So first Dumbledore was gay and now Harry’s an atheist!? Next, Hermione’s going to be shooting heroin with Lindsey Lohan! And Ron will have a collection of dead hobos in his backyard.
The Examiner reports:
Though many people have suspected that Daniel Radcliffe is an atheist for some time now, he confirmed it in an interview with Esquire according to a report published on the Telegraph Web site. The Harry Potter star said:
I’m an atheist, but I’m very relaxed about it. I don’t preach my atheism, but I have a huge amount of respect for people like Richard Dawkins who do. Anything he does on television, I will watch.He went on to say, jokingly:
There we go, Dan, that’s half of America that’s not going to see the next Harry Potter film on the back of that comment.
This can’t be too much of a shock. I mean, the kid was naked on stage at 17. That’s doesn’t really indicate a strong religious upbringing to me.
Hey, I can’t help but think that when I was twenty I said a lot stupider things than that. I thought Tears for Fears were the greatest band ever. I thought Ayn Rand had a cohesive individual philosophy. Look, Daniel Radcliffe has a lot of life to live and a lot to learn.
But I guess for Radcliffe for now, God is the real “He who must not be named.”
July 6, 2009 at 11:54 pm
One more thing. For all of Richard Dawkins greatness he can't possibly destroy religion. His arguments are too 'up there' for most religious minds. This book REPLACES the myth of Jesus with a historically plausible (at least according to my rational thought processes – maybe you're just smarter than me – or maybe you won't let yourself think or delve into certain things I don't know).
We all want the same thing I think. Here is one way to get there
July 6, 2009 at 11:58 pm
The funny thing about so many evangelical atheists is how willing they are to call religious folks stupid.
I don't know if it's a rich vein of stupid, willful blindness, or just ignorance…. Oh well, who cares?
July 7, 2009 at 12:07 am
It's all about superiority. Regardless of the state of existence, life, relationship of the individual, they can have a momentary sense of superiority thinking "they" have the right answer; whether it be Christianity, Islam, Atheism etc.
Incidentally, if we as Christians EVER feel this, we should be doing severe penance, since faith is nothing we earned or accomplished. It is a gift. Nothing to be proud or superior about.
July 7, 2009 at 12:15 am
"Poor Harry…if there's nothing else to live for beyond this life, nothing to truly fight for, why does he fight so hard?"
Couldn't be the lives and welfare of his family and friends, could it?
July 7, 2009 at 12:19 am
Since the only family he has, he doesn't much care for, that's out… as for friends, that's a rather small group and can't account for his actions.
It'd be like saying that we have children so we can make doll toys….
July 7, 2009 at 12:50 am
Sort of a silly argument, as Daniel Radcliffe is the atheist, not Harry. But since we started:
"Since the only family he has, he doesn't much care for"
And yet he worked to save their lives.
"as for friends, that's a rather small group and can't account for his actions."
Really now?
The Weasley family, arguably Harry's adoptive family, contains 9…including a surrogate mother, his best friend and the girl he loves.
Then throw in Hermione Granger, Neville Longbottom, Luna Lovegood, Dean Thomas, Seamus Finnegan, Minerva McGonagall, Kingsley Shacklebolt, Remus Lupin and Tonks…
Shall I go on?
Speaking as an atheist myself, my family and friends are more than enough to inspire me to fight for my our lives and our freedoms. So why couldn't they be enough for Harry?
But again, as the stories involve Harry visiting an afterlife and conversing with dead people, I highly doubt he's an atheist.
July 7, 2009 at 1:34 am
And yet he worked to save their lives.
Eventually, yes. Because it was the right thing to do, and because they *did* save his life– as horrible as they are.
In your words:
inspire me to fight for my our lives and our freedoms.
But does it inspire you to fight for those who hate you?
Which Harry does?
BTW, even if we expand it to "everyone Harry has ever met"– that's still a tiny group, in relation to only those living in GB.
July 7, 2009 at 1:59 am
Stuart,
"The Real Messiah"? Who's starring in that one? Tom Hanks???
"For all of Richard Dawkins greatness he can't possibly destroy religion. His arguments are too 'up there' for most religious minds"
No, Richard Dawkins isn't 'up there' in his sentiments, he is 'up yours' with his sentiments. It's a great practice in Christian love to continue to pray for that man's soul!
July 7, 2009 at 3:16 am
I can top all of your assertions of immaturity…
I voted for Dukakis my first eligible election. What the??? Yeah, did a lot of growing in wisdom in the last 20+ years.
Man, maybe I should go listen to some Tears for Fears while watching Xanadu and Mannequin to make up for that!!!
July 7, 2009 at 4:30 am
Lori, go easy on yourself. At least, have a glass of wine before you do those three things.
July 7, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Oh, wait, did I imply with my comment that CMR ever has seventh-grade humor? I didn't mean to. You guys are hilarious, in a very non-seventh-grade way. Gah. That's what I get for leaving comments while ridiculously tired.
July 7, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Stuart, I think it comes down to who do you want to believe. Anyone can write a book and gather "evidence" to discount or promote this or that. Look at "objective" scientists in labs all over the world. Same old same old.
If the Gospels were a hoax then who ever wrote them must have been the most extraordinary thinker who ever walked the planet.
July 7, 2009 at 4:30 pm
"This book REPLACES the myth of Jesus with a historically plausible (at least according to my rational thought processes – maybe you're just smarter than me – or maybe you won't let yourself think or delve into certain things I don't know)."
This reminds me of a professor I had last summer. He taught that all Christian symbolism, including the robes of priests and the steeples of churches, were copied from fertility cults. I sat in awe as he showed how the triangle symbol of the Trinity was really just a vagina.
Of course, I asked the learnéd man where he discovered this fascinating information. The first was a book by a University of Michigan professor from the '50s – a book without shoddy footnotes and references to disproved myths (e.g. Catherine the Great's death by bestiality). When I asked around my alma mater, I was told that professor published only one book and it wasn't very good, but he was popular because students enjoyed hearing about the sexual exploits of historical people, such as Cleopatra's training in the arts of love. (Or luuuuurve.)
The second book was from the early 20th century, which the professor freely admitted was incorrect on sexual reproduction but ABSOLUTELY correct on religion. Well, I got one look at that book and I salivated. It is an erotica book thinly disguised as scientific treatise. It has page after page of naked women (except for a belt and a pseudo-Egyptian headdress) and the occasional white man dressed as a high priest. No doubt it made it past the censors of the time, based on its scientific merit.
Now THAT is the reason that Dawkins has been unsuccessful in convincing people of atheism's merits: He simply isn't sexy enough.
-MissJean
July 7, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Jen, we took it as a compliment.
July 7, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Wow, stuart is actually for real?
Um…
So, Christianity is proved a lie based on a single inscription found on a stolen article of dubious historical autheniticity?
Really?
What does Dan Brown have to say about this? Is Indiana Jones somehow involved?
Pull the other one, it has bells on.
Seriously, stuart, I'm a falled away Catholic/current agnostic, but the church and I did not part company on something so flimsy.