GarthP2000

(((clap clap clap))) WHOOO HOOO!! Way to go Raf!!

Zix, Apparently you still miss the point I made earlier. If you are strictly talking from a numerical standpoint (ie., number of gods: range 0 - n) then you'd be correct in atheism being a religion. However, since the dictionary definition encompasses far more than dealing with number of dieties, your usage falls short. In atheism, it isn't simply "we believe in x=0 number of god(s)", it goes further. Atheists don't believe in *any* kind of supernatural world: ie., no devil, no angels, no 'sprites', no elves, no Santa Claus, no Easter Bunny, no spiritual entities of any kind. It goes beyond simple numerics. Its the whole field of supernatural/spiritual/beyond the laws of physical nature that atheism rejects. Ie., if you can't prove it by scientific means, then it just ain't there or we just don't believe it. And who here made any point as to atheism being or trying to be made a state religion, hmmm? Not me or anyone I've noticed. Try again. <_<

Zix, Look down at the bottom of each of your posts and take a gander at your tagline. It sez "I am not responsible if you didn't bother to read the whole thing...". Well, you didn't bother to read 'the whole thing' in my post. Ie., "Might I say, as many atheists just aren't that *zealous* in their atheism, with the possible exception that they just want to have fundies get off their back in trying to 'save them', and not have their non-belief rendered as e-v-i-l by the public at large.". There! There is our zealotry! Our 'dogma'. S-o-o, does that make us a 'religion'? If so, where do I go to get the proper 501( c ) forms making me exempt from taxes, please? Lifted, See point 4 in the definition that I got from Dictionary.com. Also notice that that alone does nothing to make atheism any more a religion.

Strictly speaking, Zixar's numerical comparison usage would be correct, _if_, and *only* if, we are going to use it in regards to the number of gods involved. However, let's see what dictionary.com has to say, which might shed some further light on the meaning of religion: Now, if you really wanted to push it, definition number 4 might be appliceable here. Might I say, as many atheists just aren't that *zealous* in their atheism, with the possible exception that they just want to have fundies get off their back in trying to 'save them', and not have their non-belief rendered as e-v-i-l by the public at large. ... Kinda hard to have that shown to be a 'religious experience', ehhh? *Glow-ree*!!Or, here's another comperable usage for you Zix, in reverse. But seriously, the fact that atheism/agnosticism deals with the rejection of a god/gods fails in making it a religion, far more than it succeeds in linking it as one, because it goes no farther than the simple rejection/non-acceptance of said spiritual being. And the reason why Mark's example fails, is that the cemetary administration of the VA was including the atheist symbol along with the others based on the legal standpoint of equal protection for all vets regarding religious related views, and should not be confused as an official dictionary definition of what a religion is or involves. (see said definition above) ... Nice try, Mark. <_<

I would say that the only way one could link atheism/agnosticism with being a religion, is in as far as dealing with the existance (or not) of God or a god(s). I've noticed that anything further in labeling atheism as a religion seems to be based on some deperate attempt to portray atheist viewpoints as being no different (faith-wise) from religious viewpoints, and as such to downplay any credibility of atheist challenges to religious beliefs.

Actually Goey, even tho' yours was a hypothetical question, my comment is still valid. You asked "If the content was along religious lines other than Evangelical Christian, would it have received the same rating?", and then included Catholic, Buddhist, agnostic, and atheist as examples of the different contents as part of your question. Thus giving this impression that if it were of those varieties, it most likely would not have gotten a PG or other harder rating than G. My 'dumb comment' was an example of how unlikely (from an atheist standpoint in any event) that would be. Read it again. ChattyKathy, Actually, I found the comic quite funny. Thanks for the !

A movie about atheists, ... getting a 'G' rating?? Yah! Right! ... Like that's gonna happen. <_< Next dumb question?

Reading it again: So you're basically including everybody from one end to another in how movies affect us? If so, my apologies for the misunderstanding. I was really confused by the wording of your post.

Chattykathy, So when you say 'red', I take it you mean communist or socialist? So if one is agnostic, then they are encouraging a pathetic state of mind? Simply because they, or even a good number of religious folks don't like being 'evangelized' during a movie? Frankly those of us with this particular state of mind (which you seem to regard as pathetic) regard this 'evangelistic' state of mind to be likewise pathetic, particularly when this evangelizing is accompanied with the distain for those who reject the evangelized message. Like I said, there are many (of whom I am a part) who would like to enjoy a movie w/o being preached to. Pathetic? ... Ehhhh, ((shrugs)) ... whatever! <_<

Oral Roberts? Has some semblence of respect?? :o Please! This is the same guy who pulled the "Either I get 8 million dollars, or God is gonna take me home" scam, ..... and lots of people actually bought this crap and sent the 8 mill in!!

:blink: Huh? But seriously, it looks like some people still have difficulty dealing with the fact that, culturally and religiously, America isn't the monolithic entity of the 50s that some would still wish it to be. ... Welcome to that cold reality. PG rating for an evangelistic religious flick gets some people's panties in a wad? Heh! As regards people like Jerry Falwell and his ranting about teletubbies, ... hell, I'd render at least an R rating (for being *obsene*) on him and his operation. Maybe some folks here would be glad that I'm not in charge of the MPAA, hmmmm?

Well, you mix a hellfire-and-brimstone and sex antics in a hotel room, then it does wind up in the same category. ... Hey, it worked for Jimmy Swaggart. :blink: Hey! If I wanted to be evangelized to, I'd go to a revival. But when I go to a movie, all I want is a flic with either well known celebrities (who can't act), or side splitting sick humor, or action packed mindless violence. ... You know, real all-American culture.

... and what if the evangelizing isn't shown in the review? Particularly if its written by someone who apparently like the film, wants others to see it, and doesn't want to turn people off by the evangelistic part of it, so they leave that part out of their review? Of course, it is a free country, and people can pay their dollars to see the flick, ... and come out pi**ed off cuz it **sucked**. (I've seen a few of those myself, ya know. ) (Just my IMHO, doncha know. ;) )

It'll be when AO-Hell **finally** cancels Raf's dial up service, after months and months and months of him harranguing them to do so, ... and as a consolation gift, offers him a coupon for pineapple pizza at his local Dominoes. ((ducking))

... or maybe the key word here isn't 'faith' or 'religion', but 'evangelizing'. Why? Because evangelizing is where faith or religion are advertised, communicated, even pushed on people, and some people don't appreciate when they and (especially) their kids being preached to, evangelized, while taking in a movie. There are, and have been plenty of movies where God, religion and faith are mentioned w/o the ((cough)) 'censorship' of a PG rating (Ohh WOW! Like _that's_ gonna inhibit people from seeing it <_< ) being tagged upon them. Damn, I oughtta work for Snopes.

((sigh)) It would appear so, Mark. And this helps illustrate the fact that it is the owners, more than the reporters/editors/talk show hosts/whatever other radio performers, that determine what program/agenda/propaganda gets aired. The owners aren't always 'dittoheads' (derogoratory name for conservatives), nor are they always 'commie leftists' (derogoratory name for liberals). I mean, look at Ted 'Mouth of the South' Turner. But I kinda doubt that all-too-often used tirade being used here like "Hey! It's what the public wants. It's what the market calls for." Not quite, particularly when across the country, Air America is sprouting like weeds, and its popularity is growing right along with it. And you take a city like Atlanta? I mean, we're not talking Scottsboro, Ala. here. Atlanta has a LOT of people who like shows like The Regular Guys (rock n' roll with some of that raunch talk), 99X (leading edge rock that hasn't gone mainstream yet), a lot of NPR afficienadoes, etc. So they can't bring up the "All we are getting here is a bunch of red-state, staunch conservative, NASCAR loving truck drivers who have their very own Ann Coulter blow up doll--err I mean, 'action figure'." argument. <_< Well, that's Yet One More Reason why internet radio is starting to supplant traditional radio nowadays. You can, with either a home internet connection, or more and more of internet radios on your I-pods, get around what will wind up being a short sighted decision by some Clear Communications knock-off. And it'll be only a matter of time before traditional radio goes the way of AM 60's rock stations. Probably either a Mix of Dubya's Greatest Quotes (gaffs), of Ann Coulter will finally get her own radio talk show. :wacko:

Mad magazine! A-yup! That's gotta be it. What? Me worry?

How about the stupidity award going to the chick who was actually brainless enough to sleep with him?

Countdown till Father's Day? :unsure:

..... Why Mark. You had to know that it just _had_ to be a ............ ......... ................... CONSPIRACY!!!

... I wish I had hair!

Conservatism of B.C. comic strips? Heh! Seems like the 'moral spread' of the concepts given don't go very far from the political/economic concepts themselves. Its almost like the political concepts guide, if not determine, morality itself, rather than the claim of 'morality determines your politics'. I also noticed how vague most of the questions were, and even that a few of them were confusing. That is not a good sign, honesty-wise. (I like that they set up a check box indicating that, so it does show _some_ honesty on their part.) Again, Yet Another Example of someone making politics into something more than what it really is, exhalting politics into a Moral Standard that allows self-righteous twits to use it to judge/deride other people by, and actually thinking that their 'God' approves of this. <_< What's next, God is to be determined to be a Republican or Democrat? BTW, this would make for an interesting end run around the concept of separation of church and state now, wouldn't it? Politics determine morals, ... which, of course, are determined by God, ... Thus we have a nice little 'acid test' for determining someone's godliness by what party loyalty they have.

You can't dig into the ground around the stump, and cut the stump away from its roots? If that is done, will it grow back? :unsure:

((shrugs)) Whatever. ... Six of one, half dozen of the other. ... Basically they are still going their way, and I'm going mine.

"See Forrest run. Run Forrest Run!!"