Belial wrote:I suppose you think Lewis really thought God was a lion who ponced around fighting ice queens?
Makes about as much sense as the rest...
Also loving the use of "ponced".
Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates
Belial wrote:I suppose you think Lewis really thought God was a lion who ponced around fighting ice queens?
Belial wrote:It's not a book in which God doesn't exist, but one in which he not only exists, but plays a significant role. Yes, he's portrayed as a fraud, but he's portrayed.
Clearly, it's not that Pullman doesn't believe in God. He believes in him a great deal.
He simply doesn't like him much.
Or, alternately, God was used as a fictional or hypothetical character, as if to say "if God did exist, we would have to destroy him". A sentiment I have voiced many times. Would you like to tell me that I'm not an atheist, either?
jdege wrote:But Pullman falls into that third group, as it seems, do you. Not someone who is unconcerned with God, or in belief in God, but someone who expends significant emotional energy on opposition to belief.
That's not atheism, it's anti-theism. And it's a clear indication that religion has a strong hold on your world-view.
I want to be!Steroid wrote:Don't want to be.bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
22/7 wrote:jdege wrote:But Pullman falls into that third group, as it seems, do you. Not someone who is unconcerned with God, or in belief in God, but someone who expends significant emotional energy on opposition to belief.
That's not atheism, it's anti-theism. And it's a clear indication that religion has a strong hold on your world-view.
You're making a *MASSIVE* assumption here that you're really not qualified to make.
Also, you can subdivide atheist all you want, but it's still a subdivision of atheist. Anti-theism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.
The Spherical Cow wrote:jdege's description of an atheist being someone who "is simply indifferent to the idea of belief in God" is actually what I would call an agnostic. Atheists believe (think?) there is no god, even if they accept some little doubt in there.
jdege wrote:The Spherical Cow wrote:jdege's description of an atheist being someone who "is simply indifferent to the idea of belief in God" is actually what I would call an agnostic. Atheists believe (think?) there is no god, even if they accept some little doubt in there.
Agnosticism is the belief that issues of faith cannot be resolved by reason. That the existence of God cannot be proven.
You can be agnostic and still hold it as a matter of faith that God does exist, or that he does not.
Atheism means living free of religion, not living in opposition to religion.
dictionary.com wrote:a·the·ism (ā'thē-ĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Wikipedia wrote:Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2]
I want to be!Steroid wrote:Don't want to be.bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
You can deny the possibility of proof and have faith, or deny the possibility of proof and not have faith. The latter is acceptable dogma within the Catholic church.22/7 wrote:I was always under the impression that an agnostic is someone who acknowledges that there is no way to prove whether or not there is a god, and that there never will be, and finds it all either trivial or pointless. That's not a very rigorous definition.
Fine. So let's accept those definitions.22/7 wrote:Not exactly.jdege wrote:Atheism means living free of religion, not living in opposition to religion.dictionary.com wrote:a·the·ism (ā'thē-ĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.So an anti-theist can also be an atheist.Wikipedia wrote:Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2]
Jesster wrote:However, in the current social climate, living free of religion is seen by many to be an opposition to religion, who will then attempt to attack you and bombard you with their own brand of faith until you become sick of it and turn anti-religious. What I am saying is that I do not have to believe that God exists to find myself in opposition to the idea created of him by members of our society.
Jesster wrote:Did I attempt to prevent them practising their own religion? No I did not, I ask to be allowed to practise mine in peace, which I am not. Until that happens, I am going to remain in opposition to those who try to force it on me. God is a handy metaphor when I desire to write about these people.
Jesster wrote:In essence, if CS Lewis is allowed to write Chronicles of Narnia then Pullman is equally allowed to write His Dark Materials.
Jesster wrote:And the second is an inbetween? Despite the fact it introduces Will, Mary Malone, the Subtle Knife and really gets going on the narrative.
jdege wrote:Jesster wrote:In essence, if CS Lewis is allowed to write Chronicles of Narnia then Pullman is equally allowed to write His Dark Materials.
Of course he is.
And I'm free to ridicule both.
I find the idea of portraying Jesus as a talking lion just about as absurd as writing a book about God as a way of promoting atheism.
Lewis is pompous and preachy. For all that Lewis was the overtly Christian writer, Tolkien had a much better feel for it, the paganism in LOTR is a much better expression of the Christian ideal. (And if you don't think that makes sense, read his paper on Beowulf.)
As for Pullman, he's angry and bitter.
And about as tedious as Lewis.
Remember what Tolkien said about allegory...
I want to be!Steroid wrote:Don't want to be.bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
jdege wrote:Remember what Tolkien said about allegory...
"I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse "applicability" with "allegory"; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader and the other in the purposed domination of the author."Jesster wrote:No, I don't. Memory is fuzzy tonight, for some reason...
How so? Tolkien will clearly be remembered as the greatest English language writer of the 20th century.22/7 wrote:AHAHAHAHA. You just called Pullman and Lewis tedious while simultaneously discussing Tolkein. That's *awesome*.
jdege wrote:How so? Tolkien will clearly be remembered as the greatest English language writer of the 20th century.
I want to be!Steroid wrote:Don't want to be.bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
jdege wrote:How so? Tolkien will clearly be remembered as the greatest English language writer of the 20th century.22/7 wrote:AHAHAHAHA. You just called Pullman and Lewis tedious while simultaneously discussing Tolkein. That's *awesome*.
suffer-cait wrote:hey, guys?
i'm fucking magic
Parka wrote:I assume this is yours. I don't know anyone else who would put "kill a bear" on a list.
pollywog wrote:jdege wrote:How so? Tolkien will clearly be remembered as the greatest English language writer of the 20th century.22/7 wrote:AHAHAHAHA. You just called Pullman and Lewis tedious while simultaneously discussing Tolkein. That's *awesome*.
Well, that's just an opinion. I don't consider him the best. He's in my top 20, but he's not the greatest, as far as I'm concerned.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.
suffer-cait wrote:hey, guys?
i'm fucking magic
I have rarely run into atheists who were as adamant against "gods" as they were against "God."
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.
Belial wrote:I have rarely run into atheists who were as adamant against "gods" as they were against "God."
That's because, generally speaking, most western atheists have not had the same pressure exerted on them by the followers of "gods" as they have by the followers of "God", and therefore have not needed to push back. So while they might or might not say that belief in Gods is silly, superstitious, or even harmful on a theoretical level (or not), they have trouble conjuring the same level of give-a-shit towards that as they do to the ever-present religion that they actually interact with on a daily basis.
Parka wrote:I assume this is yours. I don't know anyone else who would put "kill a bear" on a list.
Belial wrote:pollywog wrote:jdege wrote:How so? Tolkien will clearly be remembered as the greatest English language writer of the 20th century.22/7 wrote:AHAHAHAHA. You just called Pullman and Lewis tedious while simultaneously discussing Tolkein. That's *awesome*.
Well, that's just an opinion. I don't consider him the best. He's in my top 20, but he's not the greatest, as far as I'm concerned.
He doesn't even rate, where I'm sitting. Greatest english language writer of the 20th century? Far from it.
jdege wrote:Belial wrote:pollywog wrote:jdege wrote:How so? Tolkien will clearly be remembered as the greatest English language writer of the 20th century.22/7 wrote:AHAHAHAHA. You just called Pullman and Lewis tedious while simultaneously discussing Tolkein. That's *awesome*.
Well, that's just an opinion. I don't consider him the best. He's in my top 20, but he's not the greatest, as far as I'm concerned.
He doesn't even rate, where I'm sitting. Greatest english language writer of the 20th century? Far from it.
J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century, by Tom Shippey
I can see your point, but as far as Pullman goes, I can't help but be convinced his work would've been far more... accessible?... had it been cloaked in a bit more subtlety. His preachiness comes off as too visible and mars what could have been an extremely poignant parable. But parables only work when they need interpretation.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.
Belial wrote:It wasn't about gods or gods, really, as those are somewhat irrelevant to someone who doesn't believe in them, it was about the fan-club.
Parka wrote:I assume this is yours. I don't know anyone else who would put "kill a bear" on a list.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.
Parka wrote:I assume this is yours. I don't know anyone else who would put "kill a bear" on a list.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.
Parka wrote:I assume this is yours. I don't know anyone else who would put "kill a bear" on a list.
jdedge wrote:A change in nomenclature doesn't change the fact that Pullman and the anti-theists exert just as much intellectual energy on issues of religion as do the people of faith.
Which, speaking as a person to whom the whole issue is fundamentally irrelevant, strikes me as rather odd.
They're both of them ideologues.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.
The Spherical Cow wrote:
A link to a book on Amazon hardly qualifies as an argument. Care to elaborate?
Jesster wrote:The literati do not dislike Tolkien because he is popular, it is because his writing is tedious, the story itself could probably fit into a single book and his pacing is absolutely horrible. Sure, he tops the reader's polls, but how much of that is by reputation alone? I know that I read it as a kid because of it's reputation, so self-perpetuating in a sense.
Also, I would think His Dark Materials will still be read, not for the atheism, but for the incredible love story it tells.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests