Militant atheist Daniel Radcliffe

[rug]

By: Bang Showbiz
Posted: 02/11/2012 5:00 AM

Daniel Radcliffe is a "militant atheist".

The 22-year-old star was brought up in a Christian/Jewish household, but believes it is important to separate religion and education because he thinks sex lessons are important.

He told attitude magazine: "I'm not religious, I'm an atheist, and a militant atheist when religion starts impacting on legislation.

"We need sex education in schools. Schools have to talk to kids from a young age about relationships, gay and straight. In Britain it's better - more of a conversation is being had."

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/arts-and-life/entertainment/celebrities/militant-atheist-daniel-radcliffe-139147159.html

"It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live." Spoken by Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

Although it is possible to do both.

[Owlet]

1. Of course he's an atheist

He's a friggin wizard, for Pete's sake.

[DCKit]

2. No wonder he's so well grounded. nt

[humblebum]

5. Very young, incredibly wealthy, and a member of the societal elite -

yes, that is certainly grounded in the matters of everyday social realities SARCASM. But, at least now we know that militant atheists really do exist.

[DCKit]

6. You've missed the other, recent posts about young Daniel.

Your loss.

[humblebum]

7. You are right, I did and he has some very admirable qualities indeed:

"I think, if you make a lot more money than most people -- like I do -- you should pay more tax and subsidise people who work just as hard as you, but don't earn as much," Radcliffe said.

[edhopper]

8. Like a Roosevelt

or Kennedy.

[humblebum]

9. But they were not hardly anti-religious, nor "militant" atheists. nt

[edhopper]

10. You said

"Very young, incredibly wealthy, and a member of the societal elite -
yes, that is certainly grounded in the matters of everyday social realities" SARCASM.

So you can be wealthy and a member of the societal elite, but only be grounded in everyday social realities if you are religious as well?

[humblebum]

11. Where did I say that? I merely pointed to an obvious distinction.nt

[edhopper]

12. That they were religious

and Radcliff is not. So what is the point of making that distinction?

[humblebum]

13. When the point is made that Radcliff is a "militant" atheist, then the distinction

is certainly not unwarranted.

[edhopper]

14. But you questioned his empathy because he was

"Very young, incredibly wealthy, and a member of the societal elite"
I pointed to others who were the same and cared about social needs.
You said, they weren't atheists.
So i ask again, What does being religious or an atheist have to do with your questioning his empathy for those in need.
What is the point of your distinction. Do you think that those in the social elite can only care if they are religious.
If not why make the distinction?
Can you answer that simple quetions?

[humblebum]

16. I made no distinctions that were not made apparent in the original op. Why

then did you mention Roosevelts and Kennedys?

[edhopper]

18. Fruitless

What do you say folks?
Is he being deliberately obtuse, or is just not swift enough to understand what I see as a simple question.

[cleanhippie]

21. Yes and yes.

[cleanhippie]

17. ed, you should just quit while you are still ahead.

He is just trying to drag you onto his merry-go-round, circular logic bullshit.

Or you can borrow my brick wall.


Save yourself some frustration and punch out while you can.

[edhopper]

19. Yeah

not even getting circular bullshit, just a refusal to address a simple question.
No point to go on.

[skepticscott]

20. People arguing from deeply flawed premises

often find themselves backed into those types of corners. Refusal to answer simple and direct questions is almost epidemic among the religionistas and apologists here.

[humblebum]

22. You made the original comparison between Radcliff and the Roosevelts and Kennedys.

It is certainly germane to the conversation to also point out the differences. I am not familiar with Radcliff's family and heritage, but was his family also extremely wealthy going back several generations? So you think yours is the only logical comparison? Interesting.

[edhopper]

23. ferchristsake

[humblebum]

26. Well then if the only criteria for this discussion is that the Roosevelts and Kennedys

were like Radcliff in that they were all young, wealthy, social elites who empathized with those less fortunate, then Al Capone would fit that category, too. I suppose that there are many who fit that very equivocal comparison. He was in his 20's, wealthy, and gave heavily to many charitable causes.

[darkstar3]

24. Do you really think a post like this

shouts anything to anyone reading this thread other than "look at me, I'm dishonest!"?

When exactly did you give up even a semblance of engaging in discussion?

[humblebum]

25. No, actually everything said is true as far as I can see. nt

[edhopper]

27. Did you think that Radcliff could not be grounded in societal realities

because he is young, wealthy and socialy elite?
Because that is what you said.

[humblebum]

28. Let's just say that I would find it very difficult to believe that that is

the case to any degree other than a superficial interest.

[laconicsax]

29. And why is that?

[edhopper]

31. So I point to the Kennedys and Roosevelts

who were also wealthy and of the social elite. And he says they were religious. So I say "do you mean you can't have empathy if you are an atheist?" And he just says, "I was just making the distinction." And I say "What was the point of your distinction, if not what I infered?" But he doesn't answer that either. And it goes on and on.

[humblebum]

32. You sure spend a lot of time repeating yourself. nt

[edhopper]

34. Kettle meet black

:

[mr blur]

35. Well, at least they said something worth repeating. You, on the other hand,

never do.

And yet you repeat it endlessly.

[skepticscott]

15. No, all we know is that

even a lot of atheists don't recognize the difference between atheism and anti-theism, or at least are sloppy about making the distinction, including young Mr. Radcliffe. He may indeed be a militant anti-theist, but even that may be overstating things.

[edhopper]

3. Yes

when pedophile enabling Bishops start telling us what the law has to be, we need you be militant secularists

[roguevalley]

4. I was raised Christian and am a spiritualist. I am also a militant Christian/spiritualist

when it comes to politics and religion or sex education coming together. There is separation for a damned good reason.

[LeftishBrit]

30. Note that what he actually said...

is that he was a 'militant atheist WHEN RELIGION STARTS IMPACTING ON LEGISLATION'.

He is not saying that people should not be allowed to go to church or pray, or that all religious people are bad or stupid, etc.

He is saying that he is militantly against religious groups or people forcing their views into law.

Since he refers specifically to laws on sex education, he's probably talking about this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jan/20/nadine-dorries-sexual-abstinence-bill-withdrawn



Nadine Dorries, one of our most revolting MPs and relatively few English Christian Right politicians, had proposed a bill to give lessons on the benefits of abstinence specifically to teenage girls (apparently boys either never have sex or don't need to be abstinent). Fortunately the bill did not gather much support and was withdrawn.

The knee-jerk responses to the phrase 'militant atheist' have no place here; it is about strong opposition to imposing religiously-based moral rules into law.

[skepticscott]

33. Except that there are some here

for whom reading the phrase "militant atheist" (however idiotic it is) is akin to a bull seeing a cape waved in front of them. They just have a to make a heedless, snorting charge at it, with no comprehension required.