Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Poll
Do your freethinking children read Harry Potter?
Yes, but they are smart enough to realize that "magick" is fake 26%
Yes, and it has me a bit worried 1%
No, they dismiss it as supernaturalist drivel 12%
No, I have forbidden them from doing so 7%
I don't know 1%
My children are supernaturalists 19%
I have no children 30%

Votes: 71

 The Evil of Harry Potter

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Nov 15, 2001
 Comments:
This week marks the release of the highly-anticipated Harry Potter movie, which is based on a series of outrageously popular books by author J. K. Rowling. The books have found a particularly ravenous audience in young children, who are fascinated by the tales of adventure and wizardry that the books present. Many have commented that it is wonderful to see children put aside video games and television and engage in the intellectual pursuit of reading. Others have suggested that the books are works of pure evil, and that they are a corrupting societal influence that must be fought and eventually destroyed.

Regretfully, I must side with the latter group.

religion

More stories about Religion
Holes
Is Catholicism to be tolerated?
Wicca - a scientific, Christian approach to the problem
Winning The Battle Against Pornography
Christianity isn't working in the USA; Is Islam the answer ?
The Scriptural Proof of Extraterrestrial Life
The Revival of the Ancient Ways
The Problem is You - Not Religion
We are all children of Adam and Eve
A Taliban Warlord answers YOUR questions.
Islam: What is it?
Kill Yr Idols: God
Have a Right Halloween!
Religion: The Appendix of Modern Society
Islam is not the enemy
Happy Birthday Christ!
Bloody Sunday, Bloody Right!
What shall we give up for Lent?
Reclaiming St. Patrick's Day
The Proselytizing Atheist
Let us pray for the priests and victims of sexual abuse
The Incontrovertible Existence of God
Tolkien, Star Wars and Jesus Christ
World Youth Day: An Alarming Report

More stories by
gbd

On the Establishment of a Palestinian State
Please Don't Kill Osama Bin Laden
Review: Saint Luke's Christmas Eve Candlelight Service
Looking Forward: Cinema in 2002
We Need Creationism In Our Schools
Full Frontal Rudity
America is Better than God
I am an atheist, and as such, I believe that the supernatural twaddle that so many people wave around like dirty laundry is exactly that ... twaddle. There are no gods, devils, spooks, fairies, wraiths, hobgoblins, Santa Clauses, or Easter Bunnies. Futhermore, the sooner the rest of the world realizes this, the better. We can ill afford another group of zanies slamming a fleet of Boeing 767s into high-value targets simply because we don't say the same set of "prayers" that they do. Additionally, we don't need large numbers of lunatics within our borders stockpiling Bibles and .50 caliber rifles so that one day they can fight a glorious war for their lord against the "fed-ruhl gummint" and the "lib-ruhl media."

No, the evidence is clear that supernaturalistism in all of its forms has manifested itself in the most evil of all possible ways throughout the course of human history. Since the dawn of time, civilizations have committed an untold number of atrocities in the same of some god or set of gods. Now, the apologists will argue that religion has given us Good Things such as breathtaking cathedrals, priceless works of art, and stained-glass windows ... but let's not be children here. Artists are artists, and they will create art regardless of whether or not they believe that there's some invisible spook that's going to zap them with lightning bolts if they don't paint a truly great picture.

Clearly, supernaturalistism is something that needs to be countered and dealt with in an appropriate manner. Fortunately, we're making great strides towards that goal. Churchgoing rates are plummeting, particularly in Europe, where you are ten times more likely to find a couple having recreational sex on a Sunday morning than you are to find them chanting in some church. Even in the supernaturalist-soaked United States, less and less people are going to church. A brief spike in church attendance numbers following the 9/11 attacks has since corrected itself to pre-attack levels. Furthermore, the majority of people who do attend church do so out of habit ... not out of some genuine religious conviction. Perhaps they like the post-service coffee. Perhaps they enjoy the chance to converse with their peers and swap stories about "who's banging who." The reasons for the drop are largely irrelevant; it is the drop itself that matters.

Consequently, today's children are being told the truth instead of being bombarded with all sorts of god-soaked gobbledygook about prayer and devils and how purely evil they are. They are being told that in the end, they need to look out for number 1, that there is no cosmic caped man that is going to fly in from the sky and pull them out of a burning building as long as they "pray hard enough." They aren't being told that other people from other cultures are evil and subhuman because they are "infidel devils." They are being taught respect and tolerance for all people, and these are exactly the values that are needed to restore sanity to a world that has quite clearly gone mad.

Harry Potter threatens all of this.

Even though today's children are being "trained up" in a more responsible manner than in previous generations, one thing remains constant: children are dangerously impressionable. When they read "Harry Potter" and soak up tales about wizards and witches who work magic and cast "spells", society runs the very real risk that they will start questioning their purely rationalist upbringing and begin asking themselves if maybe ... just maybe .. there isn't something to all of this. "What if magic is real?" they ask themselves. "What if there are fundamental aspects of this universe that we cannot detect with our instruments of science, strange and wonderful facets of reality that have woven themselves tightly into the very fabric of spacetime?"

Here is where rationalists must be very wary of our "friend" Harry Potter.

Fundamentalist Christians often complain that faiths such as Wicca, Paganism, Shinto, Unitarianism, Catholicism, etc. are threats because they siphon away sheep from the flock and place them in "false religions." They claim that the Harry Potter phenomenon is a major factor in this supposed massive exodus from the "true religion." I claim that the opposite is true; if the majority of today's children are irreligious rationalists and they are led to believe that Magick is reality and not fantasy, then they will naturally gravitate towards Wiccanistism or similar faiths .. as a first step.

With their Wiccan friends, children will get their first taste of the inebriating euphoria of supernaturalistism. They'll engage in bizarre rituals and start believing ridiculous and completely unsupported notions about the world around them. They will forget the teachings of Thomas Paine and become enamored with ideas so profoundly strange and obscene that they boggle the mind. Wicca and the various other "minority faiths" that are practiced in the Western world are widely regarded as "stepping-stone" religions; they give people a temporary (but extremely unhealthy) high that leads them to want to do it more and more. Pretty soon, it won't be enough.

And then one day, when they're leaving they're latest Wicca (or whatever) service, there will be a man there waiting for them. An unassuming man, to be sure; he will likely be dressed in plain, unthreatening clothes, sporting an inviting smile. He may be carrying a harmless-looking leatherbound book. He leans forward to your child, and whispers in his ear: "Want to try something really good?"

That's when children get sucked into the sordid underworld of hard religion.

The hard religions, such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, are by and large black holes that strive to suck our children in and never let them go. When rationalists are preyed upon by the hard religions and they venture beyond the proverbial event horizon, they often end up spending their lives wandering around bleary-eyed, a sort of silly grin on their face as they aimlessly meander, oblivious to the reality of the world around them. They mumble platitudes and spew absurdities; they become a shell of their once-rational and intelligent selves. It is likely that the detrimental effects that hard religions causes to rational society will never be accurately measured.

Still, there's hope. Not even black holes can last forever; the principles of Hawking radiation predict that even the largest black hole will eventually evaporate. The same is true of the hard religions. But Harry Potter is not helping us here, and it is the duty of the freethinker community to fight him. No, the irony of the fighting the same enemy as the fundamentalists is not lost on me. But war, as they say, makes strange bedfellows; the fundamentalists may not understand the true reasons why Harry Potter is such a threat, but we do. And if they're willing to fight our battles for us, then so much is the better.

       
Tweet

Hot air! (1.00 / 3) (#6)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 09:57:04 AM PST
Yet another useless piece of someone wanting to hear him/herself talk. Its just a simple set of stories and nothing more.


And indeed... (none / 0) (#9)
by hauntedattics on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 10:25:49 AM PST
given that this is a discussion site, where people discuss things, what were you expecting? At least on adequacy you'll see a diversity of opinion, which is more than I can say for a good number of major media organizations.

And don't denigrate hot air too much. Some of us sell it for a living.



making a living (none / 0) (#25)
by nathan on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 04:10:56 PM PST
Don't knock it - save some money and quit, and do what you want. Don't look at it as a burden, look at it as the blessing of being allowed a rare chance at self-realization.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Don't get me wrong... (none / 0) (#44)
by hauntedattics on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 05:21:52 AM PST
I'm not knocking what I do for a living...I actually enjoy consulting more than any other job I've ever had. I'm just keeping my eyes open to the fact that what I'm 'manufacturing' for clients isn't anything tangible, but rather a set of ideas that ultimately may or may not help them. Keeps me humble, despite what you may have read in recent diary entries...


 
Drivel (none / 0) (#7)
by Right Hand Man on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 10:20:44 AM PST
I am an atheist
That pretty much invalidates everything you have written. You should have put that at the end, so normal people would give this article a serious read before dismissing it.

There are no gods
Agreed, there is only one, so I suppose you were correct about something. As for the rest of that paragraph, it is so utterly deviod of sensible thought that it defies explanation. Us 'lunatics' with our .50 cals are just here to protect our way of life. Unless the government chooses to put itself into harm's way we won't be bothering anyone, only exercising our Constitutional right to life and liberty, or at least the defense thereof.

You should really get to church more often. I bet that with one visit to church per week, plus an hour or two per day reading the bible, all of the paranoid delusional hatred that is so obviously pent up inside you would be washed away by the cleansing Word of the Lord. In no time you would be full of the Holy Ghost, speaking in tongues and seeing the signs and wonders you'd read about in the Bible. Once you got yourself cleaned up you could join us in leading children away from evil like Harry Potter, but not just to push them further toward the abyss of secular humanism that you seem to love, but toward God.


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

nonsensical... (none / 0) (#10)
by DiaphramPlatypus on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 10:39:40 AM PST
To me, what you just said made as little logical sense as the article you are replying to.

Just because someone is an athiest doesn't mean that they are instantly wrong...Just like being a part of a church doesn't instantly make anyone right (might I remind you that more people have been killed in the name of the Christian God than were killed by the Nazis durring the Holocaust)

I USED to go to church...until I realized that it was a load of bull. That is my personal belief. You can believe in God if you want, but 'He' has done nothing for me but cause me to start to go blind, be picked on because people thought that there was a remote possibilty that I was gay (it's always fun pysically fighting a religious Zealot who's acting on false information), randomly get unexplained internal bleeding all through my adolescence, etc.

Yes, I have plenty to thank 'The Divine Being' for.

There's also the fact that all the churches I've ever been in for any period of time were run by theives, but I blame Ohio for that more than Christianity...

I get constant calls trying to convert me and "bring me back into the fold"...it's annoying and violates my privacy. You can have your constiutional right to practice religion, but pushing it on other people who want nothing to do with it is just plain wrong.



Weakness (none / 0) (#11)
by Right Hand Man on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 10:52:22 AM PST
'He' has done nothing for me but cause me to start to go blind, be picked on because people thought that there was a remote possibilty that I was gay (it's always fun pysically fighting a religious Zealot who's acting on false information), randomly get unexplained internal bleeding all through my adolescence, etc
I cannot imagine that God personally foisted your problems upon you. Most likely, if those were purposeful acts done unto you by God, there would have been some locusts or frogs or something like that involved. Regardless, this clearly demonstrates that you were tainted by the weak willed leftists long before Christianity was able to turn your life around. Anyone who just gives up on God becuase they are getting bullied a bit would fit right in with that crowd.

If you don't want to worship God, fine. It isn't my lot to worry too much about you. As long as you are aware that your eternal soul damned to hell I feel like I have done all I can.


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

heh (none / 0) (#14)
by DiaphramPlatypus on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 11:31:24 AM PST
How can I be damned to hell if I'm already there?

That threat has long since stopped working on me. In fact, if there is yet another hell, then I'd be glad to take it on...see how bad it truly is.

My theory is that if there is a Hell, then I'm already there. It seems that about 90% of what I run into is based on blind obedience to something that cannot be proved and supports narrow-minded bi-polar views in a world that isn't just Black and White....which ticks me off to no end since this kind of thinking is what leads to racism, religionism, sexism, and so on. As a sidenote; it cannot be disproved either except on an individual, personal level.

This doesn't even scratch the surface of my 'hell' theory or why I believe religion of any sort is just plain wrong...that would require a rather long, drawn out explanation that I do not have time for right now...and one you would just ignore and denounce anyway.

For now, I must be off to prepare for Ethnic Studies class.

Arguing with you today has been fun.


Danger Will Robinson! (none / 0) (#16)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 11:49:33 AM PST
Arguing with you today has been fun.

Can't you see this man for what he really is? He promotes speaking in tongues, for goodness' sake! We can only conclude that he is a cretin, or a tr**l trying to push you down a path which he himself would not follow.


Danger Indeed (none / 0) (#17)
by Right Hand Man on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 12:04:06 PM PST
"Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?" -- 1st Corinthians 14:22-23

Your response is typical. I can understand that in your ignorant state you fail to see the significance of speaking in tongues, although I think you are well out of line by labeling me as a cretin.


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

Indeed; ye *are* mad. (none / 0) (#18)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 12:37:41 PM PST
Face it, speaking in tongues is a giant hoax perpetrated by pranksters who say you're not saved unless you speak in them, and think the Tower of Babel was a good idea.

I think you are well out of line by labeling me as a cretin.

You may well say that, but I couldn't possibly comment.


 
Wrongly Dividing the Word (none / 0) (#29)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 06:32:22 PM PST
Seems to me that Brother Paul was trying to point out that if everyone is speaking in tongues, then visitors will think y'all are crazy, thus greatly diminishing your evengelistic effectiveness.

Truth is, most who speak in tongues these days do it as a sign -- to their fellow believers -- of "proof" that they (continue to) "have the Holy Ghost", in direct conflict with the verses you quoted.


Get a more modern translaton of the Bible, and it'll be obvious.




What (none / 0) (#43)
by Right Hand Man on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 04:45:04 AM PST
Granted, this is the only web forum I ever read save for a few firearms related sites, but the previous post is possibly the most ignorant thing I have ever seen on the internet.

Get a more modern translation of the bible? Surely you jest! And then to offer your opinion as to why people speak in tongues? That really is quite amusing.


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

Sorry, I forgot.... (none / 0) (#62)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 10:50:36 AM PST
After all, if the King James was good enough for the Apostles, then who am I to suggest a modern translation...


Silly me!





 
Hell! (none / 0) (#37)
by Nobody on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 03:42:44 AM PST
Why does religion stoop to scare tactics to convert people?

i.e. Join us or go to Hell!

Why else are there so many old people in church? It's out of FEAR and WEAKNESS.


You are quite right. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by tkatchev on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 04:21:48 AM PST
It's quite foolish and weak to live confortably and responsibly.

Commit the ultimate act of power and domination: Kill yourself -- Destroy the world.


--
Peace and much love...




FALLACY! (1.00 / 1) (#73)
by Hagbard Celine on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 01:12:29 PM PST
In this comment you implicitly equate living confortably(I'll assume you mean comfortably) and responsibly with being Christian.

This is wrong.

I live comfortably and responsibly and I'm an atheist. Also, I bet there are plenty of comfortable and responsible Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc...

And let's not talk about power and domination. We could talk about all the power/domination bullshit that the Roman Catholic Church has engaged in during it's long bloody history. To sum up, Christian does not equal comfortable and responsible

However, don't take that to mean that Christians cannot be comfortable and responsible. I know many who are. The important thing to remember is that correlation is not causation.
PFFFFFFTT


Oh wow. (none / 0) (#82)
by tkatchev on Sat Nov 17th, 2001 at 02:19:01 AM PST
The guess the existentialist humor went right over your head, huh....


--
Peace and much love...




 
Spot on (none / 0) (#42)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 04:43:16 AM PST
Here in the UK at least, most churches are filled with the old, disabled people, social inadequates for whom it is their only chance of human contact and assorted wierdos, misfits and outcasts. At least, that's my experience.


 
Look at what you say by other eyes (none / 0) (#105)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 10:36:44 AM PST
I am an atheist
That pretty much invalidates everything you have written. You should have put that at the end, so normal people would give this article a serious read before dismissing it.


And this pretty much invalidates everything YOU have written. You should have put that at the end, so normal people would give that comment a serious read before dismissing it.

There are no gods
Agreed, there is only one, so I suppose you were correct about something. As for the rest of that paragraph, it is so utterly deviod of sensible thought that it defies explanation. Us 'lunatics' with our .50 cals are just here to protect our way of life. Unless the government chooses to put itself into harm's way we won't be bothering anyone, only exercising our Constitutional right to life and liberty, or at least the defense thereof.


Just because you agree means it is correct? And NO GODS does not mean ONE GOD. Don't try to manipulate his words to match your ideals. As for the rest of that paragraph, it is so utterly deviod of sensible thought that it defies explanation. Us 'lunatics' with our lack of god are just here to protect our way of life. Unless the government chooses to put itself into harm's way we won't be bothering anyone, only exercising our constitutional right to life and liberty, or at least the defense thereof.

You should really get to church more often. I bet that with one visit to church per week, plus an hour or two per day reading the bible, all of the paranoid delusional hatred that is so obviously pent up inside you would be washed away by the cleansing Word of the Lord. In no time you would be full of the Holy Ghost, speaking in tongues and seeing the signs and wonders you'd read about in the Bible. Once you got yourself cleaned up you could join us in leading children away from evil like Harry Potter, but not just to push them further toward the abyss of secular humanism that you seem to love, but toward God.

You should really get out of church more often. I bet that with one visit to the real world per week, plus an hour or two per day reading the news, all of the holyness delusional love that is so obviously pent up inside you would be washed away by the cleansing Word Of Thinking By Yourself. In no time you would realize the absurd of the irrealistic Holy Ghost, having a greater comprehension of the world that surronds you, instead of following the limited lead of the others. Once you got yourself cleaned up of that all illusion (or, after serious and deep tought without any influence of religion, discover something else that makes more sense than the much exalted and mystified Jesus Santa Easter Bunny) you could join us in investing in a better educational scheme for our children, letting them decide for themselves if they will embrace or reject religion, after individually analysing both sides.


 
And these people critisize... (none / 0) (#8)
by DiaphramPlatypus on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 10:24:10 AM PST
... the Conspiracy Theorists. That was an interesting point of view, but it just came across as paranoid to me.

I was expecting a Christian rant on this. I was rather surprised to see it as a "leading to religion". Nice spin on it.

If you look at history, people have always believed in magic one way or another (Even Christians, who say it doesn't exist...Salem Witch Hunt anyone?). I believe that they always will when it comes to anything unexplained. It could even be argued that God/Gods themselves are magical beings.

I am also an athiest. I read fantasy books where they cast magic and such (J.R.R. Tolkien's works, R.A. Slavatore's D&D books, etc). I also play RPGs (that's "Role Playing Games", for the uninformed) and watch stuff like Record of Lodoss War, BASTARD!, and am planning on seeing the upcomming Lord of the Rings movies; though the LOTR movies has more to do with knowing a girl that was in the weapons and armor department than anything else. I've participated in stuff like this ever since I could read (I read stuff like The Hobbit and fully comprehended it when I was about 6, just to give a time reference)

This doesn't mean that I believe in magic. I just think that it is a neat idea...I mean, who wouldn't want to have stuff like Gandalf's fireworks displays or levetation? *note: rhetorical question...I know some smartass will reply to it saying "I don't"*


 
Blessed are the meek (none / 0) (#13)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 11:30:59 AM PST
I used to have the same problem; people would believe in faeries, gods, and other silly nonsense. However, I noticed through time that the more intelligent people would deviate towards atheism. Why? Because they are intelligent people; they can distinguish between right and wrong, they do not require the moral crutch of religion.

But the entire population is not intelligent. Many people are weak and stupid, and I'd rather they believed an evil devilclown under their bed will kill them, or an omnipotent god would cause them an infinite amount of suffering for a mere finite amount of sin, rather than allowing them the dangerous knowledge that devilclowns and gods don't exist and there are no real moral restraints.


I wholeheartedly agree (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 02:38:38 PM PST
I have noticed this same trend: that all the intelligent people in the world invariably gravitate towards the exact same beliefs that I hold. I have spent a lot of time trying to determine what might cause this strange attraction to my exact beliefs, but in the end, I can only suppose it is nothing more and nothing less than an affirmation of the correctness of my system of thought.


Either that... (none / 0) (#24)
by hauntedattics on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 02:42:17 PM PST
or they're all trying to sleep with you.


man... (none / 0) (#28)
by nathan on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 06:15:43 PM PST
So that's whay all those guys down at the bathhouse were reading Augustine...

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
All today's great intellects agree with you? (none / 0) (#110)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Dec 12th, 2001 at 05:21:55 PM PST
Let me tell you a secret, after reading several of your posts(for example the good parenting/anti-hacker one)I decided to show it to several of my collegues.

One of our psychologists has stated that you may be "Creating your own fantasy world where you are a grounding center to the great moral questions of our times" and in order to make this a reality you must take ill-founded opinions and irrational views to feel as though you have a purpose. You are not as far as I can tell an intellegent individual. Your many mental shortcomings are readily apparent.

I cant be sure but I assume that you consider research as first deciding your standing and then looking for anything that makes your statement look correct. Including gross misrepresentation and use of misinformation. Either you are doing this deliberatly or have been sorely misinformed yourself. I personally believe that you know that what your saying is inaccurate. Why would someone do this? Because they don't respect the opinions of others and they feel that they must force their own beliefs to make everyone think exactly like themselves. You sir appear to be, in a few words, SELFISH and IGNORANT.

As of now you seem to stand with those people who beleive that "rock music was created by satan and those who listen to it are his unwitting followers." I personally do not like rock music. I find it tastless and depressing, but it is not my right to decide for ANYONE whether they enjoy it or not. The same applies for movies, books, and the way they choose to spend their free-time.

In the case of your son(the one you call a "Hacker") is not in need of limitations but of liberation from your severely lacking parenting abilities. Children need only to internalize what is right and wrong. Children are most impressionable when in early childhood not during the teens. By the age of 15 most morals are held to firmly. Children have even better morals than most adults. They don't care about money, friends and reletives are priority one, and they don't comprehend hate. Children however also need guidance when they need help, not more problems and limitations. Respect your children they are people too. Do not forget they may be of greater moral character and more observant than you are.
Trust is the foundation of love and wrongful restriction is the founder of hate. Trust your children show them that you love them.


 
Atheism. (none / 0) (#19)
by tkatchev on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 12:52:43 PM PST
Atheism is basically nothing but a form of adolescent rebellion -- atheists typically denigrate "religionists" because they think that being atheist raises them above the "crowd" and showcases their "critical thinking" skills. In reality, of course, all atheists spout the exact same childish drivel, not even stopping for a second to try and figure out what Christianity is all about. Exactly like those high-school kids who mutilate themselves because they think it highlights their "individuality", while at the same time lacking any means or desire to support themselves.

In any case, this adolescent behaviour invariably evaporates once you are forced to strike out on your own and accept responsibility. Likewise, atheists wisen up once they realize that they won't live forever. (I don't mean in an abstract way, but rather in a gut-level feeling. There is a large difference between knowing that you'll die someday, and experiencing death first-hand.)


--
Peace and much love...




Typical brainwashed claptrap. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 01:09:41 PM PST
atheists typically denigrate "religionists"

"theists", surely? Sorry to be a dictionary nazi, but let's get things straight here.
  • atheist - believes no god exists
  • monotheist - believes only one god exists
  • polytheist - believes many gods exist
  • agnostic - spineless coward who takes the philosophically easy way out
An atheist is as much a "believer" as your kind self. He will explain his untenable belief in the non-existance of any god to you, as soon as you explain your untenable belief in the existance of a god to him.

atheists wisen up once they realize that they won't live forever

Where exactly did you get this one from? Atheists don't have their vision clouded by the false promise of Heaven or immortal souls. They know that they time they have in their life is all they're gonna get, and they can either spend the time wisely, or squander it.

The mass conversion to religion as death approaches is what you see in the simpleton man, who fears the unknown and genuinely believes that ticking the box on the back of a Chick tract will continue his life beyond the grave. Sorry, but when you die, you're worm food. There is no 'heaven'. There is no 'spirit world'. There is no 'immortal soul'. Get over it. Your only further contribution to society will be the creation of some more oil, gas and coal in a few million years time.


And your point is? (none / 0) (#32)
by tkatchev on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 09:54:33 PM PST
Sorry, but straight-out nihilism is a completely untenable position.

If you want to do the nihilist act, you will have to combine it with Christian theology. (I could explain the way you can do that, if you really care.)


--
Peace and much love...




Christianity is nihilistic (none / 0) (#48)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 05:53:32 AM PST
Sorry, but straight-out nihilism is a completely untenable position.

That's quite correct. Thankfully, atheists are not nihilists, but believers. Believers in a world without gods, and believers in a strong societal moral structure without the need for a church to control it.

If you want to do the nihilist act, you will have to combine it with Christian theology.

Well, as Christians prefer their god to their neighbour, perhaps it's only fitting that they be labeled as nihilists. There's certainly nothing for them here, in 'this world'.


 
Don't knock us cowards! (none / 0) (#98)
by Anonymous Coward on Mon Nov 19th, 2001 at 01:33:16 PM PST
Cowards are the only ones who are in touch with the reality that the world is a fucking scary place. It's scary with God and scary without God.
Indeed, God doesn't hide from us, we are too frightened to see Him. And rightly so.

Well, yes, we can be saved and all that, but only by being fucking Born Again. And those people who go around claiming to be born again are nothing of the sort. It's a big fucking deal to be born again. Your ego has to die. Not just temporarily, like when you drop acid, but for ever!

In some ways, Atheists are better off because they, at least, don't think that this belief stuff is just a simple thing. Most people who claim to be believers are just Atheists who confuse God with themselves. Or with their dad. Or their local guru.

That said, what's wrong with Harry Potter is that it is poorly written drivel. It's not even as good as a made for TV movie. At least C.S. Lewis could write.
-- Support the home page homeless.

 
Thanks for the definition...hold the arrogance. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Hagbard Celine on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 01:20:00 PM PST
I disagree. But of course I disagree because I'm an atheist. You're making sweeping generalizations again. It just doesn't make for a good argument. You need to make the subtle distinction between those "adolescent atheists" which I do acknowledge exists and those who have given the situation serious thought. I began as an adolescent atheist but have progressed beyond that point. The reason I'm an atheist is because I truly don't believe there's any being out there guiding us/world/universe. I think that life has to exist, maybe not in our form and not even intelligent life, but life must exist. Now, this is a version of faith just as your (I assume you're a christian) faith in your god. But I would rather believe in myself and chance (synchronicity) than in god. Also, my faith is not sufficient to believe something I cannot see evidence of. While you may pass this off as an evil of science, I highly doubt anyone else would call empirical evidence "adolescent". I have accepted responsibility and support myself. I also know that I won't live forever and I do not fear death (on a gut-level). My existence is a boon to me but I do not and cannot believe that it has any significance other than to me and those around me. However, don't think I'm depressed by that (many people seem to think that when I explain this that since I accept my own demise and am not afraid that I must be some misanthrope or goth or something: this is not the case. Atheism is not adolescent nor rebellious. It is the mature conscious belief that there is no higher being or after life. This doesn't necessarily mean hostility towards those who believe in the traditional god(s).


Actually, (none / 0) (#31)
by tkatchev on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 09:50:47 PM PST
you'll grow out of it. I promise.

There is a difference between "not believing in God" and "being an atheist". Being "atheist" implies that you believe in putting yourself in active opposition to society and God. (Read your diary entry again.) Atheism by definition is rebellion; you may spout the usual atheist apologetics, but 99% of the people mean "rebellion from God and society" when they say "atheism".

Again, just because you rationalized your childish behaviour doesn't mean that you are smarter, or that your silly beliefs suddenly become valid. Children rationalize away all sorts of silly behaviours; indeed, once you stop rationalizing and start taking responsibility for your actions you may consider yourself grown-up.


--
Peace and much love...




I'm living proof... (none / 0) (#33)
by poltroon on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 11:00:36 PM PST
that it's possible and desirable to outgrow atheism. All my life I've casually dismissed the notion of God, and looked upon church goers as automatons. But recently, one day, it quietly struck me that the universe we live in is somebody's exploding experiment - God's, undoubtedly. In my mind's eye, he looks uncannily like this. Words can't explain how profoundly comforting it is to realize that I am part of a universe that actually belongs to Someone.


God as Yeti? (none / 0) (#45)
by hauntedattics on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 05:25:27 AM PST
Scary, scary God! That's a fascinating mind's eye you got there. I think my 'vision' of God as not really 'envision-able' to us on this level of existence is a bit more comforting.


 
words (none / 0) (#38)
by johnny ambiguous on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 03:45:36 AM PST
There is a difference between "not believing in God" and "being an atheist"... Atheism by definition is rebellion.

No, there is not. "By definition"? Look the word "atheist" up in a dictionary.

Merely because you affect to look down from the heights of some kind of "adulthood" upon someone who does not share your theological opinions does not make your idiosyncratic word-abuse meaningful; even less does it guarantee that the logical argument you propound using those letter-patterns or sound-patterns is valid.

This is not Wonderland, you know. Maybe inside your head a word means precisely and only what you wish it to mean; but out in the common world, a word is a tool used by one person to convey a meaning to another. If you insist on your own private definition, you have failed to achieve speech, the best you can hope for then is to have delivered a possibly aesthetically pleasing performance of abstract lip music.

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net


Getting into my Chevrolet Magic Fire, I drove slowly back to the office. - L. Rosen

 
Ah, but consider this: (none / 0) (#34)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 01:22:32 AM PST
No, not one shall be forgotten who was great in the world. But each was great in his own way, and each in proportion the greatness of that which he loved. For he who loved himself became great by himself, and he who loved other men became great by his selfless devotion, but he who loved God, became greater than all. Everyone shall be remembered, but each became great in proportion to his expectation. One became great by expecting the possible, another by expecting the eternal, but he who expected the impossible became greater than all. Everyone shall be remembered, but each became great in proportion to the greatness of that with which he strove. For he who strove with the world became great by overcoming the world, and he who strove with himself became great by overcoming himself, but he who strove with God became greater than all. For there was strife in the world, man against man, one against a thousand, but he who strove with God became greater than all.*



*Big cyber-smooch to the first person who correctly gueses the source of this quote. No fair using search engines.


 
Adolescent rebellion? (none / 0) (#35)
by KoC on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 02:16:39 AM PST
Odd expression coming from one of those who refer to themselves as "children of god". An appropriate phrase really - you are children doing what "daddy says" and trusting that when things go wrong "daddy will fix it".

Wars, poverty etc. are not there because it is "gods will", they are there because people have made it so. They have chosen to make it so. The children in the third world (who have to work for a month to be able to afford a pair of laces for the Nike trainers they make) are there becuase people (the customers as much as the companies)choose to allow it to happen. It's that simple.



Thanks. (none / 0) (#39)
by tkatchev on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 04:15:50 AM PST
You explained the core of Christian philosophy quite well. In fact, that is the core of the difference between Christians and atheists -- Christians know that they have to take responsibility, wheras atheists believe that the world magically "just works".

Atheists, for example, believe in things like spontaneous appearance of life, spontaneous speciation, spontaneous social self-organization, (based on animal instincts, of all things) spontaneous economic self-organization, (Smith's "invisible hand") spontaneous ethical laws, and spontaneous "disappearance" of everything after death.

Christians understand that they are responsible for everything they do, not only here and now, but after death, as well.


--
Peace and much love...




So ... (none / 0) (#41)
by KoC on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 04:40:42 AM PST
... the "guy in a nightshirt with a big beard" theory is more plausible is it?

If you theists really cared about making the world a better place, then maybe you should stop praying, get up off your knees, and go do something about it. Sod the "church roof fund" - give your money to something worthwhile.

At least there is evidence for a scientific explanation for the universe. There is none for any "supernatural" cause.



Pure Comedy Gold. (none / 0) (#54)
by tkatchev on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 09:13:32 AM PST
Please, oh please show me the "scientific evidence" for the spontaneous self-creation of the Universe.

This is hilarious, no, really... :))


--
Peace and much love...




It's in a book ... (none / 0) (#85)
by KoC on Sat Nov 17th, 2001 at 06:13:15 AM PST
.. written over several hundred years, mistranslated between several languages with a collection of (mostly unidentified) authors who were too dumb to understand the mechanics of rainfall. Oh, sorry, that's the proof of your theory.

I should know better than to argue with your sort. A colleague used to insist that the earth was only just over 6,000 years old. When I pointed out that the Russians had drilled out an ice core which showed seasonal bands (one for every year - like tree rings density of the ice varies with temperature through the year) going back 432,000 years, he wouldn't accept it. I'm sure if you ask the Russians nicely they'd let you count them youself.

There's no point in arguing with people who, when any piece of evidence crops up, will just say "God/Satan made it look that way to test the faithful". What a heap of cr*p. Maybe the universe looks like it started at a single point about 14 billion years ago because that's in fact what happened.

Try putting "Hubble", "Hawking", "COBE" , "DIRBE" or any other related term into Google. Of course, you'r quite likely to come back with some creationist page where the slightest inconsistencies have been exagerated and the actual evidence conveniently ignored to suit their own agenda.



Bottom line: (none / 0) (#86)
by tkatchev on Sat Nov 17th, 2001 at 10:38:43 AM PST
You can have all sorts of evidence for the scientific nitty-gritty, but eschatological thought is always based purely on faith.

That's the problem with your kind, you don't realize that quantum mechanics + evolution != eschatology.

"Scientific" eschatology is as much unprovable bunk as religious eschatology. The difference is that "religious" eschatology is a well thought-out, rational system with an intellectual heritage of several millenia, whereas "scientific" eschatology basically amounts to "well... just because".


--
Peace and much love...




My apologies... (none / 0) (#87)
by tkatchev on Sat Nov 17th, 2001 at 10:49:38 AM PST
Is seems that the western meaning of "eschatology" is different from the eastern meaning... A false cognate, of sorts.

It seems catholics define "eschatology" as "the study of the Last Days".

From where I'm coming from, "eschatology" means "the study of the purpose of the Universe and man".

Oh well, I guess you learn something new every day...


--
Peace and much love...




ouch (none / 0) (#90)
by nathan on Sat Nov 17th, 2001 at 05:07:37 PM PST
French bites me like that sometimes. The world you want is probably teleology (from Gr. telos.) Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
Huh?? (none / 0) (#49)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 07:18:47 AM PST
Christians understand that they are responsible for everything they do, not only here and now, but after death, as well.

Like hell you do (no pun intended.) You people believe that all you have to do is "accept" Jesus (whatever that means), and then bing-bang-bong, you're in Heaven. It doesn't matter if you shoot up a busload of kindergartners with an AK-47 right before this "acceptance", just so long as you get it in before you die. This means that Heaven is brimming with serial killers whereas Hell is populated with people like Confucius and Mohandes Gandhi, great men who just happened to be backing the wrong horse. "Responsible", my foot. Christians are among the world's most dangerous people precisely because they (falsely) believe that they have some sort of cosmic "get out of jail free" card that they can play when it's convenient.

No, give me good old-fashioned atheist morality, which is grounded in the Golden Rule and the idea that good works are their own reward. Truly evolved people don't need to be threatened into ethical behavior, nor do they need cosmic carrots dangled in front of their faces to push them down "the right path."


Ignorance is bliss?? (none / 0) (#53)
by tkatchev on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 09:11:42 AM PST
You people believe that all you have to do is "accept" Jesus (whatever that means), and then bing-bang-bong, you're in Heaven.

Actually, only a very small percentage of heretical Protestant sects believe that. The vast majority of Christians would find that statement preposterous, and even offensive.

Hard-line fundamental Christianity is much closer to hard-line fundamentalist Islam than to conventional Christianity. (i.e. the Christianity of the Apostles, not the Christianity of southern baptism.) You cannot reduce complex spiritual matters ad absurdio, you'll just end up with untenable and misanthropic bunk.


--
Peace and much love...




Okay (none / 0) (#58)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 10:17:52 AM PST
Actually, only a very small percentage of heretical Protestant sects believe that. The vast majority of Christians would find that statement preposterous, and even offensive.

So according to you, the vast majority of Christians reject the notion that accepting Jesus as one's Lord and personal savior is a prerequisite to entering Heaven. According to you, this is not a basic principle of the religion, but something that is held only by "hard-line fundamentalists." Old Mohandes, Confucius, and Everybody That We Like are at this minute on Cloud 9, whereas (coincidentally) Everybody That We Don't Like is roasting in hell. Sure, Everybody That We Like consists of a large number of non-Christians, but that doesn't matter. They're still in Heaven, because We Like them.

Do you hold any beliefs that you're courageous enough to defend, or would you rather spend the entirety of your waking hours in a warm and fuzzy leftist "group hug" mentality where your religion is essentially reduced to nothing? After all, if you (as a Christian) posit that Heaven is full of non-Christians, then precisely what do you have left?


My my... (none / 0) (#60)
by hauntedattics on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 10:46:15 AM PST
...aren't we hostile? I'm a bit taken aback by your vitriol and your equating all Christians to Falwell, Robertson and the like...and I'm not even Christian.

I'll leave tkatchev to defend himself from the way you've completely twisted around the meaning of his post. If you want a (non-fundamentalist, subtle, engaging) view of heaven and hell, I suggest you read The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis. It's only one man's opinion, but maybe it'll give you a new perspective.


What on earth (none / 0) (#65)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 12:13:22 PM PST
are you talking about? Where did I equate all Christians to "Falwell and Robertson?" If you would be so kind as to point this out, I would appreciate it. I must admit that it is I that is taken aback. When I was a Christian, it was standard teaching that the way to get to Heaven was to accept Jesus as your savior and in doing so allow him to bear the burden of your sins for you. There are numerous verses in the Bible that state this. Jesus himself said "There is no way to the Father but through me."

If I'm reading all of this correctly, apparently the prevailing sentiment of Christianity has changed, and Jesus really doesn't matter that much anymore. Anybody can get to heaven. If that's what the modern Christian thinking is, then I must in all honesty applaud it. It is a far cry from the divisive and exclusionary claims of Christians of generations past.


wow. (none / 0) (#68)
by nathan on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 12:30:41 PM PST
So you just assumed your (presumably, snake-handling) background is exactly the same as all other Christians' background?

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
Conventional Christian... (none / 0) (#63)
by tkatchev on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 11:00:23 AM PST
Conventional Christian belief holds that "heaven" and "hell" is actually one and the same place. In fact, "heaven" and "hell" are simply two different states of the soul: either acceptance of God and willingness to spend eternity with God ("heaven") or rejection of God and yourself. ("hell")

So, simply accepting that "OK, I believe if Jesus" is not enough. If you want to spend eternity with God, you have to make a conscious effort to do so, something that is both spiritually and physically difficult. Nobody is holding your hand -- if you want to become closer to God, you need to proactively do it yourself.

Which is very hard in our society and our world.

P.S. Nobody knows what happens after death, except God. We can make educated guesses, based on the experience and knowledge of spiritually advanced people, but any guess we make is still going to be a rough approximation. How can we hope to fully understand an omnipotent, omniscient creator of the Universe?


--
Peace and much love...




 
how nice of you (none / 0) (#57)
by nathan on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 09:56:10 AM PST
to assume that Falwell speaks for Christians. That's ruder than assuming that Rand speaks for atheists.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

You're right (none / 0) (#59)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 10:19:55 AM PST
Rand doesn't speak for all atheists.

Only the sensible ones. ;)


oh, boy (none / 0) (#67)
by nathan on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 12:29:03 PM PST
An anonymous reader who loves Rand. What's the matter, creating an account is psycho-epstemically flawed and anti-human?

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Listen, you (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 12:44:57 PM PST
An anonymous reader who loves Rand. What's the matter, creating an account is psycho-epstemically flawed and anti-human?

I know that Rand-bashing is (for whatever reason) a popular sport. I suppose it helps people feel better about themselves to attack somebody who can't defend themselves. But I will tell you this: One day I came to the realization that I was lost. Completely lost. I had no idea where I was, or where I was going. Despair was beginning to set in. I desparately needed to get back on the right road, but I lacked the tools to do it.

That's when I found Rand.

I picked up a copy of "Atlas", and within minutes my sense of direction had been completely restored. I was back, baby. Rand had saved me from my despair. No more would I wander around aimlessly with my hands thrown up in exasperation.

So you go ahead and take your juvenile pot-shots at Mr. McNally, but had it not been for his atlas, I might still be meandering around the suburbs of St. Louis. Now what do you think about that, smart guy?


I think (none / 0) (#71)
by nathan on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 12:49:59 PM PST
that your post is really, really funny.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
You are so wrong (none / 0) (#64)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 11:00:50 AM PST
I think this whole after-life business has helped (on the
whole) to promote violence.

Here's why:

Believing in a God and an after-life is denying that there are consequences for
your actions, denying that life ends and is therefore precious, denying that we, not an
omnipotent creator, are responsible for what goes on here, and denying ultimately, that
what we do here is important.

Believing that no matter how much you fuck up, God will love you, leaves you
completely free to fuck up.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard, "What we do here isn't important, it's
the next life that matters."

At the risk of alienating the religious readers, that is a bunch of shit, because
there is no "next life".

George Lucas once wrote,(In Star Wars Two)"Always with him is the future, never
his mind on where he was! What he was doing!"

Maybe that's why despite all the technology in the world, there's still
discrimination in the world, because nobody cares about what goes on here, and nobody
will take to time to improve things.

My whole point is that it DOES matter what we do here, that Pacifism is the way,
but does anyone listen or even care?


No... (none / 0) (#66)
by hauntedattics on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 12:18:41 PM PST
It's not that God will love you no matter how much you fuck up (though that's true too), it's that God will love you, and BEING HUMAN, you will sometimes (or much of the time) fuck up. This doesn't give you carte blanche to go off and do horrible things, it just acknowledges that we aren't perfect and that there is something out there that is.

How believing in an afterlife is denying that there are consequences for your actions in this one is beyond my logical understanding. It doesn't work that way in Christianity, and it doesn't work that way in any other religion that believes in an afterlife or in reincarnation. What you do in this life has a direct impact on what happens to you in the next one, whether you are Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim.

As for pacifism being the way, I have to disagree. Some things are worth fighting for in this life, and even Star Wars supports that view.


 
atheism / rebellion (none / 0) (#36)
by Nobody on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 03:33:47 AM PST
Your statement that atheism is a form of rebellion can only be founded in the precept that being religious is the "default" behaviour. I would dispute this.

In the absence of any hard evidence that there is a god (sorry, but your gut feeling doesn't really sway me) I am personally inclined to believe, by default, that there is no god.

This is based on the same reasoning by which I have determined that there is no Santa Claus, no fairies, and no magic.

One could equally argue that being an atheist is the default way to be, and that being religious is a rebellion against rational thinking and common sense. In essence, you regard theism as the "normal" way to be just because that's what YOU believe (and perhaps because several billion other gullible people have a similar gut feeling).


 
mod this up (none / 0) (#81)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 11:28:44 PM PST
`mod this up' -- does that sound sufficiently slashdotesque? :p

i have to agree with you. atheism is fashionable nowadays. but like all
fashionable things it stems from wanting to be different from everyone
else. seeing as mostly everyone else is christian (in the western
societies) it then makes sense to differentiate yourself from everyone
else (and hence) renounce faith in God. it's people scrambling for a
pedestal (metaphorically, to place themselves `above' everyone else) in a
world where we're all much of a muchness. self-flattery i guess.

that's how it appears to me.


The worst part... (none / 0) (#83)
by tkatchev on Sat Nov 17th, 2001 at 02:25:44 AM PST
The worst part is the fact that popularity of atheism is as old as time itself; it waxes and wanes as centuries go by.

I mean, if you want to believe in a fashionable philosophy, why not try to invent something truly original? I mean, caveman Grunt probably felt really smart about himself because he didn't believe in "fire demons".


--
Peace and much love...




Large, mountain-shaped fire demons (none / 0) (#96)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Nov 19th, 2001 at 09:00:27 AM PST
I mean, caveman Grunt probably felt really smart about himself because he didn't believe in "fire demons".

Yep. Even back in those days, the "god of the gaps" was filling the vacuum of scientific knowledge. Now, seriously, would you really build your home on Hawaii?


 
Kind of like that Anime Stuff (none / 0) (#27)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 05:44:39 PM PST
My kids haven't hit the reading age yet.

I've often that the same thing about those Japanese cartoons. They tend to promote such things as evil spirits, and what not.

Moreover, they are usually full of smut. A parent of modest intellect thinks their children are watching Tom and Jerry, and they are being bombarded with spiritualistic smut.

Its time you got your message out to more people.


b4k4! (none / 0) (#109)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Dec 6th, 2001 at 06:48:03 PM PST
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA,that was funny,not all anime is "spirtual smut". Yes anime does have some "fan service" but all in all what your reffering to is hentai,not traditional anime. (and trust me,hentai is pretty hard to get here in the US and if hes into that hell probally be watching it on ur comp)
Anyway i find anime much more entertaining than some of the bullshit i see on tv.


 
Lies, Damn Lies, and Fiction (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 15th, 2001 at 08:44:02 PM PST
The author of the article could not be more correct in identifying the Harry Potter novels as a symptom of a widespread problem with human culture today. However, I would argue that the root of the problem lies deeper than mere toying with magical imagery and ideas. Rather, the problem lies in the human tendency to retreat from reality into imaginary stories, whether they be written, filmed, or televised.

One of the attributes of a well-adjusted, autonomous individual is the ability to deal with the hard facts of reality, without having to retreat into fantasy. Sadly, fictional narrative provides one such pathway into the imaginary for the weak-minded. It is a well-known fact that artists and writers are degenerate, dishonest, selfish, sexually irresponsible, gluttonous, filthy, twisted, perverts, theives, drunks, scoundrels, hopheads, pederasts, and mountebanks. This is because they spend all of their time "playing god": inventing imaginary worlds, peopling them with fictional characters whom they then manipulate as their sick minds see fit.

No healthy-minded man or woman needs to spend their precious time, time that could be spent in constructive activites among friends and loved ones, with their nose buried in some imaginary rubbish, be it Harry Potter or Moby Dick. All fictional narrative is the product of alienated human beings who need to be put to some useful activity instead of simply retreating into onanistic, self-indulgent wallowing in the chimerae of their own minds.


IN other words (none / 0) (#46)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 05:30:11 AM PST
You are saying that imagination is a waste of time? Simplistic interpetation, I know; but without imagination or an outlet to spark imagination, many things in the world that we know or use today would never have happened.

Now, I'm not saying that Harry Potter is going to cause some great invention; but to poo poo escape from reality into a world of imagination is pretty shortsighted and dull. As a matter of fact, I know of a few families who are closer together becuase these books gave them some common reference point and opened up avenues of communication that had closed for sometime.

Imagination and escaping from reality can be one of the best ways to relieve stress.


Why not cut out the middle man - take DMT instead. (none / 0) (#47)
by dmg on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 05:43:45 AM PST
Imagination and escaping from reality can be one of the best ways to relieve stress.

Can I then assume you would be happy for the whole family to sit down and smoke or ingest N,N-dimethyltryptamine ? That would help you escape from reality, and therefore using your logic, would relieve stress.

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

Imagination and Escaping from Reality (none / 0) (#103)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 21st, 2001 at 02:02:30 PM PST
I think you know that you are suggesting he escape from reality in a way that he is not going to want to do. So what is the point of stretching someone's argument to the point of irrationality? He obviously implies that escaping from reality is within the context of sobriety. I would venture to say that we're talking about kids and parents *primarily* when we're talking about viewers of Harry Potter.

Ignoring the post infused with drug usage, the prior poster speaks of imagination as a stress release mechanism. Post #30 talks more about the problems that frequent vacations from reality cause society as a whole. It isn't stated that imagination in and of itself is a waste of time, but that excessive amounts of time spent imagining for entertainment's sake can be a bad thing for some people.

Post #30 posits that the true problem is "human tendency to retreat from reality into imaginary stories". Actually, both "problems" are one and the same, but explicitly naming the most base retreat from reality (atheism) to imaginary (religion) is acceptable.


 
reductive (none / 0) (#50)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 07:31:55 AM PST
I have to disagree that humans waste their time in spending it on imaginitive pursuits. At our very base, we deal only in symbols: symbols of our power, our hunger and our desire. When we build bridges they're as much a symbol of our desire to cross a river as they are the means to actually do it. Focusing on the simple process of building the bridge itself makes you miss the point of building it all together.

So, to get back to the Harry Potter books (which, I have to admit, I haven't read), it isn't so terrible for young people to see symbols moving through their culture. The thing about books is, unlike life, they're a somewhat self-contained process that we can know in totality. Harry sets a goal, works toward it and accomplishes it, then enjoys its rewards or suffers its consequences. What "rubbish" like this does is allow us to exercise our cognitive faculties in exploring our own culture and cognition, our own motivations and distinctions.




Narrative and lies (none / 0) (#56)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 09:18:20 AM PST
It is one thing to acknowledge that human beings process information symbolically, and quite another to say that hiding from the world in some imaginary dreamworld is a good idea. Narrative does have it's place in human culture, it's indulging in fictions that's the problem

The difference between using narrative to affect constructive engagement with reality (say, listening to your wife or husband reminisce about their childhood) and reading a story like Harry Potter or Oliver Twist is the same as the difference between attentively making love to a person you really care about and compulsively masturbating to pornography.


 
This is all very interesting ... (none / 0) (#51)
by gbd on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 08:43:42 AM PST
... but I was sort of hoping for some discussion on Harry Potter and how these books are damaging the progression of rationalistism in Western society. Most of the messages I've seen thus far have consisted of general bickering between rationalists and vitriolic supernationalists. There have been a few good Potter-related messages, and it is my sincere hope that we get some more. Is Rowling a harmless yarn-spinner, or is she a destructive tool of the fundamentalist right? To me, this is a matter of considerably greater importance than the same tired, old arguments about the validity of atheism (I don't believe in unicorns, either ... shall we discuss the "validity" of "a-unicornism"?)


You forgot... (none / 0) (#55)
by tkatchev on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 09:17:18 AM PST
You forgot to mention "invisible pink unicorns".

Lord Gog Jesus Christ, why does every single atheist have to mention "invisible pink unicorns"? Your mantra is as tiresome and childish now as it was five years ago.

Is your imagination so stifled that you cannot think up of some new mascot?


--
Peace and much love...




Never even heard of that. (none / 0) (#69)
by Hagbard Celine on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 12:34:32 PM PST
why does every single atheist have to mention "invisible pink unicorns"?

I'm afraid your comment has been invalidated. I have never used that phrase or concept and had not even heard of it until now. Of course, I'm only one atheist.

As I have suggested before, you should drop the sweeping generalizations. They're never right. (Wait a minute, I just made one. Dammit)


 
Rowling A-OK. (none / 0) (#72)
by Hagbard Celine on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 12:58:29 PM PST
I'm all for JK Rowling. I resisted reading the books at first because they were children's books.

However, upon reading them I found them to be very well written and very imaginative. I did like your argument, it's great that you're coming from a different angle, but I disagree.

I myself am an atheist too. I have always been an avid reader of fantasy and science fiction.

I need to impress it upon you that I was reading adult novels at an early age. I read Dune at 8, Mists of Avalon at 10, Eddings at 10, and on and on. So, has all this fantasy made me easy prey for religion, our good 'ole opiate of the masses. If anything, I believe that things like Harry Potter and other fantasy makes for a more balanced worldview. At least it did in my case. I never thought any of it was real.

And as a child, I was enraged by the stupidity of other children. Maybe nobody else remembers, but there was a board game called Stratego or perhaps something very similar and in the commercial the figures upon the playing pieces talked. Now, even though I read gobs of fantasy I never once believed that the pieces could talk.

Yet, many children out there did and the company had to put a message at the bottom of their commercial stating that the pieces didn't talk.

You know what it is? Survival of the fittest. If it wasn't for our so-called civil society, those kids would be dead. Some of them are. There are the kids who killed their friends because they were dumb and thought they heard messages in their Judas Priest record playing backward, the kid who burned down his house because Beavis and Butthead said that fire was cool on MTV.

Statistics, that's what these children were. Any child who believes that these works of fiction have any significance beyond that of entertainment a)Has bad parents who haven't explained reality and fantasy well enough b)is soft-willed and will make nothing of themselves and c)will probably become a Potterist.

(For shits and giggles I think I should point out the linguistic similiarity between frotterism and potterism. Interesting, no?) PFFFTT


heh (none / 0) (#75)
by nathan on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 02:22:32 PM PST
It obviously pushed you into the religion of atheism.

You also ought to note that most fantasy books push an atheistic, albeit supernaturalist, view of the universe. Their godlings and selfish deities are just assorted demons, rather than a a God who could honestly be called "prefect," or the "uncaused first cause."

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

uh (none / 0) (#76)
by nathan on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 02:26:24 PM PST
That should be "perfect," above, obviously.
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
More fallacies (none / 0) (#78)
by Hagbard Celine on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 02:56:13 PM PST
Atheism is not a religion.

Maybe you meant "worldview" or "belief-system".

Webster's 9th Collegiate defines religion as

(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural

(2)commitment or deviotion to religious faith or observance

(3)a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

Oh, and don't think that definition #3 makes it. Ok to call atheism a religion. Cause then you have to define religious, which is: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.

And I think you meant "perfect"

And no, fiction has not had any effect on my inner beliefs. As I said in my previous post, Anyone who thinks that fiction has any significance other than entertainment should sign up for therapy. Your claim that my reading of science fiction and fantasy caused me to be an atheist is analagous to the silly argument put forward by some that violent video games cause violence, or that violent movies cause people to be violent.

These argument have always made me laugh. A few rare and stupid people derive some wierd meaning from various sources(See Manson, Columbine, the guy who killed Lennon) and go out do stupid things. The influences may have some place in the analysis of their delusions and stupidity but correllation does not equal causation. PFFFT


well, THAT settles it (none / 0) (#79)
by nathan on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 03:35:09 PM PST
Maybe I should have said "a commitment to atheism equal, in fervence and irrationality, to the commitment to religion you ascribe to the religious." Pardon me for being succint, dictionary boy. You'll note my post correcting my own spelling preceded yours as well.

If fiction has no effect on you, other than to divert you, you're admitting that you turn to the meaningless and senseless for your "entertainment." Fine, that's your prerogative, but if you find yourself entertained by meaningless noise, you might as well just listen to radio static, or read jerkcity or something.

I don't claim that reading fantasy "novels" made you an atheist. I did say that the world-view they present is emphatically Godless. (Tolkien's novels aren't Godless, but they do relegate moral evil to the realm of physical (political) evil, so I object to them too.)

Manson and the others you mention are great examples of the Satanic religious viewpoint - that there is nothing in the world except power, and that the best way to live is thus to cultivate and acquire power. This reminds me that I have to distinguish between "non-supernaturalism" and atheism.

You don't have to believe in the supernatural (witches, magic, etc.) to believe in God. Are you familiar with Deism? On the other hand, it's perfectly possible to believe in the supernatural without believing in God. That's known as "devil worship." I don't need to believe in the Devil to believe that people do in fact devote their lives to rituals of power acquisition, cruelty, and self-worship. In fact, self-worship is the creed of the modern, non-supernaturalist Satanist (eg, LaVey.)

Best regards,
Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

OT: Tolkien. (none / 0) (#84)
by tkatchev on Sat Nov 17th, 2001 at 02:37:00 AM PST
I really object to your Tolkien-bashing. Tolkien is a unique author, because his works are nothing but an attempt to write a Germanic Old Testament. Read the "Silmarillion" if you don't believe me.

It's a unique attempt in that instead of trying to "remap" the Old Testament directly onto European culture, it works backwards from ancient European culture and the New Testament to what a hypothetical European Old Testament would have been like. In my opinion, a brilliant religious and cultural work.

If you don't trust me, simply reread the Silmarillion and LOTR again, keeping an eye out for the Christian symbolism. Tolkien goes so far as to even include a prophecy for the coming of Christ at the end of LOTR.

P.S. Little known fact: Tolkien was a devout catholic and close friend of C.S. Lewis; in fact, Tolkien was a deciding factor in the conversion of C.S. Lewis to Christianity.


--
Peace and much love...




tolkien's (none / 0) (#89)
by nathan on Sat Nov 17th, 2001 at 05:05:24 PM PST
Old Testament doesn't fire on both cylinders. It has inferior races, an absentee God, sorcery, and devils. (Don't you dare try the cheap shot here.) It's an interesting work, but only as craft rather than religious literature.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Read LOTR again. (none / 0) (#92)
by tkatchev on Sun Nov 18th, 2001 at 02:21:43 AM PST
A cursory reading (especially at a young, unprepared age) leaves you missing out on the more important philosophical parts of the book.

No, seriously, read it again, this time paying atention to the little philosphical bits.

For the record, LOTR does not have sorcery. Gandalf is called a "wizard" by the other characters in the book, because of his immense personal wisdom and strength of character, but nowhere in the book does he ever demonstrate supernatural powers! It's true. Also, the "inferiour races" are "inferiour" only in the eyes of the more advanced chracters of the book. That is really one of the main point of LOTR -- that moral imperatives make sense only if they stem from a higer power. There are many parables in the book that deal with suposedly "moral" people who think they are acting rationally and ethically, only to end up becoming more evil and immoral.

As for devils -- Tolkien takes a straight-arrow Old Testament approach. Tolkien's devils are fallen angels.


--
Peace and much love...




OK, I'll reread. (none / 0) (#95)
by nathan on Sun Nov 18th, 2001 at 10:05:28 AM PST

--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
devil worship and belief in a god (none / 0) (#104)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 27th, 2001 at 01:14:36 PM PST
would there be a belief of devils in the first place, if a belief of some sort of god or supernatural being ruling the world does not exists? hmm?
it wouldnt even be termed "devil worship" if it doesnt counter the belief or a god.


the concept of 'deviltry' (none / 0) (#107)
by nathan on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 01:52:09 PM PST
Any kind of Gnostic godling, or minor supernatural entity strictly speaking, is a devil by definition; it is a creature that has supernatural power but not the moral power flowing from the omnipotent, omniscient, all-hallowed Creator of the Universe.

The only reason to worship such an abomination would be in order to be safe from it; and the only way that could work would be in a nihilistic, Godless universe.

Really, it doesn't matter if there are devils or not. The question is, is there God?

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
That's odd... (none / 0) (#61)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 10:47:58 AM PST
The problem isn't the imagination of the author, but in the inability of the reader to prevent themselves from intergrating the fiction into their "real" lives.

Religion is just another power structure, I agree. But our ability to think and behave creatively is what yields our greatest progresses. While logic might be fine and dandy for many problems, it is not absolute: like all of mathematics it has its limits. I believe some Germans have discussed this previously ;)


 
RE: The Evil of Harry Potter (none / 0) (#74)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 01:14:50 PM PST
You are all insane


 
Bludgeoning (none / 0) (#77)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 02:42:36 PM PST
You Said:

"I am an atheist, and as such, I believe that the supernatural twaddle that so many people wave around like dirty laundry is exactly that ... twaddle. There are no gods, devils, spooks, fairies, wraiths, hobgoblins, Santa Clauses, or Easter Bunnies. Futhermore, the sooner the rest of the world realizes this, the better. We can ill afford another group of zanies slamming a fleet of Boeing 767s into high-value targets simply because we don't say the same set of "prayers" that they do."

So abolish all religion because I don't Scream the same set of beliefs as you? Sounds like hypocracy to me. And if you tell these beliefs to your children, you are just as guilty of bludgeoning belief into another mind as any hardline Christainer is when they do it to their child. But do I scream damn you and your beliefs to hell? No. I'll let you be you, as long as you let me be me. Sound Fair?


Relativism is an intellectual black hole. (none / 0) (#80)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 03:41:15 PM PST
As far as I read, the writer of the article doesn't advocate "abolishing" anything. He speaks of the evils of superstitious beliefs, and why one ought to use his freedom of choice to choose atheism. He never said there should be a law against anything.

I would disagree with him on the point of bashing fantasy altogether, because there is definitely a proper and important place for fantasy fiction.

By extention of his "Who'll think of the children?" argument, he would have to side with the conservative Christian groups who want to ban violence and sex from TV.

The crucial point he misses is that "Harry Potter" is presented as fiction, and that children can and will learn to differentiate between the two.


 
you be you? (none / 0) (#91)
by iconoclast on Sun Nov 18th, 2001 at 12:47:50 AM PST
> No. I'll let you be you, as long as you let me be me. Sound Fair?


Since when have religious people ever left anyone else alone?


Hypocrisy (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Sun Nov 18th, 2001 at 04:35:05 AM PST
Don't you feel a bit hypocritical right now? After all, if it weren't for a debate over the use of religious images in first millenium Bysantium, you wouldn't have anything to call yourself on the internet. Perhaps you should be thankful for what religion has given you.


What is with wingnut christian extremists? (none / 0) (#108)
by iconoclast on Sun Dec 2nd, 2001 at 09:34:50 PM PST
So you know where the word iconoclast is from, do you want a gold star?
It's a little pointless to have a nickname that I consider meaningful, but nobody understands it.

You said: "Perhaps you should be thankful for what religion has given you."

So, are you saying that the cure should be thankful to the disease?




 
You damn dirty Vulcan! (5.00 / 1) (#88)
by Squire of Gothos on Sat Nov 17th, 2001 at 12:12:38 PM PST
First off, human imagination, which is where most of this all comes from (both Hairy Potter and Religon) and with imagination humanity would be a pretty sad sight. In your ranting about religon you forgot about one religon that never showed any of the traits you mentioned. Not so much as one. That religon? The Druids. And really to a large degree modern Satanists. So stuff it you unimaginative, and unorigonal hack!


 
Potter magic is just a metaphor for any profession (4.00 / 1) (#94)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Nov 18th, 2001 at 08:48:44 AM PST
In the Potter universe, the magic taught at Hogwarts is just an "alternative universe profession". It has rules. It has ethics, codes of conduct, a training scheme, a governing body. At a level which is at least partly accessible to children, it discusses ideas such as that politicians can occupy grey moral areas, that experienced people can be wrong or self deluding, and that success in life arises partly from birth, partly from heredity, partly from hard work and partly from luck. Magic is just a metaphor. (in the books, by inversion, technology is an amusing hobby of an eccentric parent). Any kids intelligent enough to make it through what are quite substantial books are likely to get this.

If Harry Potter has an evil, subversive message, it's that it is a good idea to belong to the professional middle classes and to work hard at school, play games, and aim for advanced qualifications. Bad stuff.


 
I can add little to what Betty Bowers said (none / 0) (#97)
by Adam Rightmann on Mon Nov 19th, 2001 at 11:55:13 AM PST
about Harry Potter, so please, check out her site.

And to the gentle reader who plagiarized this topic on plastic, please link back to your source. I have found few sites that are more infested with secular humanism than plastic; if we could lead a few of those lost souls back here, something wonderful could happen.


A. Rightmann

 
devils?? (5.00 / 1) (#99)
by philipm on Mon Nov 19th, 2001 at 08:21:56 PM PST
I havew very carefully read through all the comments and not once does anyone mention a fundamental mistake on the part of the author of the article. Out of the creatures he listed:

"There are no gods, devils, spooks, fairies, wraiths, hobgoblins, Santa Clauses, or Easter Bunnies."

Not a single one is in the movie! Not a single one!

Not only is the author poorly versed in mythology, but also he makes many assumptions about things he does not understand. Some of the mythical creatures are active god haters. If that is not the very antithesis of religion, I don't know what is.

Furthermore, it would help to study just a little bit of history. In the middle ages, when viciious packs of inquisitors were roaming the land - the common people needed a practical out to having to do what the "religious" people said they should do. That practical out was superstition. It was used to RESIST the power of religious authority.

You, sir, are worse than Hitler, and if I ever meet you I will kick your ass.


--philipm

Conscious Vs. Subconscious (none / 0) (#100)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 21st, 2001 at 08:57:45 AM PST
In your zeal to bash the writer, you merely skim the surface of his point. Perhaps you've invoked Godwin's Law in the hopes that noone will respond to your drivel. Contrary to your claims, I doubt that anyone since Hitler has superceded his "evilness". I also doubt you would kick anyone's ass because of their theology or lack thereof, but maybe you are controlled by your ignorance.

On to the meat. The reason that not one single reference to religion is made in the movie is obvious. If any subconscious message is in conflict with a simultaneous conscious message, the subconscious one will have much less effect on the intended subjects. Moreover, if references to religion were present, the public would have a much different opinion of the movie. Many people, religious or not, do not like religion shoved down their throats, and the producers of Harry Potter understand this. You obviously do not. I point to the movie "Contact" as an example of a good movie ruined by theology.

Maybe you've also forgotten that a majority of those in power in America, both within the government and the private sector, are religous. Maybe you've forgotten that religion has been crafted as the "answer" to many of our society's problems by said powerful people. Maybe you've even forgotten how George W. Bush is attempting to blur the line between church and state.

On top of all that, perhaps you don't realize that with every passing year, scientists learn more and more about our universe and the laws which govern it. Creationism is slowly falling out of grace with many religious types, in favor of evolutionism and the astounding volume of evidence which supports it. Most people just don't believe anymore that the universe was created in six days, within the last five thousand years or so.

People who are "true" to their religion will rarely commit immoral acts. For an extreme example, some religious people do not even drink alcohol or eat meat. However, in today's society this seems to be much less common. Religion today implies virtually nothing about a person's understanding and/or application of morals. One need only recall people like Jim Bakker or Jerry Falwell, or recall the PTL scandal, for proof.

Philip, you could make a better attempt to debate the issue. Whether it is your belief system preventing you, your intelligence, or your free will is open to debate itself. Perhaps we can deduce that since you feel the article writer is worse than Hitler, and you would physically harm him if given the opportunity, that you are not even qualified to speak on behalf of religion.

I just hope that in light of my criticism of you and defense of the author, you don't think I'm worse than Hitler as well.

Ixohoxi666 at Yahoo.com


Gee... (none / 0) (#101)
by hauntedattics on Wed Nov 21st, 2001 at 10:28:42 AM PST
I thought the theological issues in "Contact" were what really made the movie interesting. Well, apart from, you know, the part where the array is all turning together and she's racing back to the base after hearing the message. Do you think people wouldn't examine religious beliefs if we got a message from space?


Re: Contact (none / 0) (#102)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 21st, 2001 at 12:02:19 PM PST
The main theological issue dealt with in "Contact" concerns blind faith.

If you recall, when Jodie Foster's character "travelled" in the alien craft, everyone said she never left. Though we the viewer saw that she clearly did go somewhere, nobody believed her. Except for the priest.

This mirrors people's belief in God, however they may interpret what God is. There is no proof that He exists, yet for many that does not matter.

The place Ms. Foster travels to had sent explicit instructions on how to create a craft which enabled the trip. And yet, when she arrives, she meets her father, who had passed away. Apparently, we are to believe that afterlife exists AND that God exists.

Note that the title is ambiguous as well. "Contact" is intended to refer to contact with alien species, but at the end we learn that it means contact with a higher power.

Consider now what the movie is trying to convey to the viewer.


 
Give people just a little credit! (none / 0) (#106)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 29th, 2001 at 05:26:31 AM PST
So you're basically in agreement with the Fundamentalists who believe that the Potter movies/books/action figures/scarves/etc., will make people believe in magic. You only differ in that they think there really is such a thing as magic and you don't.

I think you're all nuts. A generation grew up with Star Wars, and I don't think many are out there using The Force or trying to become Jedi. (Although I did notice that Jedi Knight, with something like 100 adherents, was listed as one of the lesser religions in the latest British census. Surely almost all comedians and kooks, I expect.)

Anway, give people a little credit, let them have some fun with a good book or scarf, let children have their fantasies, and help them grow up into thinking adults.


 
Your crazy, seek help (none / 0) (#111)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Dec 12th, 2001 at 10:27:57 PM PST
I am sorry but this is riduculous. To suggest that a book, a work of FICTION about a fantasy land is evil and threatening to whatever religeon is absurd.

You seem to be blurring the lines of fiction and reality. A very serious problem that may require psychiatric counseling. OR your just posting garbage for the hell of it.

Either way, harry potter is FICTION. It is a story. Are you really going to state that all FICTIONAL stories which portray fantasy characters are really making people believe in these things? Now if this was a non-fictional book about goblins and elves or whatever your argument might have some clout. But its FAKE! So after seeing the movie "the ghostbusters" do think suddenly everybody started believing in ghosts? Hell no!

Now obviously your going to argue that kids dont fully yet understand the difference between fiction and reality. Well, sure at a certain age they might think boogiemen exist under thier beds or in thier closets, and yes mabye they believe in santa or the tooth fairy. Now ask yourself, do you know one single adult who believes in the tooth fairy? If you do, this individual is most likely insane and hopefully belongs to a respectable mental institution. Its because as children mature they naturally develop the ability to seperate the real, from the made up.

So, attacking a movie and a book series saying its the root of all evil in the world is about as valid as saying that leprechauns led you to a pot of gold. LMAO you people crack me up with your paranoid conspiricy theories. Keep em coming they give me a good laugh.


 
Stupid People (none / 0) (#112)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Dec 13th, 2001 at 04:07:40 AM PST
I have spent a large portion of today reading the various articles on adequacy.org and laughing my ass off. I never realized that there are so many ignorant, intolerant, neo-fascist pseudointellectual assholes in the world. I mean, for fucks sake, what the hell is wrong with reading a book about "supernatural" things? It's not as though some kid reads it and says" you know, i want to be a wizard. i think i'll quit school, start smoking crack and join a cult. Then i'll listen to some techno music, which as was pointed out on the article about hackers, is the tool of fascists, communists and the devil. Fuck off and keep your stupidity to yourself until you have something intelligent to say.


 
the sadness of realism (none / 0) (#113)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Dec 19th, 2001 at 04:41:01 AM PST
I always feel sad for those that want to deprive our children from adventures and magic and that as well since I became born again christian. Befor that happened I was atheist and felt the same about realism as I do now. Please do not believe that your children are that stupid that they don't know the difference between reality and adventures... and if the unlikely appears to be true (that your child doesn't know the difference) by all means talk to your child in the end it is your responsibility to educate the child of things that are not on the curriculum. Adventures are to make our life more fun, with more variety to it, boost our creativity and imagination.... and some of them really teach us things and have meanings that can be learned from. Adventures have often been written to help people deal with things in life, it's easier to tackle some things indirectly through for instance adventures and stories, than have brought up to your face.
Take care and have an adventure :)


 
its just a book. (none / 0) (#114)
by thechild on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 08:22:32 PM PST
no one says this about lotr.


 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.