my bank account so that I can start _The Chronite Brethren (and Sisterhood) of the Order Of The Mustangites_.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Mosaix -  To be competely analogous to the cat it would have to be a Jaguar - sign me up.


----------



## mosaix

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



TheEndIsNigh said:


> Mosaix -  To be competely analogous to the cat it would have to be a Jaguar - sign me up.



I'll send you my bank account details.


----------



## Ursa major

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

It sounds too good to be true.


(Admit it, Mosaix: it's been clocked, hasn't it?)


----------



## mosaix

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Ursa major said:


> It sounds too good to be true.
> 
> 
> (Admit it, Mosaix: it's been clocked, hasn't it?)



For a friend I can do a good deal....


----------



## Ursa major

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

And thus there grew a schism between those who thought the Ford Mustang was immaculate and those who believed it had been driven by its creator. And because both sides agree that to visit the Holy Planet would be a sin - not that anyone knows where this planet is, mind - the disagreement cannot be settled by examination of the holy relic.


Casualties are expected in the very near future.


----------



## mosaix

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Ursa major said:


> And thus there grew a schism between those who thought the Ford Mustang was immaculate and those who believed it had been driven by its creator. And because both sides agree that to visit the Holy Planet would be a sin - not that anyone knows where this planet is, mind - the disagreement cannot be settled by examination of the holy relic.
> 
> 
> Casualties are expected in the very near future.



 Very good UM.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Ursa major said:


> And thus there grew a schism between those who thought the Ford Mustang was immaculate and those who believed it had been driven by its creator. And because both sides agree that to visit the Holy Planet would be a sin - not that anyone knows where this planet is, mind - the disagreement cannot be settled by examination of the holy relic.
> 
> 
> Casualties are expected in the very near future.


 
The one true car is Jaguar. To believe in Mustang is herasy.

(I know, I know, this isn't the argument thread, but it was too hard to resist)


----------



## JoanDrake

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



lin robinson said:


> Okay, Ursa, I'll gear it down for you. The second guy said he say a monster in the room. You okay now?
> 
> If you don't know and say so, then you are an agnostic. Examine the words.
> 
> This whole thing is a recent concoction raised by atheists...and if you haven't seen discussions of this before on other forums and seen all the "scientific proofs" and scornful denials of the possibility of existence of God (often by the same people who will give you statistical probabilities of life on other planets), then you aren't really aware of the parameters...in order to have a sort of "shelter" from the logical problems of their indefensible position.
> 
> Saying there is no God is making a statement that is unprovable, has no evidence behind it, and is logically unsound.


 

I'll agree it's unprovable. 

How does it have no evidence behind it? There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of god which is not more easily explainable in some other way. While 'the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' it's a pretty good indicator.

How is it logically unsound? I don't understand that at all.


----------



## JoanDrake

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

The Cat ate the Fairy


----------



## lin robinson

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



> There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of god which is not more easily explainable in some other way.



Except that many such "alternative explanations" involve things like psychosis, hallucination, wish-fullfilment, etc.

Which could also be used to explain away physical reality itself.

A person's own experience is inviolable.   You don't have to believe it, but you can't write it off, then call your results "logic"  which SO many atheist "arguments" do.

The guy said he said he saw a cat, it's worth think about their being a cat there.

The guy said he didn't see one, doesn't mean there wasn't one there.

Guy says,  "I didn't see a cat, therefore there was no cat", he's making a bit too much of his own significance in the universe.


----------



## lin robinson

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

The background here is the really funny part.

Atheists always act like they are more logical and smarter and more modern and all that ****... when their belief is not one scintilla more logical, provable, intelligent, or provable than that of theists.


----------



## Ursa major

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

So, Lin, if I said I had two heads (because with a brain my size, one skull simply isn't big enough ), you wouldn't feel able to say: "Ursa does not have two heads." After all, you've never seen me.


----------



## JoanDrake

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



lin robinson said:


> Except that many such "alternative explanations" involve things like psychosis, hallucination, wish-fullfilment, etc.
> 
> Which could also be used to explain away physical reality itself.
> 
> A person's own experience is inviolable. You don't have to believe it, but you can't write it off, then call your results "logic" which SO many atheist "arguments" do.
> 
> The guy said he said he saw a cat, it's worth think about their being a cat there.
> 
> The guy said he didn't see one, doesn't mean there wasn't one there.
> 
> Guy says, "I didn't see a cat, therefore there was no cat", he's making a bit too much of his own significance in the universe.


 
OK, fine, that's a good argument, though I don't see what it has to do with my significance in the Universe, rather than just my ability to see a cat

And my real problem comes when they tell me I can't do something I want to, because the cat says it's wrong


----------



## Reading_fanatic

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



lin robinson said:


> Except that many such "alternative explanations" involve things like psychosis, hallucination, wish-fullfilment, etc.


All equally valid.



> Which could also be used to explain away physical reality itself.


Not really as  with these you can use reason to prove these



> A person's own experience is inviolable.   You don't have to believe it, but you can't write it off, then call your results "logic"  which SO many atheist "arguments" do.


The problem with personal experiences is that they cannot be proved. It can be written off simply on the basis that although your experience is inviolable to you there is no evidence for me or anyone else to believe it.
If you claim to have an experience but cannot prove that it occurred then that is not an argument at all merely an opinion.



> The guy said he said he saw a cat, it's worth think about their being a cat there.
> 
> The guy said he didn't see one, doesn't mean there wasn't one there.
> 
> Guy says,  "I didn't see a cat, therefore there was no cat", he's making a bit too much of his own significance in the universe.


That is a really bad analogy. The third guy doesn't say cats do not exist but simply that one doesn't exist in that room so he is merely stating his observation on what he saw in that room not he world.



lin robinson said:


> Atheists always act like they are more logical and smarter and more modern and all that ****... when their belief is not one scintilla more logical, provable, intelligent, or provable than that of theists.


This all comes down to a point of view as many arguments are stronger or weaker depending on your theological position as you will be more inclined to believe certain arguments that support your view. (So some arguments are stronger to some people)


----------



## j d worthington

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Given my limited time, I've been really fighting getting involved in this, but I can't resist putting in my two cents' worth at this point:



lin robinson said:


> Except that many such "alternative explanations" involve things like psychosis, hallucination, wish-fullfilment, etc.
> 
> Which could also be used to explain away physical reality itself.


 
I'm sorry, but that argument falls down immediately you start really examining it. Unless you're willing to grant a purely solipsistic view of the universe, there are far too many points of evidence to back up the existence of physical reality -- and solipsism itself, while not _ultimately_ disprovable, has far too many flaws as a philosophy to need much refutation these days.

There's an enormous amount of difference between that which a person experiences individually, which can indeed be very strongly influenced by emotional and mental factors, and that which has been experienced, tried, tested, rigorously examined, and sifted time and again by humanity as a whole. The one is supported by mountains of evidence; the other by a personal, individual experience which, upon examination almost never matches up with a "similar" experience by any other human being, so that, more often than not, they end up using similar terms for things that, when you sift through it all, are almost always vastly different. "Physical reality" (or our understanding of it), on the other hand, is based on a very rigorous definition of terms, and an examination of the various aspects of that reality with an attempt by science to disprove an accepted view as often (or even more so) as to support it. It becomes self-reinforcing only to the degree that the testable, verifiable, and falsifiable evidence from numerous disciplines continue to reinforce it. This is _not_ something that can be said with any form of theism, which ultimately relies on mystification rather than clarification.



> A person's own experience is inviolable. You don't have to believe it, but you can't write it off, then call your results "logic" which SO many atheist "arguments" do.


 
Their experience is a real thing, in the sense that they truly experience something emotionally (and often, because the two are interrelated, physically), but the interpretation or the cause they superimpose on it is not inviolable. It is open to examination and testing, the same as any other experience or view. If it fails to support itself with corroborating evidence, then it is much less likely to be the reality than that which does. In this, you most certainly _can_ "write it off, then call your results 'logic'", as these results are supported by independently existing facts, or evidence.



> The guy said he said he saw a cat, it's worth think about their being a cat there.
> 
> The guy said he didn't see one, doesn't mean there wasn't one there.
> 
> Guy says, "I didn't see a cat, therefore there was no cat", he's making a bit too much of his own significance in the universe.


 
As has been said, this isn't a very good analogy. Denial of the existence of something is no more valid than a claim of its existence, _all things being equal_. But, as noted above, this _isn't_ the case with these sorts of claims; and if the evidence comes down on the side of one or the other, the opposing party had better be able to muster up something more than bluster or a claim that one can't _absolutely_ prove something isn't (or is, should that be the side supported by evidence) so. Otherwise, said opponent really hasn't much of a leg to stand on, and certainly can't expect to be given the same credence as the one with all the evidence. 



lin robinson said:


> The background here is the really funny part.
> 
> Atheists always act like they are more logical and smarter and more modern and all that ****... when their belief is not one scintilla more logical, provable, intelligent, or provable than that of theists.


 
Again, in light of the mountains of evidence on the one side, and the paucity of evidence on the other... I'm afraid this statement is complete and utter nonsense, with no more support for it than for the claims that the earth is flat, or that we live in a universe of "chrystal spheres"....


----------



## Ursa major

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

So I don't have two heads, JD?


----------



## lin robinson

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



> All equally valid.



LOL

Well, not really.  The idea that writing off anything that doesn't fit your prejudices as hallucination isn't really a particularly scientific concept.  Much less an exercise of human intelligence and potential.

The idea that "real things" are reason, but anything that doesn't fit the brand of reason of any given observer don't exist is a pretty stunted approach to the universe.

I hate to tell you guys, but the idea that the universe is a projection, or that it came into existence 15 minutes ago along with all physical evidence and memories,  or that we are all lying in tanks hooked up to consensual reality feed....

...are completely unrefutable.   There is no way you can use "reason" to disprove them.   Many such ideas are MUCH more "reasonable" than the universe described by science.

It's the same problem you always run into with atheism:  minds to small to grasp waving books and incantations to prove that they are the RIGHT ones and the pinnacle of existence.

Fundamentalism and atheism are cut from the same bolt of cloth.   In between are entities known as "minds".






> and the paucity of evidence on the other.


   You always find that when you write off any reports that don't agree with your own (or that you can only interpret in limited ways) as hallucinations.


----------



## j d worthington

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Sorry. You're reducing it to the level of the individual's perceptions again, and that simply doesn't stand up to the collective experience of the species. Again, you're turning to solipsism, which is an extremely shaky concept from any standard except its own....

Science, on the other hand, is solidly based in collective experience, research, and knowledge, rather than sheer speculation or individual interpretation of experiences. Again, the weight of the evidence comes down firmly on the side of such things not having much of a basis in reality....


----------



## j d worthington

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Ursa major said:


> So I don't have two heads, JD?


 
At present, I couldn't say. Unlikely, but possible....


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Regarding Ursa: Almost definite I would say J. D. It would explain why he's so good at punning. Two head are better than...

On the other hand as I understand it Lin's argument (no doubt I will be corrected if I'm wrong) We are possibly all a figment of some things imagination and all the things we take as reality could be the result of some super mind ( or collective). 

It keeps track of the all the interactions of the subservient "souls" and for each 'entity' in the system, ensures that they all enjoy an experience which they will think of as reality. 

The proposal is then that this 'mind' is god. (I've *had* dreams like this)

The trouble I have with this vast entity is why if it does exist, it's not very good at it's job. There are so many errors in the system you'd think (given it's had at least 15 minutes to get it right) that it could do a better job of it.

I mean unless this mind is 'on' something why complicate the system with dinosaurs, mass extinctions and all the other ridiculous things that have been imagined?

Another problem is what would be the point. If the imagined things didn't follow the rules supposedly set in tablets of stone then who's fault would it be? A glitch in the system or just more evidence it's not very good?

Does 'it' get off on imagining wars mutilation and torture etc.?

It's obvious that the mind has to be part of the system or it wouldn't know what was going on, which would be pointless. So the question is :-

Is it you, me, Lin, Tom, Dick or Harry that is the mind in question?

I stake my claim here. Although I might concede J. D. as an alternative cos there are times when my mind is a complete mush.


----------



## j d worthington

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Hence my reference to solipsism:

solipsism - Dictionary definition and pronunciation - Yahoo! Education

And I'm afraid that, for all practical purposes, Berkeley was refuted long ago....


----------



## Reading_fanatic

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



lin robinson said:


> I hate to tell you guys, but the idea that the universe is a projection, or that it came into existence 15 minutes ago along with all physical evidence and memories,  or that we are all lying in tanks hooked up to consensual reality feed....
> 
> ...are completely unrefutable.   There is no way you can use "reason" to disprove them.   Many such ideas are MUCH more "reasonable" than the universe described by science.


More reasonable is hardly an accurate description as although you can say they are unrefutable but by the same token they are equally unprovable as there can be no evidence to prove these theories. 
And if you wish to claim we are all lying in tanks hooked up to consensual reality feed as equally valid argument to a testable reality then that pretty much leads you to a point where you must doubt all your experiences and as such end in a place where at all times you doubt what is around you and thus find yourself in the position of nothing. Eg why drink a glass of water if it doesn't exist? Your body doesn't exist so you don't need to eat etc.
As for the whole the universe came into existence 15mins ago and we would have no way of knowing that.
These Ideas are pointless and completely without any scientific or logical merit.



> You always find that when you write off any reports that don't agree with your own (or that you can only interpret in limited ways) as hallucinations.


You can write them off as easily as attributing it to an unseeable/unfeelable/and unprovable higher being. However the laws of probability are on the side of the hallucinations.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



j. d. worthington said:


> Hence my reference to solipsism:
> 
> solipsism - Dictionary definition and pronunciation - Yahoo! Education
> 
> And I'm afraid that, for all practical purposes, Berkeley was refuted long ago....


 
J.D. I understood the reference, I just wanted to register my six penneth on the refutation and maybe take it a bit further. 

Course what I don't know is that other peoples experiences during the last 15 minutes are similar to mine. 

A few may have had the lottery winning, blond triplets and 'life of riely' one that I applied for, but didn't get. You know the one where a super being makes the tea and hoovers the carpets for you. 

A kind of, spectrally magnificant life, you might say -sorry.


----------



## lin robinson

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



> Berkeley was refuted long ago....



LOL   oh, well that settles that.   Hilarious.

I agree that your ideas about "not existing" have no merit, Fanatic.   But they are your ideas, not mine.   The usual sloppiness that allow people to refute the existence of God by defining the word in terms of their own juvenile images of some old guy on a throne or somebody in charge of making sure everything is good and nice or whatever.


Okay, you all did VERY poorly on the cat in the room thing, but let's try another little analogy.

Do you believe in the existence of Love?   How about Orgasms?

What makes you think they exist?  (Other than that you might have experienced them...perhaps even in situations involving other human beings)
Try THINKING about it for a minute first, okay?


Ooops,   you're already feverishly typing that scientists have used electrodes and EEG's etc to map these experiences and etc, yada yads.

Well, guess what...same goes for spiritual ecstasy and a lot of mystical response states etc.    

And somebody will probably say that Love is a myth, it's all really sex and hormones and ****.  (Because there's always the same response to this stuff, whether it makes sense of not)

You're talking about some of the most powerful driving forces in the race, but you can't weigh them or take a picture or anything.

Gee.....


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Lin:
OK two things. 
1: Your off on that juvenile put down thing again. It doesn't help and it's no way to have a discussion.

2: I think you'll find those that got into the cat's room will think we did rather well. Still...

Before I go down the love exist farce, I think it's only fair that we can examine of your own view of the cat's room.

Now if you have no view and your just putting up coconuts for us to knock down, fair enough. It's just I for one, have no interest would prefer to discuss the merits of Big Brother.

J.D.: A quick query (it's as relevant as anything else recently) when I look at a preview and press back space key the post window (and it's content) disappears. Is this a well known annoyance or just my bad luck?


----------



## lin robinson

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Well, End, you seem to be trying to be insulting or something, but it's not working because you aren't saying anything are you?

Did fairly well?    Maybe if measured by word count.   But if the criterion is making sense, I'd have to say no.

You don't seem to be able to grasp the idea of relative realms of proof.   
Any mathemetician is aware of that, but not logicians in the grip of grinding axes based on blind faith.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Well lets say I agree with you.

What is your opinion of the cat in the room?


----------



## mosaix

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



lin robinson said:


> Atheists always act like they are more logical and smarter and more modern and all that ****... when their belief is not one scintilla more logical, provable, intelligent, or provable than that of theists.





> refute the existence of God by defining the word in terms of their own juvenile images of some old guy on a throne or somebody in charge of making sure everything is good and nice or whatever.
> 
> Okay, you all did VERY poorly on the cat in the room thing, but let's try another little analogy.


Lin, I personally find your condescending tone and generalisations to be verging on the insulting and unless you are prepared to discuss this topic in a more adult fashion then I, for one, shall take no further part.


----------



## Reading_fanatic

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



lin robinson said:


> I agree that your ideas about "not existing" have no merit, Fanatic.   But they are your ideas, not mine.   The usual sloppiness that allow people to refute the existence of God by defining the word in terms of their own juvenile images of some old guy on a throne or somebody in charge of making sure everything is good and nice or whatever.


Hmm They were never my ideas. And when arguing God I argue a common conception of God (By definition Omniscient/omnipotent/and morally perfect) with which these arguments are hardly going against some Juvenile conception.


> Okay, you all did VERY poorly on the cat in the room thing, but let's try another little analogy.


Them may I ask what you thought the cat in the room proved at all as from here and reading through other posts it seems to be all smoke and mirrors.



> Do you believe in the existence of Love?   How about Orgasms?
> 
> What makes you think they exist?  (Other than that you might have experienced them...perhaps even in situations involving other human beings)
> Try THINKING about it for a minute first, okay?
> 
> 
> Ooops,   you're already feverishly typing that scientists have used electrodes and EEG's etc to map these experiences and etc, yada yads.
> 
> Well, guess what...same goes for spiritual ecstasy and a lot of mystical response states etc.


And your point is ......... What?
People who have say a mystical response will have something detectable on an EEG machine but then what does this prove? Nothing. In fact if they were hallucinating then they would experience a detectable response as well and so that further shows the possibility that it is all in the mind and these mystical response are only some abnormal mental state


> And somebody will probably say that Love is a myth, it's all really sex and hormones and ****.  (Because there's always the same response to this stuff, whether it makes sense of not)
> 
> You're talking about some of the most powerful driving forces in the race, but you can't weigh them or take a picture or anything.
> 
> Gee.....


Then again you could simply say that love is an abstract concept to account for a particular thought pattern. Much like the letter Zero is an abstract concept for nothing.


----------



## lin robinson

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



> morally perfect) with which these arguments are hardly going against some Juvenile conception.



Sure are.  Morally perfect?   Who cooked that up?

And as opposed to what... your own ideas of morality.  The whole "there can't be a God because people starve" is as about as primitive and juvenile a concept as you'd want, other than describing the length of beard and color of bathrobe.

I NEVER see atheists EVER approach any contempory (or even enlightened) idea of God.
Mostly because, I suspect, it's easy to sneer at Zeus on a throne, but harder to take apart something like a universal intelligence or a mind in which our universe is a thought.

What does it prove?   Hilarious.  I don't usally get my digs endorsed so enthusiastically.

Why not go back and tell me why you beleive that Love or Orgasms exist.  Start from there.


----------



## lin robinson

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



> Then again you could simply say that love is an abstract concept to account for a particular thought pattern. Much like the letter Zero is an abstract concept for nothing.



LOL
THAT'S the sort of response I expect from atheist geeks.  

How do you explain something like an Orgasm to a frigid virgin?

It's the same idea.


----------



## Reading_fanatic

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



lin robinson said:


> Sure are.  Morally perfect?   Who cooked that up?
> 
> And as opposed to what... your own ideas of morality.  The whole "there can't be a God because people starve" is as about as primitive and juvenile a concept as you'd want, other than describing the length of beard and color of bathrobe.


So then you are saying that god is evil or that he at the very least indifferent to the universe at times. neither of those ensure much faith by Humanity.



> I NEVER see atheists EVER approach any contempory (or even enlightened) idea of God.
> Mostly because, I suspect, it's easy to sneer at Zeus on a throne, but harder to take apart something like a universal intelligence or a mind in which our universe is a thought.


Very well then describe a contemporary idea of God for this discussion.



> Why not go back and tell me why you believe that Love or Orgasms exist.  Start from there.


Because I do. How about you?


lin robinson said:


> LOL
> THAT'S the sort of response I expect from atheist geeks.


And that is the response I expect from a person with no logical leg to stand on. So far you have presented almost nothing to justify your position in these arguments beyond name calling.



> How do you explain something like an Orgasm to a frigid virgin?


I suppose you can't.


----------



## Foxbat

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Ok Folks. I've tried to be nice about this and that is clearly not working. So here it is straight down the line. 

One more step out of line by anybody and this thread is closed permenantly.

*NO *form of insult (including atheist geek) to any other member will be tolerated. 

You have been warned.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Lin:


> ... I NEVER see atheists EVER approach any contempory (or even enlightened) idea of God...


 
So Lin: Please enlighten me in this new thinking, perhaps I've missed something.

...


----------



## mosaix

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*



Foxbat said:


> Ok Folks. I've tried to be nice about this and that is clearly not working. So here it is straight down the line.
> 
> One more step out of line by anybody and this thread is closed permenantly.
> 
> *NO *form of insult (including atheist geek) to any other member will be tolerated.
> 
> You have been warned.



Just do it Foxbat. The discussion, such as it is, has clearly run its course.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

No don't, I need enlightenment...


----------



## The Procrastinator

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Although this reader is still curious to see if Lin will answer the questions posed...


----------



## lin robinson

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

Oh, I don't think so.

We have Mr. Logical up there with his  "I beleive it because I do" thing

Endisnigh wants to brought up to date on the topic he's passing opinions on.

And apparently the same people who use terms like "juvenile" and "farce" to me have whined to the moderators that they can't handle my insults.

(Gosh it's awful to be called an "atheist geek", huh?   Computer geek is okay, though, right.   It's okay to refer to fundamentalist churchgoers as ignorant, stupid, and repressive...but not to the same features in atheists.

So, I guess there's really not much more I should say here.   You're all safe now.


----------



## j d worthington

*Re: Golden Compass Backlash...*

There is a huge difference in addressing someone's argument and using such terms (especially if there is some solid reasoning or evidence behind such a judgment) and using such terms about the person him- or herself. It's the latter you tend to do, Lin, and you well know it, as it's not the first time you've been called on it.

And, as you've just indulged in it yet again...

Thread is now closed.


----------

