Harry Potter is awful and you suck for liking it.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

This is flagrantly incorrect. We frequently and regularly look past the moral flaws of creative works, especially those created in the past, in order to examine them solely based on technical or artistic merit; many of Shakespeare's works, for example, would be considered hideously misogynist if they were printed today.

 

I'll grant that you could be "regularly look[ing] past the moral flaws of creative works", but I know that we don't and that you only do so regularly, not frequently too. Moreover, most of all works would be considered hideously female if looked upon through the handheld monocles of Shakespeare's time. You have to consider what other people think, not just the musings of your young unshaped conscience. And I think that you should tread more carefully in chancing the exposure of your lack of concern for moral implications lest others deem you an inhuman Satanist.

 

Canadian propaganda during World War II was instrumental in creating their national identity and Canadian environmental pride.

 

Although I wholeheartedly agree given the transitions for the greater good set forward in time since World War II that Canadian propaganda was essential in amassing our pool of units for which to overpower the opponent, we must now adapt to current times. Canadian national identity is called Nationalism, thereby promoting the interest of a country that is already more than abundant enough over the needs of other countries that could actually use promoting (mainly in Africa). This is largely to do with lack of education amongst Canadians to help them to discover a human level of morality and greed, for which some Canadians forego morality, possibly becoming Satanists interested only in intrinsic beauty like Dorian Gray.

 

Even the Bible itself contains implications that are at least controversial in modern society, if not outright rejected, yet is still respected as the centerpiece of a number of religions.

 

Passages in the Bible are only considered "at least controversial" and/or worthy of being "outright rejected" if the reader chooses to interpret them as darkly as they can possibly be interpreted. For this misopinion, going to church and respecting other people's opinions there can help to set people along a better path than the Satanism which insists on misrepresenting the word of God through a sense of greed born out of pride for descriptions that are not true for they lack morality in spite of their intrinsic beauty, something Satanists do all the time. Heed the opinions of others and you can blossom from immaturity into a True Rose. I tell you this because Jesus died so that we might find salvation, something the stubborn and proud deny in the name of Science, which tells us facts but does not tell us meanings. What use have we for meaningless facts?

 

Merit isn't a simple binary value; humans are capable of appreciating the skill involved in creating a work without approving of the message of the piece.

 

This is actually a pretty common belief nowadays amongst inhuman Satanists, so I'd avoid it as a precaution. What makes it false is that those who lust after intrinsic beauty and care not for the meaning only study what they do for pleasure, thereby being out of touch with their sense of humanity which is based on meaning. It's what separates those shaped in the image of God from monkeys that cannot interpret symbolism. It logically follows that those out of touch with morality and by extension their humanity are not truly human. This is generally the path that leads to atheism or possibly Satanism if they cannot transcend their ego and acknowledge that it is to Jesus Christ that they owe everything. Anyone can convert and become moral and human by accepting Jesus as their Lord and saviour.

 

~Fire and Water

[Hydra of Ages]

I'll grant that you could be "regularly look[ing] past the moral flaws of creative works", but I know that we don't and that you only do so regularly, not frequently too.

 

That's funny. I'm pretty sure my Classics class studied the Iliad, and that was a good three hundred people examining a piece of literature based off of its creative merit rather than its moral value. Maybe I invented it as part of my "musings of (my) young, unshaped conscience".

 

And you're right, I certainly should stop thrusting my biases onto other people and examine information outside of my myopia. After all, they might think I'm some sort of Satanist otherwise. Pot, meet kettle.

 

Although I wholeheartedly agree given the transitions for the greater good set forward in time since World War II that Canadian propaganda was essential in amassing our pool of units for which to overpower the opponent, we must now adapt to current times. Canadian national identity is called Nationalism, thereby promoting the interest of a country that is already more than abundant enough over the needs of other countries that could actually use promoting (mainly in Africa). This is largely to do with lack of education amongst Canadians to help them to discover a human level of morality and greed, for which some Canadians forego morality, possibly becoming Satanists interested only in intrinsic beauty like Dorian Gray.

 

What the hell is with your obsession with Satanists? Why are you bringing it up in this thread? Why are you talking about morality like it's an objective commodity?

 

Passages in the Bible are only considered "at least controversial" and/or worthy of being "outright rejected" if the reader chooses to interpret them as darkly as they can possibly be interpreted.

 

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent." 1 Timothy 2:12

 

"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” 1 Samuel 15:3

 

"Do not allow a sorceress to live." Exodus 22:18

 

"...Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,

happy is the one who repays you

according to what you have done to us.

Happy is the one who seizes your infants

and dashes them against the rocks." Psalms 137 (excerpt)

 

" In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." Romans 1:27

 

"Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh." 1 Peter 2:18

 

This is actually a pretty common belief nowadays amongst inhuman Satanists, so I'd avoid it as a precaution.

 

Why should I care what Satanists think.

 

What makes it false is that those who lust after intrinsic beauty and care not for the meaning only study what they do for pleasure, thereby being out of touch with their sense of humanity which is based on meaning.

 

No, I'm pretty sure most do it to better understand the field in question. Birth of a Nation invented techniques in film that are still being used today. Watching it as a film student, therefore, allows us to better understand the art of film making.

 

Also, you presume to tell us what humanity is based off of? How lucky. Perhaps you should submit some philosophical works, there are some people I know of who will be quite interested to know definitively what being "human" is, from a metaphysical point of view.

 

It's what separates those shaped in the image of God from monkeys that cannot interpret symbolism.

 

Strange, here I thought it was elementary school English class that taught me to interpret symbolism. Also, sudden religious myopia ahoy.

 

It logically follows that those out of touch with morality and by extension their humanity are not truly human.

 

...No. This is not how logic works.

 

This is generally the path that leads to atheism or possibly Satanism if they cannot transcend their ego and acknowledge that it is to Jesus Christ that they owe everything. Anyone can convert and become moral and human by accepting Jesus as their Lord and saviour.

 

...Am I on 'Punked' or something? I don't recall Polaris being religious-crazy before. Did I just miss this or something?

[Vairocana]

He mentioned satanism in every paragraph and then told you to convert to christianity. He's trolling.

[Hydra of Ages]

I certainly hope so.

[Tentacruel]

People who would be serious about that would never be that cynical nor eloquent. He's trolling.

 

 

 

As for the sexism... I dislike sexism, but feminism is just as bad if it declares that one must present every woman in a positive light regardless of their personality. While JKR's book is uncomfortably chauvinistic, I don't think it's fair to require every book that's written to adhere to a strict set of social guidelines.

 

Does this mean it's sexist to portray an overly macho man in a negative light?

[Mehmani]

As you yourself said, you enjoyed the books as a child. That implies that these were perhaps some of the first books you read, and I am sure that a for a great many children, the Harry Potter books were the first sizable, adult-length books they ever had the pleasure of reading. As a child, I doubt you were as eloquent, coherent and caustic (if you'll allow one to say so) as you are following your period of maturity (or as I feel mine should be called, disillusionment). These books encourage reading, and the reading and picking-up of long books in particular (and a lot of the most valued, informative or brilliant books tend to be novel-length, and most children don't read novels until they are teens). As badly written as these books are, they encourage a great deal of children to love reading, and for me, reading is the most important thing for the development of children.

[evilfusion]

Wow, Blaze really laid on the sarcasm in that post.

 

At the base, I don't think Crab's title is literal. Crab obviously enjoyed the series enough to complete it. This thread is a compilations of some very strong flaws one can discover when holding the series under closer inspection. I agree with most, if not all, of the flaws described, and have found similar flaws within the books or movies, even if I've been unable to fully articulate my views.

 

Book 7 was the worst in terms of introducing elements the hell out of nowhere. Even if things were hinted at previously, the entire Deathly Hallows concept did, in fact, come out of nowhere. There was only the vaguest of hints Harry's Cloak was special, and nowhere else were the other two items even hinted at being more than what they appeared to be.

 

Book 5 was just annoying as hell due to Harry's personality. Justify it all you wish with trauma from the end of book 4 or puberty, but it was obnoxious the way he acted to friends and neutrals alike, and his behavior ranged from silently seething with internal rage and suicidal disregard for his own safety. Even in Book 1+, his suicidal actions had righteous intentions or accidental incidents, but Book 5 was...not very righteous. Much of his actions isn't "This has to be done, because no one else can do it", it's more like "This has to be done because I forgot something obvious, and am disregarding the logic of my best friends".

 

Those areas were my pre-savviness complaints, but I still enjoyed the series.

[Thundervlux]

Tons of good points, but why did you say you liked the series as a child before majorly slagging it off and basically calling it a piece of un-thought-over s***.

If you're going to aggresively point out the flaws in a series, don't say you used to like it as a way of making it fine that you had such a go at it.

 

This just showed up on my tumblr:

 

ok im really super mad about hp and i have to finish a calc bc problem set and shower and get dressed in the next 20 minutes i cant do all of those things so lemme just get this out there

• jkr is not a feminist writer
  
• jkr is not a feminist writer
  
• jkr is not a feminist writer
  
• jkr slut-shames and shames girls for being interested in “girly” things (lavender)
  
• jkr presents a dichotomy between “good women” and “bad women” (hermione’s bookishness and respectable prudery vs. lavender’s girly-girl sexuality, mrs weasley’s motherliness vs. bellatrix’s lack of offspring and sexual attraction to voldemort)
  
• which is an INHERENTLY ANTIFEMINIST ACT
  
• ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU FRAME IT IN TERMS OF FEMALE SEXUALITY? WOW
  
• jkr blames girls for their eating disorders (this was on her website at one point so it’s not textual but i feel we should note it)
  
• jkr then says that she is fat-positive while every overweight character in her books is mean, nasty, and shrewish (with the exception of mrs. weasley who is described as “plump and motherly”)
  
• jkr writes outing narratives (remus lupin - bookish shy teacher with a secret that’s revealed to the school and then causes him to lose his job) but maintains the textual straightness of even her only queer character - dumbledore’s queerness is not stated in-text and is thus not actually canonical)
  
• jkr has one textually disabled girl character and her entire purpose is to get abused and raped and be written as “dangerous and out of control” b/c of her brain problems to motivate dumbledore… (thanks for this one cat!)
  
• also i feel like i should address jkr’s positioning of luna as “crazy” and “that weird girl” when luna has suffered abuse from her housemates for her entire school career and showed up at school traumatized and proceeded to be ostracised wow how is that an ok thing to do
  
• jkr has never acknowledged the possibility of queer female characters
  
• EDIT: jkr “punished” umbridge for her actions in book five by sending her off to be gang-raped by centaurs
  
• jkr is the f***ing worst
  
• seriously
  
• if you idolize hp i do not want to know you
  

 

Um, have you forgotten that JKR is in fact a FEMALE herself, so how can she be anti-Women.

...

Why do you hate her so much btw?

[Guest ∂materasu]

^Oh yes, because all women totally have the same view about how important feminism is, because there's no such thing as cultural or idealistic differences out there in the world or anything.

And I don't know, maybe they as a child didn't exactly think this thoroughly on the entire thing. You know, this is kind of in-depth.

(I can't believe we're getting into more of this)

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent." 1 Timothy 2:12

 

You're taking this out of context in an attempt to identify ill-intent. This was addressed solely to the women of Ephesia, not to all women. A group of Ephesian women were teaching religion falsely and so were restricted from doing so until they could be taught.

 

"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28.

 

This quote serves as an indication that Christianity views men and women as equal.

 

"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” 1 Samuel 15:3

 

The Amalekites issued an unprovoked attack against the weakest and most vulnerable Israelies 400 years back during their escape from Egypt and were given many chances to repent, and for 400 years they continued not to repent but to stand behind those actions, something for which they had to be punished. This was also a test of the loyalty of Saul, the newly appointed king of Israel. He kept Agag, king of the Amalekites alive and didn't destroy the livestock but instead took them to use for his own purposes. When Saul's failure to obey God is then brought up, Saul stubbornly makes excuses. For this Saul was demoted from his position as king.

 

"Do not allow a sorceress to live." Exodus 22:18

 

Keep in mind that sorcery by definition in that context was conjuring evil spirits for assistance and so cannot be used to a good end. This is not the same as sorcery in Harry Potter.

 

"...Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,

happy is the one who repays you

according to what you have done to us.

Happy is the one who seizes your infants

and dashes them against the rocks." Psalms 137 (excerpt)

 

As with the Amelekites, the "according to what you have done to us" needs to be considered.

 

"In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men

committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." Romans 1:27

 

Again, read this in context.

 

"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal human beings and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." Romans 1:21-27

 

This passage refers to idol worshippers who as a result of their abandonment of God for idols have given way to shameful lust, including male-female lust, male-male lust, and female-female lust. The point of this passage is that lust as a result of idol worship is wrong, not that homosexuality is. Heterosexual lust as a result of idol worship is just as bad. There are many gay Christians as well as groups for them. http://www.gaychristian.net/ is one of many gay Christian websites as only makes sense given that homosexuality is not immoral by Christianity.

 

"Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh." 1 Peter 2:18

 

This is in the same same light as "But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:39)

 

This is not meant as advocacy for slavery, but to to tolerate enslavement knowing that harsh masters will receive what is coming to them. Again, just give these passages the benefit of good faith and should you think one to be immoral, go over it again and try to make sense of it. Failing that, you can always ask for assistance.

 

Why should I care what Satanists think.

 

So that you might not follow their example.

 

No, I'm pretty sure most do it to better understand the field in question. Birth of a Nation invented techniques in film that are still being used today. Watching it as a film student, therefore, allows us to better understand the art of film making.

 

Also, you presume to tell us what humanity is based off of? How lucky. Perhaps you should submit some philosophical works, there are some people I know of who will be quite interested to know definitively what being "human" is, from a metaphysical point of view.

 

I know what humanity isn't, and that's abandoning your moral conscience in pursuit of intrinsic beauty. And "better understand[ing] the field in question." is the pursuit of intrinsic beauty.

 

Strange, here I thought it was elementary school English class that taught me to interpret symbolism.

 

Elementary school English might help you to do it better and/or identify when you're doing it, but I assure you that your capacity for doing so existed far before then.

 

Also, sudden religious myopia ahoy.

 

If you're alienated by my theological perspective I'll make an effort to keep my arguments free of my theological beliefs, but in so doing I suggest that you do the same. You are, after all, the one who brought up theology in the first place when you referred to the Bible as an example of a work with moral flaws that are looked past in its study. In arguing with you I seek only to come to an understanding, not to defame you. My having my own theological perspective does not make me "religious-crazy", it means I have different theological beliefs than you do, ones that I'd be happy to help clarify to you if you'd allow me to so that you might understand my perspective and from there be able to consider adopting parts of it, however if it is your desire to not incorporate theological elements in our discussions, I can understand that too and will respect those conditions so long as you do too.

 

I've exceeded my quote tag limit but I'll end off by saying that The Iliad, although having characters with moral perspectives, was not meant to promote an opinion but to be a historical narrative of most of the Trojan war. It and The Odyssey are the most intrinsically beautiful books I've ever read, but they do not serve as moral guides as Birth of a Nation does, they're just eloquent preservations of historical events.

[Vairocana]

 

 

As for the sexism... I dislike sexism, but feminism is just as bad if it declares that one must present every woman in a positive light regardless of their personality. While JKR's book is uncomfortably chauvinistic, I don't think it's fair to require every book that's written to adhere to a strict set of social guidelines.

 

Does this mean it's sexist to portray an overly macho man in a negative light?

 

The argument of the tumblr post wasn't that JKR needed to be femnisit in her writing, but that people were citing her as feminist, when clearly she is not. Clearly, good work can be done and still have negative ideological implications (see: a lot of really quality movies that failed the Bechdal test). And it isn't about having to portray every woman in a positive light as much as the consistent demonization and punishment of certain behaviors that reinforces negative female ideology (such as sexual promiscuity makes you a bad person).

 

 

As you yourself said, you enjoyed the books as a child. That implies that these were perhaps some of the first books you read, and I am sure that a for a great many children, the Harry Potter books were the first sizable, adult-length books they ever had the pleasure of reading. As a child, I doubt you were as eloquent, coherent and caustic (if you'll allow one to say so) as you are following your period of maturity (or as I feel mine should be called, disillusionment). These books encourage reading, and the reading and picking-up of long books in particular (and a lot of the most valued, informative or brilliant books tend to be novel-length, and most children don't read novels until they are teens). As badly written as these books are, they encourage a great deal of children to love reading, and for me, reading is the most important thing for the development of children.

 

That's like saying "my kid eats deep fried vegetables. Well at least he's eating vegetables, and this way he will gradually move onto healthier vegetables"

 

No, he'll just eat junk food and more deep fried vegetables.

 

 

 

Um, have you forgotten that JKR is in fact a FEMALE herself, so how can she be anti-Women.

...

Why do you hate her so much btw?

 

This is moronic. Of course you can still be anti-woman when you are a woman. There were anti-blacks who were black back pre/during the civil rights movement (look up passing, it's some interesting s***)

[Tentacruel]

The argument of the tumblr post wasn't that JKR needed to be femnisit in her writing, but that people were citing her as feminist, when clearly she is not. Clearly, good work can be done and still have negative ideological implications (see: a lot of really quality movies that failed the Bechdal test). And it isn't about having to portray every woman in a positive light as much as the consistent demonization and punishment of certain behaviors that reinforces negative female ideology (such as sexual promiscuity makes you a bad person).

 

Very true. I suppose it would be completely ridiculous to cite JKR as being feminist. However, I don't think she was intentionally demonizing sexuality, as she openly criticized C.S. Lewis for doing just that.

 

But as per sexual promiscuity, people will indeed argue different moral opinions and it's meaningless to get too hostile towards each-other over things like that. A lot of people consider sexual-promiscuity wrong, it's best not to get too deep into that.

 

Aaaaanyway, as many flaws as the series contains, I don't think it's fair to compare it to unhealthy food. It does encourage reading and it does stimulate the mind. It is for children mind you, most of whom won't delve this deep into it.

[Hydra of Ages]

You're taking this out of context in an attempt to identify ill-intent.

 

I don't care. This has nothing to do with the literary merits of Harry Potter. I'm killing this tangent now; the moment I start arguing the specifics of the Bible, the thread either needs to be burned to the ground or moved to Debates. Which is arguably worse than being burned to the ground.

 

Evilfusion, you'll find that the respect I have for a debating opponent drops sharply the moment they give away that they're just attempting to evangelize (often rather smugly). It's a flaw those of us with a "young, unshaped conscience" are prone to.

 

Comrade, the problem isn't that people consider sexual promiscuity bad, it's that people specifically consider sexually promiscuous women bad.

[Vairocana]

Very true. I suppose it would be completely ridiculous to cite JKR as being feminist. However, I don't think she was intentionally demonizing sexuality, as she openly criticized C.S. Lewis for doing just that.

 

But as per sexual promiscuity, people will indeed argue different moral opinions and it's meaningless to get too hostile towards each-other over things like that. A lot of people consider sexual-promiscuity wrong, it's best not to get too deep into that.

 

Aaaaanyway, as many flaws as the series contains, I don't think it's fair to compare it to unhealthy food. It does encourage reading and it does stimulate the mind. It is for children mind you, most of whom won't delve this deep into it.

 

Intent really has nothing to do with it. The majority of racism/sexism left in America isn't a realized malicious intent, but an underlying ideaology that is perpetrated by...well, things like Harry Potter. Her intent might not have been to demonize female sexuality, but the end result is that is exactly what she did.

 

I think the "it's for children" line of reasoning is a cheap excuse to be half-assed about work. "Oh, it's for children, so it's ok if so and so happens"

 

No, it really isn't. Quality is quality, regardless of what demographic you are targetting. The reason shows like Adventure Time or ATLA do so well across multiple age demographics is because they are well made. They feature well thought out worlds and good narratives. It has nothing to do with being "for children".

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Evilfusion, you'll find that the respect I have for a debating opponent drops sharply the moment they give away that they're just attempting to evangelize (often rather smugly). It's a flaw those of us with a "young, unshaped conscience" are prone to.

 

That "young, unshaped conscience" line was unfair; I'm three years younger than you. There's no reason to breed resentment, yet I said that in spite of a well-grounded suspicion that breeding resentment would be all it could accomplish anyway out of a sort of crude and ugly impulse and for that I'm truly sorry.

 

The truth is that I've always had problems making sense things like why people believe the things they do, I switch opinions constantly, just trying to get a feel for the values behind opinions and thoughts, knowing that each one has so many faults. Even agnosticism, a stance I'd staunchly upheld for years, drawing security in knowing that I couldn't be wrong with regards to God's existence was something that I'd later find to be useless and impractical when applied elsewhere. People have to take actions that have a chance of killing them to survive. Every time I drink water I commit myself to the uncertain belief that it isn't poisoned. Yet as as naive as drinking water unsuspectingly might be I can't exactly commit myself to the uncertain belief that it is poisoned and never drink water for fear that it was poisoned as I'd die of thirst. I risk being wrong either way.

 

That being considered, I knew that this didn't mean I had to put myself behind the existence or non-existence of God when neither are certain, but it brought me to realize that there were other issues at stake then not being wrong and that picking one side or the other would be more practical. In most of the contexts in which I lived my life, atheism was far more fashionable than Christianity, defying the idea that people should act as if he did and accept all the principles of Christianity when there was no evidence in God's existence, and I knew that this belief held its own sort of practicality. Then I considered Christianity in a way I hadn't considered it before. That I could just have faith in God's existence like I had faith that my water wasn't poisoned, drawing upon the culture of Christianity to rid me of this uncertainty and lack of spiritual wholeness that I felt were the source of feelings of emptiness, ridding myself also of the Hell I would otherwise be certain to face would be a nice added perk. Then comes the realization that Christianity is at large associated with a set of antiquated, fear mongering, bigoted, and ridiculous. Yet atheism, the default position of mostly everyone I knew, seemed the most loathsome of all. A sort of humourless and conformist denial of the possibility that there existed something bigger than what was before us. Again, there are risks in each of the three and I would not criticize one for picking any side. Throughout my life I've very seriously considered all three.

 

It even comes full circle when considering things of as what one would think would be of little significance like Harry Potter. Do I criticize it for suspected underlying messages in it that give fuel to the types of ideologies that cause pain and suffering? Do I just take it in and tell those that criticize it to lighten up as it's just light fantasy and that we can just assume there aren't any sinister messages in it, stop being so serious and enjoy it? Do I just dismiss the issue as ridiculous? Do I scoff at everyone who reads it to seem sophisticated?

 

Sometimes I feel terribly insecure about everything. Whatever conclusions any of you happen to come to I love you all and appreciate the beauty in the thought process and the considerations that lead us to the conclusions that they do even if they might divide us.

[Mehmani]

That's like saying "my kid eats deep fried vegetables. Well at least he's eating vegetables, and this way he will gradually move onto healthier vegetables"

 

No, he'll just eat junk food and more deep fried vegetables.

 

We have given you two examples that prove otherwise - Crab and myself, both of whom liked the books as children and then with the advent of maturity, sceptiscism and reason we realized that they were simply childish things that we liked as children. I slept with soft toys throughout my childhood to cope with the fact my parents weren't together, but I don't sleep with them anymore. I've grown to understand why my parents are not together and how I can deal with what it makes me feel. The majority of adults don't mope or act like children due to experiencing a divorce or split as a child. They learn to confront and understand, they embrace their maturity. A significant majority of people "grow out" of what they appreciate as children. Granted, some don't, but a great many of them do.

 

And as for "Fire and Water" - I once wrote a long, shouty speech on this site about how I was for a great number of years (I didn't really lose my religion until I was thirteen), a pious and devout Catholic, and clearly a product of my upbringing in a Conservative, religious family. I only lost my faith out of choice - my close family were either lapsed or indifferent to faith, whilst my extended family were devout churchgoers who held strong viewpoints that align with Catholic tenets. I took it upon myself to read the opposition cases (as I do always, it's productive, makes you more impartial and often teaches you valuable lessons). So I read The God Delusion (which was a comprehensive argument for the non-existence of God) and God is not Great (which is a comprehensive argument for the evil of religion and the psychological damage caused by faith and the concept of an omnipotent God). I'm not a fan of Dawkins' attitude, but he's an exceptionally knowledgeable and intelligent person and the book introduced a young Catholic to the importance of Scientific method and reason, the importance of neatness and calculation. That being said, I saw the logic of Pascal's Wager and abided by it (probably because I hadn't been exposed to other religions much). God is not Great convinced me quite comprehensively that religion was evil and the concept of a God was psychologically damaging (and as a Catholic child, Hell scared me a hell of a lot, excuse the pun). But the essential lesson from this was that I broke free from indoctrination as a child - children are young, pliable and will believe anything, which is why religion tries to speak to them as much as possible. Deluding and messing with a child's mind, brainwashing them into submission - it's unpleasant, very unpleasant. Children are categorized based on their parent's personal beliefs in a lot of school systems and are punished for asking questions. You very rarely find a religious child who doesn't share the religion of their parents, and there is a clear reason for this. Why not try and work it out, you're a pretty clever feller.

[Tentacruel]

I'm not a fan of Dawkins' attitude, but he's an exceptionally knowledgeable and intelligent person

 

You're probably the first Atheist I've heard say anything half-way negative about Dawkins' negativity. Hooray for not being biased.

 

I'm a very strong theist but even I have to admit that when questioning something is reprimanded, there's obviously a problem. I may not agree with the likes of Dawkins but such arguments are essential in keeping society from devolving into a system of blind submission.

 

To each his own, as they say.

 

Wait, did we really end up talking about religion in a Harry Potter topic?

[Mehmani]

You're probably the first Atheist I've heard say anything half-way negative about Dawkins' negativity. Hooray for not being biased.

 

I'm a very strong theist but even I have to admit that when questioning something is reprimanded, there's obviously a problem. I may not agree with the likes of Dawkins but such arguments are essential in keeping society from devolving into a system of blind submission.

 

To each his own, as they say.

 

Wait, did we really end up talking about religion in a Harry Potter topic?

 

I recall a case that happened in South London (about half a mile from where I live, incidentally) where a bunch of crazy religious people burned Harry Potter books because they "encouraged Satanism and witchery" and a religious teacher who gave a child detention for reading it was fired.

[Tentacruel]

Oh yeah that. As someone who has had first hand experience with that kind of thinking, I would attribute that to peer pressure more than religion itself. Person X heard from Person Y who heard from Person Z who shares my set of ideals that Harry Potter is satanic.

 

Basically, all the cool kids were burning Harry Potter books. They did the same thing with Pokemon but now nobody even remembers that. They're fads, as weird as it sounds.

[Vairocana]

We have given you two examples that prove otherwise - Crab and myself, both of whom liked the books as children and then with the advent of maturity, sceptiscism and reason we realized that they were simply childish things that we liked as children. I slept with soft toys throughout my childhood to cope with the fact my parents weren't together, but I don't sleep with them anymore. I've grown to understand why my parents are not together and how I can deal with what it makes me feel. The majority of adults don't mope or act like children due to experiencing a divorce or split as a child. They learn to confront and understand, they embrace their maturity. A significant majority of people "grow out" of what they appreciate as children. Granted, some don't, but a great many of them do.

 

I would then ask if you had a pre-existing enjoyment of reading, or if HP was your first major endeavor into written work. I read HP and enjoyed it well enough growing up as well (at least up to the fourth one), but I had been knocking back 500 page novels long before I heard of Harry Potter.

 

I'm not saying you can't grow to enjoy better literature by starting with Harry Potter, but I find it to be a flimsy justification. And anecdotal evidence isn't exactly the strongest.

[Tentacruel]

It's still kind of subjective. You could argue that one should only read the most critically acclaimed novels available.

 

Harry Potter is enjoyable which is what really matters, and it isn't exactly going to make someone stupid.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

You very rarely find a religious child who doesn't share the religion of their parents, and there is a clear reason for this. Why not try and work it out, you're a pretty clever feller.

 

The same can be said for all theological perspectives, not just religions.

 

But the essential lesson from this was that I broke free from indoctrination as a child - children are young, pliable and will believe anything, which is why religion tries to speak to them as much as possible.

 

How is "God is not Great convinced me quite comprehensively that religion was evil" not a crystal-clear example of indoctrination?

[Tentacruel]

How is "God is not Great convinced me quite comprehensively that religion was evil" not a crystal-clear example of indoctrination?

 

Oh snap. That's a good point.

 

 

 

And um, yeah Mikhail, wouldn't your own unique perspective of religion based on the actual religious individuals you've come in contact with affect your opinion a wee bit?

[Mehmani]

The same can be said for all theological perspectives, not just religions.

All "theological perspectives" are religious views, and the fact it happens with other issues outside of religion (such as political opinion) doesn't make it a good thing. It's like saying killing someone is okay because, hey, people have done it before, right? Thomas Paine had a wonderful quote from the Age of Reason: "The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. Not anything can be studied as a science, without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing."

 

Also, let us examine the word "doctrine" - a "doctrine" is an effective dogma, a line of belief or rhetoric that is learned and cannot be questioned. As the quote below shows, scientific method is not a doctrine or dogma because it is a Science, something based entirely on collaborative, peer-reviewed, highly critical studies and pieces. If ultimate proof suddenly emerged that there was definitely a God (and it was proven through rigorous testing and methodology), yes, I would believe in God because it is known to be true. I personally think that religion is an unpleasant thing at best and humanity's most terrible mistake at worst; I also think that it has gone too far to redeem itself, due to the fact that the very concept of an omnipotent, all-seeing God has damaged the human psyche awfully. When I was told as a child that God could hear all my dissenting thoughts, that terrified me. I had no freedom, it was all an illusion. When I came of age and read Nineteen Eighty-Four, the concept of Thoughtcrime chilled me because it was so real. I could empathize. And what of the lessons in faith schools? My mother teaches at one and she recalls a student frantically asking her, with real fear in his eyes, if masturbation was a carnal sin and would make him go blind or decry him to eternal fire. To force that kind of fear into the tender, unquestioning mind of a child, is disgusting, and as someone who once believed in Hell it fills me with repugnance.

 

How is "God is not Great convinced me quite comprehensively that religion was evil" not a crystal-clear example of indoctrination?

 

"Instruction in the scientific method, in particular, cannot properly be called indoctrination, in the sense that the fundamental principles of science call for critical self-evaluation and sceptical scrutiny of one's own ideas, a stance outside any doctrine."

[Tentacruel]

"Instruction in the scientific method, in particular, cannot properly be called indoctrination, in the sense that the fundamental principles of science call for critical self-evaluation and sceptical scrutiny of one's own ideas, a stance outside any doctrine."

 

Really? I'm not accusing you of doing it, but I've had people straight up call me a moron for questioning anything even remotely science-related instead merely explaining or arguing it. I don't think everyone actually practices that scrutiny to it's fullest intent.