Harry Potter's An Atheist?
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: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.
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.
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."
35 comments:
And it reveals how little he understands the half of America that he thinks wouldn't see the movie.
As a recent college graduate... I think a lot of modern young people almost feel like it's something they have to do- it's a certain amount of Grown-Up-Ness or sophistication to have moved beyond God (as if it were possible). Let's not give up hope yet!
The irony in your title though is that JK Rowling has actually imbued her series with quite a lot of Christian teaching and imagery (NOT obviously the spellcasting or Dumbledore's (seemingly chaste) sexuality- is that sufficient to ward off the curses of the Harry-wary?).
"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."
Tears for Fears? There we go Matthew, that's half of this blog's viewing public that's not going to read tomorrow's posts. hahaha!
Just kidding!
I also thought REO Speedwagon was great.
Wow! I just read the greatest atheist manifesto ever written. Seriously. It's called the Real Messiah:
http://www.amazon.com/Real-Messiah-Throne-Origins-Christianity/dp/1906787123/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246864135&sr=8-1
It's written by a Jewish writer who found proof in a number of ancient sources that Jesus never claimed to be the messiah. It was all made up by later Christians in Rome to distract from the truth that threatened to overtake the whole Empire.
You see there was this Jewish king named Marcus Julius Agrippa. He was the St. Mark who wrote the gospel. He wrote the gospel secretly to have Jesus announce HIM as the messiah. Then the Roman authorities caught wind of what was going on and then cut Agrippa out of the gospel.
Don't you see!!! It's all a big lie - even the biggest lie in history. Jesus never claimed to be what all these people now say he was. They have been fooled by a second century editorial effort that still goes undetected.
How is Huller so sure of this conspiracy? He found an ancient throne in Venice which Italian sailors stole from the most ancient Church of St. Mark in Alexandria in the ninth century. The author proves that the throne goes back much further than that - i.e. all the way to the beginning of Christianity in Egypt.
In any event the throne has Hebrew letters and symbols which prove the real story of Christianity and how the modern Church is one big fake.
The throne is real. Here are pictures of the throne:
http://www.therealmessiahbook.blogspot.com
You can look it up with Google. It's a real object. But now the game is up. Christianity is proved to be a big lie and the world will never be the same again.
It's so great to be on the winning side at last! I've got to tell everyone.
All I got to say is that you got to read this book. This is the straw that breaks the back of the Church.
Greeeeat.
Although we all should have seen the Dumbledore thing coming: Albus Dumbledore is an anagram of "Male bods rule, bud" (pointed out by some journalist at the time that bomb was dropped). I may never stop laughing about that.
Anyway, now that I've filled the CMR quota of seventh-grade humor for the day, off to read your other posts...
7th grade!? That's an insult. We're shooting for second grade. Well, I guess we've been getting a little too brainy over here. Time to lower the standards yet again.
Should we break out the butter beers for Stuart? He sounds so very happy that a religion that teaches we should love our neighbors as ourselves is false.
i'm in my 20s now and think REO Speedwagon is great...and my best friendship is founded on the ever-wonderful mmmbopping of Hanson.
Ah well.
Poor Harry...if there's nothing else to live for beyond this life, nothing to truly fight for, why does he fight so hard?
Tears for Fears is not the greatest band ever?
Sadly, this story is not a big shocker and I highly doubt his profession of atheism will harm box office receipts any more than his role in Equus.
Stuart finally read a book and it has made him quite gleeful, he thinks after 2000 years he has the found the real answer,haha,
hope he keeps in mind most will find an answer they want, not always the right one though.
Meh, another lazy atheist.
I'll take my angry agnostic friends any day--at least they have a simi-coherent philosophy that doesn't involve insisting that 99% of everyone who ever lived is an idiot, or that they're some of the select few who have seen through a great conspiracy...conducted in another language... thousands of years ago.
I thought Marxism was cool and thought communism would solve all our problems when i was 17 or 18. Mea Culpa
matthew I don't know if you knew at the time or not, but not only are Roland Orzabal and Curt Smith avowed atheists, they were very leftist in their philosophy. You can hear it throughout their lyrics in songs from the big chair. But don't take it too hard. I used to like hardcore rap, and while the lyrics aren't very communist leaning, they are...less than noble.
I liked Xanadu...what you gonna do?
Is there anything to Stuart's claim?
SK - it's entirely hogwarts... uhm, hogWASH.
SherryTex - I liked the soundtrack, anyway. But I can say that because half of America already ignores my blog, give or take the other half.
Am I the only one who never even considered that Stuart was serious? That was so tongue-in-cheek!
So was it, or was it not? I often struggle with doubt when books like the one he mentioned come out?
No I hate to admit it but I was being serious. I believe that we will never get rid of religion until we understand it ON ITS OWN TERMS. Too many atheists simply dismiss religion as being 'dumb.' I really think the author has presented a plausible explanation of the origin of Christianity. If you don't want to look for an explanation (or if you are simply self-satisfied with repeating that religion is dumb, dumb, dumb and its followers are dumb, dumb, dumb. You should really check out this book.
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
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?
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.
"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?
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....
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.
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.
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!
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!!!
Lori, go easy on yourself. At least, have a glass of wine before you do those three things.
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.
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.
"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
Jen, we took it as a compliment.
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.
Post a Comment