A "knee-jerk militant agnostic"?

If someone is of sufficiently strong opinion on a matter to be militant or knee jerk about it, it's hard to imagine that they're "agnostic."

In any event, as a skeptic, I can't imagine being upset about Narnia (which I'd actually like to see, based on reviews). Or the Passion of the Christ, for that matter, though I've no intention of seeing it. I wasn't even bothered by the gay shepherd movie, though I've no intention of seeing that, either. I was simply amused by the utterly predictable media reaction to it, in which if it isn't a box-office success, it's because we're all homophobes, and if it is, it means that the nation is now all-accepting of gays, and ready to metaphorically walk down the aisle with them, sexuality notwithstanding.

I, too, am having trouble visualizing a "knee-jerk agnostic."

From the viewpoint of return on investment, it appears that the gay shepard movie (Brokeback Mountain) and the Narnia movie both managed to gross their respective production costs in the first 3 weeks; in fact the shepards came out slightly ahead. Of course, in terms of sheer numbers, $209 million (Narnia) is a helluva lot more than $10 million (shepards). Some audiences are just bigger than others; even a newspaper reporter should be able to compare those two numbers.

Narnia's 'war' scene is pretty amazing set out all by itself as an example of CGI.

Hard to see Brokeback Mountain being a once-a-year-classic on network TV 10 years from now.

It is possible to have an agnostic position and think that those who believe a question knowable (no matter what the answer) are all being equally stupid. Those willing to say so might be militant. Those who usually didn't but snap occasionally under pressure just might fit his description.

Agnosticism gets confused occasionally with those who can't make up their mind. The core agnostics have made up their mind and consider a question unknowable/unanswerable. The wishy-washy ones are probably the ones you are thinking about.

I intend to go see the movie. I've learned to live in my minority and still appreciate good art.

In the Time-Life series on Science I read when young (and re-read later too) there's a book called "The Scientist". An example was presented of how scientists are "agnostic" involved a frog specialist who was asked to lead a group where you had to be both a frog specialist and a catholic. The book relates how his first act as head was to dismantle the group, stating "There are no Catholic frogs!". I think that qualifies and frankly, I'd like to see more of it. Like the head of one of those women/minority only science/engineering societies dismantling the group on the basis that there are no female/minority electrons.

I interpet that phrase as refering to those that have made up their minds on a subject, but lack the integrity to admit it, even to themselves. Several of your usenet opponents would seem to fill that bill. I'm sure you can picture several of them claiming to be agnostic about commercial spaceflight, while rabidly attacking it.

CORRECTION: In my previous comment, I claimed that the "gay shepard" movie had reached the break-even point in box-office gross after 3 weeks. I goofed up, and didn't catch my mistake--understating the production cost--until looking at today's box office figures. That movie has only grossed 75% of production costs so far. Guess I was being a "knee-jerk statistician."

As an atheist, I must say that Narnia was a fine film. Aslam can be seen as a Christ figure, or he could be seen as one of many mythic figures parallel to the biblical Christ, imagined from thousands of years before Jesus to the present time. Narnia is more archetypal than Christian. That won't stop christians from identifying with the story.

You're right that the totally predictable media has lost its collective mind. To become a journalist, it is said, one must first fail a series of simple intelligence tests. Then one may be admitted to journalism school.

I sometimes describe myself as a "fundamentalist agnostic" to watch people's (especially left-wing people's) head explode. It isn't as big a oxymoron as "civil war", but it's up there.

Rand,
Alfred more or less hit on what I meant by the term. The phrase "I don't know, and neither do YOU!" comes to mind...

Yes I have met people like that. The statement was meant to be at least mildly amusing though, and seems to have succeeded.

Well, the problem with the word "militant" is that it really means someone who's willing to engage in violence for their beliefs. (The other problem with it is that it's become a euphemism in much of the MSM for terrorist.)

Would verbal violence count? I know some folks who do that.

No. There's no such thing as "verbal violence," which is another oxymoron. The fact that some words are hurtful to some people doesn't make them "violence," despite the desire to redefine the language by many on the post-modern left.

I'm pretty hard core, as secularists go, and I used to be a fan of Lewis. It wasn't sectarian enough to bother me as the former, and it was too faithful a reproduction of the book to bother that part of me which still cares for the latter.

I was more tweaked, this time, by the reminder that there were TWO scenes of some stranger saying "come sit by me, little girl/boy and enjoy some candy". Uh, okay, Clive. And they say Lewis Carroll was a little pervy.

I saw Narnia with my family a week ago. It's hard to imagine this film being more of a Christmas favorite than Harry Goblet and the Potty of Fire.

I used to describe myself as a devout agnostic, but now I'm a lapsed agnostic. I found a believe structure which makes sense to me.