A movie, even a commercial one, is the artistic expression of the filmmakers. You cannot expect the filmmakers to leave their personal beliefs out of it. If you are too challenged by art, perhaps you should stick to Fox News.

There are no atheist films this year. I don’t know what you are talking about. The Golden Compass is the closest thing to it, but they’ve eviscerated the atheism from the film—apparently to appease simpletons who can’t bear being challenged by art.

That’s what happens when you let your opponents define you. The common misconception is that atheists state that there is no god. In actuality, they state that there is no evidence for a god. We lack infinite knowledge, so we are unable to say that there is no god, only that there is zippo evidence for one.

I would allege that monotheism is not, as you ponder, “belief in the evidence of the existence of only one god”. Theists rely on faith, not evidence, so I think it’s correct to say that monotheism is the belief in one god.

I considered myself an agnostic for most of my life, because I swallowed the misconception that atheists claim there is no god. I reasoned that that was an unsupportable claim, just as saying that there is a god is an unsupportable claim. Agnosticism seemed like the only rational belief. Somewhere in the last year, I finally read the correct definition. My beliefs haven’t changed, just the label.

It does raise the interesting question of just what exactly an agnostic is, since everybody I know who claims to be agnostic is really an atheist who is afraid to wear the label. I suspect that true agnostics are hedging their bets.

If monotheism means the belief in one god and polytheism means the belief in many gods, does atheism then not mean belief in no gods?

Or is the appropriate terminology (borrowing from your post up there) montheism mean belief in the evidence of the existence of only one god, polytheism mean belief in the evidence of the existence of many gods, etc… Gets cumbersome to say.

I call myself agnostic primarily because I find my personal philosophical beliefs match very closely to what the late, great Carl Sagan purported to believe. And from what I understand, he identified himself as agnostic.

Really, thanks mostly to the fundies, the definitions of all the non-monotheistic terms have all been muddied. To them a humanist, atheist, agnostic, deist, and satantist are all the same thing: evil. It’s quite sad.

I really strayed on a tangent here, but back to the original point, I’m curious if you have any insight into the -theism definitions above.

I love the books. Cannot wait to see the movie, and hope they have managed to engage the magic in the books.

Always wondered why nobody has pointed out the similarities between the Potter rage and the Ursula LeGuin books of at least 15 years earlier. Hmmm, off subject.

Always challenge, always ask and always attempt to see the other side. Celebrate our diversity, rather than dictate to others what they should think. My 2 cents.

Read the books. They are excellent. And my nine year old was so excited that when she did the test on the movie site her deamon was a snow leopard she was speechless. Which is saying something. I got a chimpanzee. Which she found hilarious.

Can’t we all relax and enjoy a different view of the universe as exactly that. It’s just different. It’s not evil, or correct, or right, or wrong, or anything. It’s just different.

I’m glad you found the site. Your experience in the autism group is exactly the reason I started this blog. It’s fine that the fundies have their opinions and discuss it among themselves. It’s even fine if they want to mention those opinions to the rest of us, as long as it’s done in the appropriate time and places. It frequently isn’t.

BTW, there’s nothing wrong with being agnostic. I considered myself one for years. I converted to the atheist label when I finally realized that atheists don’t claim there’s no god. That’s a mischaracterization created by the religious. An atheist merely says that there’s no evidence for a god.

I hope the anti-Golden Compass fervor buys the movie lots of publicity and the “evil atheist” Philip Pullman lots of royalties.

Laura, the agnostic, because, as no one can prove there’s a god, they also can’t prove there isn’t one, so I must be as accurate as possible.

To call it “badly written” (as apposed to “not to my taste…”) is more a reflection of your reading comprehension than anything else.

To then describe The Satanic Verses as a “not that good book” after Rushdie pioneered an entirely new genre, which is currently thriving, is beyond absurd. Although awards obviously don’t tell the entire story, winning the ‘Booker of Bookers’ is no mean feat.

“Over my head” would be more appropriate next time.