Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Harry Potter and Religion

Mak-zie
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 5:02:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What is your stance that Harry Potter is anti-religious? On one hand, it is primarily based upon sorcery and witchcraft, but on the other, it never directly disproves God. It's not like they worship the devil or anything.

I doubt that it was intended that way, as it is just a children's book, but many people take it as anti-religious. I had never thought of "The Wizard of Oz" anti-religious, either. So does this mean every mention of sorcery should be frowned upon?

http://logosresourcepages.org...
"Never underestimate the power human stupidity." Robert A. Heinlein
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 5:17:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
J.k. Rowling is a Christian - I'm doubtful her work is anti-religious. The whole kerfluffle is on par, to me at least, with saying that the lord of the rings was anti-religious even though j.r.r. Tolkien was a devout catholic.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 5:29:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 5:02:55 PM, Mak-zie wrote:
What is your stance that Harry Potter is anti-religious? On one hand, it is primarily based upon sorcery and witchcraft, but on the other, it never directly disproves God. It's not like they worship the devil or anything.

I doubt that it was intended that way, as it is just a children's book, but many people take it as anti-religious. I had never thought of "The Wizard of Oz" anti-religious, either. So does this mean every mention of sorcery should be frowned upon?

http://logosresourcepages.org...

Hog wash.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 5:38:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Folk like the person who wrote the link above have far too much time on their hands. You could find hidden messages in anything if you look hard enough. I could even say it's antagonistic towards naturalism because it seems to promote the belief of some kind of afterlife, but I won't cause it's silly.

Seriously, just enjoy what is the best series of books in modern times.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 5:39:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I believe the issue is idealizing a 'powersource' other than God. Given that demons can and do give power to perform magic, the conclusion is to avoid inspiring children to desire such a power source.

C.S. Lewis gives the example of a dichotomous representation of power sources that are more descriptive of the Christian ideological teachings.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 5:47:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 5:38:00 PM, unitedandy wrote:
Folk like the person who wrote the link above have far too much time on their hands. You could find hidden messages in anything if you look hard enough. I could even say it's antagonistic towards naturalism because it seems to promote the belief of some kind of afterlife, but I won't cause it's silly.

Seriously, just enjoy what is the best series of books in modern times.

I disagree with Dandy for the obvious reasons. Mere enjoyment leads to the destruction of critical thinking and promotes susceptibility to indoctrination. (concept of sheep making)

I believe we should always critically evaluate what we ourselves take in and additionally what our children take in. We are the guardians of our own intellectualism and our own futures.

The above statement would be akin to promoting a belief of "just enjoy your drunkenness, while avoiding hurting yourself or others. No harm comes from it but fun", despite obvious problems with it.

Over simplification is rampant in our culture.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 5:50:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No, it's not against religion. In fact, the author was inspired by the Bible to write about Harry Potter. His owl is is always with him, much like the Holy Spirit was with Jesus. And he always had companions with him, much like Jesus.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 6:09:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 5:39:45 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I believe the issue is idealizing a 'powersource' other than God. Given that demons can and do give power to perform magic, the conclusion is to avoid inspiring children to desire such a power source.

C.S. Lewis gives the example of a dichotomous representation of power sources that are more descriptive of the Christian ideological teachings.

Really? Can you give me an example with ample evidence of a demon who gave someone power in the last 100 years?
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 6:26:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 5:47:16 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/14/2012 5:38:00 PM, unitedandy wrote:
Folk like the person who wrote the link above have far too much time on their hands. You could find hidden messages in anything if you look hard enough. I could even say it's antagonistic towards naturalism because it seems to promote the belief of some kind of afterlife, but I won't cause it's silly.

Seriously, just enjoy what is the best series of books in modern times.

I disagree with Dandy for the obvious reasons. Mere enjoyment leads to the destruction of critical thinking and promotes susceptibility to indoctrination. (concept of sheep making)

You really are kidding. Note to Gil, fiction isn't real, kind of by definition. If people want to read an anti-Christian message, they obviously haven't read or understood the books. I can see how hedonism was the underlying message of my sentence there, but what does it say for a culture to ban/burn books? How does that promote critical thinking?

I believe we should always critically evaluate what we ourselves take in and additionally what our children take in. We are the guardians of our own intellectualism and our own futures.

Yep, but the problem is taking fiction literally defeats the point. For folks to say that it promotes magic and such nonsense is quite possibly the most silly thing ever. That is unless patronus charms and the like are a big problem where you live. I mean, what's next, banning sesame street because elmo wasn't mentioned in genesis? Give me a break.

The above statement would be akin to promoting a belief of "just enjoy your drunkenness, while avoiding hurting yourself or others. No harm comes from it but fun", despite obvious problems with it.

Yep, comparing drunkenness to kids reading a book. #sigh#

There's only one way this comparison is accurate, but I'm not mean enough to spell (oops) it out.


Over simplification is rampant in our culture.
Given that with folk like you trying to ban kids reading books, I'd of thought illiteracy would be a bigger problem.

I know we disagree on stuff but seriously dude, WTF? I bet you're the type of guy who puts the radio on and expects it to be precipitating males when the weather girls come on.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 6:40:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 5:17:44 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
J.k. Rowling is a Christian - I'm doubtful her work is anti-religious. The whole kerfluffle is on par, to me at least, with saying that the lord of the rings was anti-religious even though j.r.r. Tolkien was a devout catholic.

It's completely illogical for people to think Harry Potter is anti-religious. For one, they celebrate Christmas. For another, many children's stories/TV shows/movies involve witchcraft or sorcery and none of them get called anti-religious.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 6:43:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Witches are portrayed as friendly, positive, supportive and good! However, non-witches are presented as being boring, dysfunctional, cruel, abusive, bigoted, and hateful."

This is actually completely false lol. The most bigoted character in the series was Voldemort??
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 6:46:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 6:26:11 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 3/14/2012 5:47:16 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/14/2012 5:38:00 PM, unitedandy wrote:
Folk like the person who wrote the link above have far too much time on their hands. You could find hidden messages in anything if you look hard enough. I could even say it's antagonistic towards naturalism because it seems to promote the belief of some kind of afterlife, but I won't cause it's silly.

Seriously, just enjoy what is the best series of books in modern times.

I disagree with Dandy for the obvious reasons. Mere enjoyment leads to the destruction of critical thinking and promotes susceptibility to indoctrination. (concept of sheep making)

You really are kidding. Note to Gil, fiction isn't real, kind of by definition. If people want to read an anti-Christian message, they obviously haven't read or understood the books. I can see how hedonism was the underlying message of my sentence there, but what does it say for a culture to ban/burn books? How does that promote critical thinking?

I believe we should always critically evaluate what we ourselves take in and additionally what our children take in. We are the guardians of our own intellectualism and our own futures.

Yep, but the problem is taking fiction literally defeats the point. For folks to say that it promotes magic and such nonsense is quite possibly the most silly thing ever. That is unless patronus charms and the like are a big problem where you live. I mean, what's next, banning sesame street because elmo wasn't mentioned in genesis? Give me a break.

Elmo was a red herring and has no relevance to the supernatural reality of 'magic'. I find such a appeal to ridicule, the statements of belief in magic as 'silly', is abhorrently fallacious.

Obviously Wiccan, muslims and Christians hold scholastically demons create and give power, or in the Wiccan case that magic is functionally available.

Your complaint seems to be "I have not experienced magic so it must not be true." Merely a naturalism bias.


The above statement would be akin to promoting a belief of "just enjoy your drunkenness, while avoiding hurting yourself or others. No harm comes from it but fun", despite obvious problems with it.

Yep, comparing drunkenness to kids reading a book. #sigh#

There's only one way this comparison is accurate, but I'm not mean enough to spell (oops) it out.

An action of entertainment that is potentially harmful to your cognitive abilities applies to both. The comparison further applies as many belief either is not that harmful and can argue for positives. A drunk might argue sobriety causes higher levels of stress for example.

You apparently need to spell out your complaint.




Over simplification is rampant in our culture.
Given that with folk like you trying to ban kids reading books, I'd of thought illiteracy would be a bigger problem.

I know we disagree on stuff but seriously dude, WTF? I bet you're the type of guy who puts the radio on and expects it to be precipitating males when the weather girls come on.

I never advocated banning Rawlings or any book. I merely stated those in opposition to the books have a valid argument. I also do not advocate banning alcohol. That does not mean I believe that all of our children or ourselves should regularly imbibe. As with alcohol, moderation can be good or even medicinal, but regular use or purpose of enjoyment has obvious detractors.

You should spend more time reading for a post's intent and discerning arguments, rather than jumping to conclusions.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 6:47:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 6:43:35 PM, nonentity wrote:
"Witches are portrayed as friendly, positive, supportive and good! However, non-witches are presented as being boring, dysfunctional, cruel, abusive, bigoted, and hateful."

This is actually completely false lol. The most bigoted character in the series was Voldemort??

I would agree here. Rawlings at most displays magic as a tool used by good or evil.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 6:51:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 6:47:43 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/14/2012 6:43:35 PM, nonentity wrote:
"Witches are portrayed as friendly, positive, supportive and good! However, non-witches are presented as being boring, dysfunctional, cruel, abusive, bigoted, and hateful."

This is actually completely false lol. The most bigoted character in the series was Voldemort??

I would agree here. Rawlings at most displays magic as a tool used by good or evil.

Can I ask you, do you believe Harry Potter is anti-religious or shouldn't be exposed to children, like you said about alcohol? What about Wizards of Waverly Place? Sabrina the Teenaged Witch?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 6:52:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 6:43:35 PM, nonentity wrote:
"Witches are portrayed as friendly, positive, supportive and good! However, non-witches are presented as being boring, dysfunctional, cruel, abusive, bigoted, and hateful."

This is actually completely false lol. The most bigoted character in the series was Voldemort??

Not to mention the fact that one of the threads throughout the book series focused on the anti-muggle prejudice and how bad it was.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 7:04:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 6:51:29 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 3/14/2012 6:47:43 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/14/2012 6:43:35 PM, nonentity wrote:
"Witches are portrayed as friendly, positive, supportive and good! However, non-witches are presented as being boring, dysfunctional, cruel, abusive, bigoted, and hateful."

This is actually completely false lol. The most bigoted character in the series was Voldemort??

I would agree here. Rawlings at most displays magic as a tool used by good or evil.

Can I ask you, do you believe Harry Potter is anti-religious or shouldn't be exposed to children, like you said about alcohol? What about Wizards of Waverly Place? Sabrina the Teenaged Witch?

I believe you can create something that is destructive to religious validity while not being openly anti-religious. I could not comment on Rawlings intent for the novels.

To stay within the alcohol attempt, teaching children regularly imbibing is a benefit to them, can detract from religious validity merely by being a competitive view. (drug culture would be another example)
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 7:13:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 7:04:12 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/14/2012 6:51:29 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 3/14/2012 6:47:43 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/14/2012 6:43:35 PM, nonentity wrote:
"Witches are portrayed as friendly, positive, supportive and good! However, non-witches are presented as being boring, dysfunctional, cruel, abusive, bigoted, and hateful."

This is actually completely false lol. The most bigoted character in the series was Voldemort??

I would agree here. Rawlings at most displays magic as a tool used by good or evil.

Can I ask you, do you believe Harry Potter is anti-religious or shouldn't be exposed to children, like you said about alcohol? What about Wizards of Waverly Place? Sabrina the Teenaged Witch?

I believe you can create something that is destructive to religious validity while not being openly anti-religious. I could not comment on Rawlings intent for the novels.


The argument against Harry Potter is basically that JK Rowling did her job well.

To stay within the alcohol attempt, teaching children regularly imbibing is a benefit to them, can detract from religious validity merely by being a competitive view. (drug culture would be another example)

The Harry Potter books aren't teaching kids to do anything. I can't walk around saying Avada Kedavra and expect people to drop dead. Children make believe all the time. Failure to grow out of it is a psychological problem, not a problem with the book.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 7:15:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 6:46:20 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/14/2012 6:26:11 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 3/14/2012 5:47:16 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/14/2012 5:38:00 PM, unitedandy wrote:
Folk like the person who wrote the link above have far too much time on their hands. You could find hidden messages in anything if you look hard enough. I could even say it's antagonistic towards naturalism because it seems to promote the belief of some kind of afterlife, but I won't cause it's silly.

Seriously, just enjoy what is the best series of books in modern times.

I disagree with Dandy for the obvious reasons. Mere enjoyment leads to the destruction of critical thinking and promotes susceptibility to indoctrination. (concept of sheep making)

You really are kidding. Note to Gil, fiction isn't real, kind of by definition. If people want to read an anti-Christian message, they obviously haven't read or understood the books. I can see how hedonism was the underlying message of my sentence there, but what does it say for a culture to ban/burn books? How does that promote critical thinking?

I believe we should always critically evaluate what we ourselves take in and additionally what our children take in. We are the guardians of our own intellectualism and our own futures.

Yep, but the problem is taking fiction literally defeats the point. For folks to say that it promotes magic and such nonsense is quite possibly the most silly thing ever. That is unless patronus charms and the like are a big problem where you live. I mean, what's next, banning sesame street because elmo wasn't mentioned in genesis? Give me a break.

Elmo was a red herring and has no relevance to the supernatural reality of 'magic'. I find such a appeal to ridicule, the statements of belief in magic as 'silly', is abhorrently fallacious.

Obviously Wiccan, muslims and Christians hold scholastically demons create and give power, or in the Wiccan case that magic is functionally available.

Your complaint seems to be "I have not experienced magic so it must not be true." Merely a naturalism bias.

I take it you're agnostic about unicorns, imps, the borrowers, and all sorts then? Of course not. If not believing in the complicity of Harry Potter in society's magic problems makes me arrogant and so forth, then so be it.



The above statement would be akin to promoting a belief of "just enjoy your drunkenness, while avoiding hurting yourself or others. No harm comes from it but fun", despite obvious problems with it.

Yep, comparing drunkenness to kids reading a book. #sigh#

There's only one way this comparison is accurate, but I'm not mean enough to spell (oops) it out.

An action of entertainment that is potentially harmful to your cognitive abilities applies to both. The comparison further applies as many belief either is not that harmful and can argue for positives. A drunk might argue sobriety causes higher levels of stress for example.

If your worries about people reading HP are that children will be perfecting an Avarda Kedavra charm to terrorise society, I'm sure Superman will save the day. Seriously though, when have you ever heard of a child even taking an interest in the occult from HP, much less brewing potions or flying brooms? Never. Okay then.

You apparently need to spell out your complaint.




Over simplification is rampant in our culture.
Given that with folk like you trying to ban kids reading books, I'd of thought illiteracy would be a bigger problem.

I know we disagree on stuff but seriously dude, WTF? I bet you're the type of guy who puts the radio on and expects it to be precipitating males when the weather girls come on.

I never advocated banning Rawlings or any book. I merely stated those in opposition to the books have a valid argument. I also do not advocate banning alcohol. That does not mean I believe that all of our children or ourselves should regularly imbibe. As with alcohol, moderation can be good or even medicinal, but regular use or purpose of enjoyment has obvious detractors.

Rowling, not Rawling. No, they don't. If they did, we'd have to ban Macbeth, CS Lewis Chronicles of Narnia series (itself explicitly Christian allegory), and pretty much every fantasy series ever written. I'd be amazed if anyone wanting to ban HP had ever actually read it. It's just so depressing that folks want to ban or support the people who want to ban children's books.

You should spend more time reading for a post's intent and discerning arguments, rather than jumping to conclusions.

Expelliarmus!
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 8:01:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I would sacrifice a goat for another Harry Potter book!
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 8:49:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 7:15:02 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 3/14/2012 6:46:20 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/14/2012 6:26:11 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 3/14/2012 5:47:16 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/14/2012 5:38:00 PM, unitedandy wrote:
Folk like the person who wrote the link above have far too much time on their hands. You could find hidden messages in anything if you look hard enough. I could even say it's antagonistic towards naturalism because it seems to promote the belief of some kind of afterlife, but I won't cause it's silly.

Seriously, just enjoy what is the best series of books in modern times.

I disagree with Dandy for the obvious reasons. Mere enjoyment leads to the destruction of critical thinking and promotes susceptibility to indoctrination. (concept of sheep making)

You really are kidding. Note to Gil, fiction isn't real, kind of by definition. If people want to read an anti-Christian message, they obviously haven't read or understood the books. I can see how hedonism was the underlying message of my sentence there, but what does it say for a culture to ban/burn books? How does that promote critical thinking?

I believe we should always critically evaluate what we ourselves take in and additionally what our children take in. We are the guardians of our own intellectualism and our own futures.

Yep, but the problem is taking fiction literally defeats the point. For folks to say that it promotes magic and such nonsense is quite possibly the most silly thing ever. That is unless patronus charms and the like are a big problem where you live. I mean, what's next, banning sesame street because elmo wasn't mentioned in genesis? Give me a break.

Elmo was a red herring and has no relevance to the supernatural reality of 'magic'. I find such a appeal to ridicule, the statements of belief in magic as 'silly', is abhorrently fallacious.

Obviously Wiccan, muslims and Christians hold scholastically demons create and give power, or in the Wiccan case that magic is functionally available.

Your complaint seems to be "I have not experienced magic so it must not be true." Merely a naturalism bias.

I take it you're agnostic about unicorns, imps, the borrowers, and all sorts then? Of course not. If not believing in the complicity of Harry Potter in society's magic problems makes me arrogant and so forth, then so be it.

I did not call you arrogant. I said you were fallaciously using an appeal to ridicule to call something that exists experientially to a VERY large number of people, silly.
One does not need to be agnostic about creatures that are known to be fairy tales and are not asserted to exist. You need to distinguish differences in claims.

I am however not agnostic about Demons and supernatural beings that are said to exist by a large number of Scholars.


The above statement would be akin to promoting a belief of "just enjoy your drunkenness, while avoiding hurting yourself or others. No harm comes from it but fun", despite obvious problems with it.

Yep, comparing drunkenness to kids reading a book. #sigh#

There's only one way this comparison is accurate, but I'm not mean enough to spell (oops) it out.

An action of entertainment that is potentially harmful to your cognitive abilities applies to both. The comparison further applies as many belief either is not that harmful and can argue for positives. A drunk might argue sobriety causes higher levels of stress for example.

If your worries about people reading HP are that children will be perfecting an Avarda Kedavra charm to terrorise society, I'm sure Superman will save the day. Seriously though, when have you ever heard of a child even taking an interest in the occult from HP, much less brewing potions or flying brooms? Never. Okay then.

I come from that background and was heavily into fantasy and the occult. I started with simple books like Patricia McKillip, then Piers Anthony's novels, then onto Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms. Delving into the occult when a love of magic is developed is a logical end.

If both, Scholars and claimants, are correct in stating that such stuff is 'real', then a concern is valid. Calling the claims as silly to detract is fallacious.


You apparently need to spell out your complaint.




Over simplification is rampant in our culture.
Given that with folk like you trying to ban kids reading books, I'd of thought illiteracy would be a bigger problem.

I know we disagree on stuff but seriously dude, WTF? I bet you're the type of guy who puts the radio on and expects it to be precipitating males when the weather girls come on.

I never advocated banning Rawlings or any book. I merely stated those in opposition to the books have a valid argument. I also do not advocate banning alcohol. That does not mean I believe that all of our children or ourselves should regularly imbibe. As with alcohol, moderation can be good or even medicinal, but regular use or purpose of enjoyment has obvious detractors.

Rowling, not Rawling. No, they don't. If they did, we'd have to ban Macbeth, CS Lewis Chronicles of Narnia series (itself explicitly Christian allegory), and pretty much every fantasy series ever written. I'd be amazed if anyone wanting to ban HP had ever actually read it. It's just so depressing that folks want to ban or support the people who want to ban children's books.

As I said, I only read three. Again you ignore that I never advocated banning such books, as I stated also I never advocated banning alcohol. That does not mean there are NOT problems evoked from either.


You should spend more time reading for a post's intent and discerning arguments, rather than jumping to conclusions.

Expelliarmus!

As I said, I only read... wait.... Protego!
Mak-zie
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 9:06:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Thanks so much. It's good to know it's just stupid Twi-hards hating on HP.
"Never underestimate the power human stupidity." Robert A. Heinlein
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 9:24:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I kind of regret never getting past the fifth book before finishing the movie series. I wish I could erase the spoilers from my memory and start over with the books this time. Oh well.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 10:20:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 9:24:15 PM, Rusty wrote:
I kind of regret never getting past the fifth book before finishing the movie series. I wish I could erase the spoilers from my memory and start over with the books this time. Oh well.

You should go ahead and finish the series anyway. I think it goes without saying that books are better than the movies. I also thought the 4th book was the best one. >.>
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 10:53:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 8:49:38 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/14/2012 7:15:02 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 3/14/2012 6:46:20 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/14/2012 6:26:11 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 3/14/2012 5:47:16 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/14/2012 5:38:00 PM, unitedandy wrote:
Folk like the person who wrote the link above have far too much time on their hands. You could find hidden messages in anything if you look hard enough. I could even say it's antagonistic towards naturalism because it seems to promote the belief of some kind of afterlife, but I won't cause it's silly.

Seriously, just enjoy what is the best series of books in modern times.

I disagree with Dandy for the obvious reasons. Mere enjoyment leads to the destruction of critical thinking and promotes susceptibility to indoctrination. (concept of sheep making)

You really are kidding. Note to Gil, fiction isn't real, kind of by definition. If people want to read an anti-Christian message, they obviously haven't read or understood the books. I can see how hedonism was the underlying message of my sentence there, but what does it say for a culture to ban/burn books? How does that promote critical thinking?

I believe we should always critically evaluate what we ourselves take in and additionally what our children take in. We are the guardians of our own intellectualism and our own futures.

Yep, but the problem is taking fiction literally defeats the point. For folks to say that it promotes magic and such nonsense is quite possibly the most silly thing ever. That is unless patronus charms and the like are a big problem where you live. I mean, what's next, banning sesame street because elmo wasn't mentioned in genesis? Give me a break.

Elmo was a red herring and has no relevance to the supernatural reality of 'magic'. I find such a appeal to ridicule, the statements of belief in magic as 'silly', is abhorrently fallacious.

Obviously Wiccan, muslims and Christians hold scholastically demons create and give power, or in the Wiccan case that magic is functionally available.

Your complaint seems to be "I have not experienced magic so it must not be true." Merely a naturalism bias.

I take it you're agnostic about unicorns, imps, the borrowers, and all sorts then? Of course not. If not believing in the complicity of Harry Potter in society's magic problems makes me arrogant and so forth, then so be it.

I did not call you arrogant. I said you were fallaciously using an appeal to ridicule to call something that exists experientially to a VERY large number of people, silly.
One does not need to be agnostic about creatures that are known to be fairy tales and are not asserted to exist. You need to distinguish differences in claims.

Yeah, how could I be so silly? Harry Potter magic = real, while unicorns and so forth are "fairy stories". Are you sure this isn't your anti-unicorn bias showing through? What about the unicorns in HP . . . do they exist?

Seriously, even if magic did exist (and I can't believe we're having this discussion), people who want to ban HP should be trying to ban Alladin, CS lewis, and pretty much every fairy tale I grew up with as a kid. But, they don't. Go figure.

I am however not agnostic about Demons and supernatural beings that are said to exist by a large number of Scholars.

Seriously? You don't think there's been "Scholars" who have written about fairies and so forth? Also, why wouldn't fairies, goblins and whatever be "supernatural"?


The above statement would be akin to promoting a belief of "just enjoy your drunkenness, while avoiding hurting yourself or others. No harm comes from it but fun", despite obvious problems with it.

Yep, comparing drunkenness to kids reading a book. #sigh#

There's only one way this comparison is accurate, but I'm not mean enough to spell (oops) it out.

An action of entertainment that is potentially harmful to your cognitive abilities applies to both. The comparison further applies as many belief either is not that harmful and can argue for positives. A drunk might argue sobriety causes higher levels of stress for example.

If your worries about people reading HP are that children will be perfecting an Avarda Kedavra charm to terrorise society, I'm sure Superman will save the day. Seriously though, when have you ever heard of a child even taking an interest in the occult from HP, much less brewing potions or flying brooms? Never. Okay then.

I come from that background and was heavily into fantasy and the occult. I started with simple books like Patricia McKillip, then Piers Anthony's novels, then onto Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms. Delving into the occult when a love of magic is developed is a logical end.

The logical end? So, if you watched 24, would you run around LA shouting, "Where are the cannisters?" No. When someone reads the chronicles of Narnia, they can't go and meet Mr Tumnus through the back of the wardrobe. It's fiction for goodness sake. Earth to Moon . . .

If both, Scholars and claimants, are correct in stating that such stuff is 'real', then a concern is valid. Calling the claims as silly to detract is fallacious.

Who? Who is saying it's real? What scholars are you talking about?


You apparently need to spell out your complaint.




Over simplification is rampant in our culture.
Given that with folk like you trying to ban kids reading books, I'd of thought illiteracy would be a bigger problem.

I know we disagree on stuff but seriously dude, WTF? I bet you're the type of guy who puts the radio on and expects it to be precipitating males when the weather girls come on.

I never advocated banning Rawlings or any book. I merely stated those in opposition to the books have a valid argument. I also do not advocate banning alcohol. That does not mean I believe that all of our children or ourselves should regularly imbibe. As with alcohol, moderation can be good or even medicinal, but regular use or purpose of enjoyment has obvious detractors.

Rowling, not Rawling. No, they don't. If they did, we'd have to ban Macbeth, CS Lewis Chronicles of Narnia series (itself explicitly Christian allegory), and pretty much every fantasy series ever written. I'd be amazed if anyone wanting to ban HP had ever actually read it. It's just so depressing that folks want to ban or support the people who want to ban children's books.

As I said, I only read three. Again you ignore that I never advocated banning such books, as I stated also I never advocated banning alcohol. That does not mean there are NOT problems evoked from either.

Nope. You said folks trying to ban books had a point, which is just as stupid.


You should spend more time reading for a post's intent and discerning arguments, rather than jumping to conclusions.

Expelliarmus!

As I said, I only read... wait.... Protego!

How ironic. Now you're "dabbling in the occult" . . . wooooooooo.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2012 9:49:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/15/2012 6:33:11 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
HP is not anti-religious. Whoever told you that it was needs to read the books instead of shooting deer and drinking.

Do you realize that everything that comes out of your head is a fallacy. People who do not read HP, shoot deer and drink beer?

Not only is it non-sequitor it is a hasty generalization fallacy. You astound me.

Does your entire world view come from MSNBC political analysts?
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2012 10:02:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 5:02:55 PM, Mak-zie wrote:
What is your stance that Harry Potter is anti-religious? On one hand, it is primarily based upon sorcery and witchcraft, but on the other, it never directly disproves God. It's not like they worship the devil or anything.

I doubt that it was intended that way, as it is just a children's book, but many people take it as anti-religious. I had never thought of "The Wizard of Oz" anti-religious, either. So does this mean every mention of sorcery should be frowned upon?

http://logosresourcepages.org...

It is about as anti-religion as the teletubbies, it is not at all.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2012 10:59:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/15/2012 9:49:30 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/15/2012 6:33:11 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
HP is not anti-religious. Whoever told you that it was needs to read the books instead of shooting deer and drinking.

Do you realize that everything that comes out of your head is a fallacy. People who do not read HP, shoot deer and drink beer?

Not only is it non-sequitor it is a hasty generalization fallacy. You astound me.

Does your entire world view come from MSNBC political analysts?

There are clear distinctions between jokes and arguments. You clearly do not understand the difference.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2012 11:52:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/15/2012 10:59:45 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/15/2012 9:49:30 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/15/2012 6:33:11 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
HP is not anti-religious. Whoever told you that it was needs to read the books instead of shooting deer and drinking.

Do you realize that everything that comes out of your head is a fallacy. People who do not read HP, shoot deer and drink beer?

Not only is it non-sequitor it is a hasty generalization fallacy. You astound me.

Does your entire world view come from MSNBC political analysts?

There are clear distinctions between jokes and arguments. You clearly do not understand the difference.

Then you need to learn to land a joke in text, rather than just typing.

Additionally, given all of your arguments, I do not believe this was a joke.
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2012 11:58:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
>>The characters say bloody hell during the book, thus implying that god and/or hell is generally accepted by the characters.
I miss the old members.