"Bendy-buses, like atheism, are a danger to the public at large"

[ATFC Seagull]

Church goers are just a bunch of c.u.n.t.s....FACT!

Bet you don't say that around your fellow "cules".

 

[ATFC Seagull]

I note that one of the things religous groups are offering this week is denying the women of Northern Ireland any control over their own bodies.

Stop religion living off my taxes and end it's privileges and state sponsored propaganda then we can start the debate again.

Religion has tax breaks because it takes part in charitable acts, and is treated the same as other charities.

As for the "control of their own bodies" point, thats another debate for another time, but I think the debate goes beyond a) blaming religous types and b) the simplistic way in which you phrase it.

 

[beorhthelm]

But Stephen Green of pressure group Christian Voice said: "Bendy-buses, like atheism, are a danger to the public at large.

"I should be surprised if a quasi-religious advertising campaign like this did not attract graffiti.

"People don't like being preached at. Sometimes it does them good, but they still don't like it."

did a religious spokeman really say that? oh the irony. and stupidity.

What I WOULD like to ask, however, is what the purpose of this campaign would be?

Religions that advertise are not trying to convert as such ... However this advert seems to seek purely to UNDERMINE the other religous adverts, as opposed to doing something constructive.

the purpose is to highlight that we dont need religion. no faith has answered any of the real questions of humans over the centuries and insitutions of the Abrahamic faiths have actualy tried to limit and restrain human endevour outside of their control. Of course religious adverts are trying to sell themselfs to new converts or unsure, interested person to buy their product. This athiest advert is not any different, aiming at agnostics, it doesnt undermine anything. Does advertising Mercedes doesnt undermine BMW? deconstructing the perception that religious beliefs and faiths are some how important to mankind is very constructive, freeing people from religious doctrine thats has concerned itself with power and control. your personal religious believes might not bare much relation to this, if you arrived at a belief by independent thought then so be it. but the institutions that afford and pay for advertising are only concerned with power and i for one am glad someone is starting to make an assertive stand against this.

 

[Juan Albion]

Gotta love Dawkins' "thinking is anathema to religion" quote. What a complete thicko he is. I mean, religious people probably spend a hundred times more time thinking seriously about these issues than the average non-religious. He loves to promote the idea that somehow religious people lack free will and just blindly accept everything that someone tells them. That simply isn't the case. It would be quite scary if I thought people simply accepted everything I say in my sermons. We retain our brains, believe it or not, and we use them.

On the other hand, it would be easy to suggest that atheism is for those who lack the depth of intelligence to grapple with profound spiritual issues. But that would be equally untrue in many cases, I'm sure.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

The phrase that pisses me off the most is 'lead a good Christian life'. Intimating that you need to be a Christian to follow the rightful path.

 

[withdeanwombat]

Science deals with evidence, there is no empirical evidence for the existence of God(s) therefore they probably don't exist - unless further evidence turns up, presumably something along the lines of the omnipotent beardy one coming out from under the staircase and asking whether the game of hide and seek is over yet and has he won?

What is Dick Knight doing under the staircase?

 

[Barrel of Fun]

I mean, religious people probably spend a hundred times more time thinking seriously about these issues than the average non-religious.

I have often thought it were the other way round, but then it may be that both sides will never agree.

From a personal point of view, I read the bible everyday at prep school (7-13). Attended Chapel twice a week at my boarding school (13-18) and studied RE from 7-18. I think there are those that think seriously on the matter from both sides and those that don't on both sides. It is very easy to blindly accept something.

From a scientific point of view, I think there is a great deal more thought that goes into the creation of the Universe then blindly accepting that some apparition created earth - no question's asked.

 

[clapham_gull]

And since when did Christians ever get a free ride? Take a look on this thread with the sneery comments about religion.

When they die they get a free ride to heaven I think, except in America where you have to have pre-paid some of insurance, else you go to hell.

 

[butchy]

Why does Dawkins feel the need to challenge religion so much? For a lot of people it is a hope that they might get to see lost loved ones again one day or just a guide on how to live a decent life and be a 'good' person. Why does he feel the need to try to shatter peoples hopes that there is something else after death?

 

[DTES]

On the other hand, it would be easy to suggest that atheism is for those who lack the depth of intelligence to grapple with profound spiritual issues. But that would be equally untrue in many cases, I'm sure.

It would be very easy to suggest, but I'd take offence if someone did suggest it. The truth is that there are plenty who are intelligent and think deeply and profoundly on both sides - and there are blind sheep on both sides too.

To answer the question surrounding the bus adverts though, although there may be individuals who see this as a way to bash at the religious, I don't think that will be the main effect...

I think it would be fair to assume that there are plenty of people out there who will spot the advert, think "Ooh, yeah I think that too", but have never heard of the BHA. If this increases interest, then it's no worse than any advert for a religious organisation, is it?

 

[Zeke Rowe's shoes]

NSC and "religion" don't get on. How many threads have there been like this one back to the footie....

hmmm. 0-0. :thud:

 

[ATFC Seagull]

did a religious spokeman really say that? oh the irony. and stupidity.



the purpose is to highlight that we dont need religion. no faith has answered any of the real questions of humans over the centuries and insitutions of the Abrahamic faiths have actualy tried to limit and restrain human endevour outside of their control. Of course religious adverts are trying to sell themselfs to new converts or unsure, interested person to buy their product. This athiest advert is not any different, aiming at agnostics, it doesnt undermine anything. Does advertising Mercedes doesnt undermine BMW? deconstructing the perception that religious beliefs and faiths are some how important to mankind is very constructive, freeing people from religious doctrine thats has concerned itself with power and control. your personal religious believes might not bare much relation to this, if you arrived at a belief by independent thought then so be it. but the institutions that afford and pay for advertising are only concerned with power and i for one am glad someone is starting to make an assertive stand against this.

I don't think I've explained my point clearly, but I understand what you mean.

My point is, religous adverts are trying to attract people to DO SOMETHING, which in practically all cases (fundamentalists aside), is positive. Theres nothing at all wrong with not participating in such things, but an atheist advert surely is attracting people to DO NOTHING - which is hardly constructive.

If this was some sort of atheist charity, along the lines of "lets celebrate our point of view and do something good for the world", then fair play, but to try and tempt people away from religion for no reason other than you don't believe in it yourself seems a bit, well, strange and unproductive.

 

[DTES]

My point is, religous adverts are trying to attract people to DO SOMETHING, which in practically all cases (fundamentalists aside), is positive. Theres nothing at all wrong with not participating in such things, but an atheist advert surely is attracting people to DO NOTHING - which is hardly constructive.

If this was some sort of atheist charity, along the lines of "lets celebrate our point of view and do something good for the world", then fair play, but to try and tempt people away from religion for no reason other than you don't believe in it yourself seems a bit, well, strange and unproductive.

I disagree completely, as I say above, the advert isn't for "no good reason other than..." at all.

"Good for the world" is, quite obviously, a matter of opinion, and in the opinion of the BHA it's campaigns would improve the world. The current activity is to campaign for:

· freedom of belief and respect for the non-religious, including recognition of humanist views on a wide range of issue;

· an end to discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, whether in marriage law, the workplace, or the provision of public services;

· an end to religious privilege;

· inclusive schools where children with parents of all faiths and none learn to understand and respect each other, instead of being segregated in the growing number of faith and sectarian schools;

· impartial, fair and balanced education about religion and beliefs, with an emphasis on shared human values;

· school assemblies without religious worship.

Regardless of whether you agree with them or not, the advert is not for no good reason. If you see it and agree, join the cause. If you don't, don't.

 

[DJ Leon]

Gotta love Dawkins' "thinking is anathema to religion" quote. What a complete thicko he is. I mean, religious people probably spend a hundred times more time thinking seriously about these issues than the average non-religious.

And they end up believing in an imaginary friend whose existence there is no proof of. Whereas those pesky non-religious scientists develop theories about our existence which can be tested and proved. Which group has contributed more to our human understanding?

 

[Biscuit]

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

You wanna try being an atheist in the States.........

In general I really like the Yanks - but the current election really shows this countries obsession with religious dogma. No Presidential candidate would ever dare admit to being an atheist - it would be political suicide. Palin seriously believes the earth is only 5,000 years old and every political debate or speech ends with the throwaway statement 'God Bless America" - does that mean all the other countries are screwed ?

There are about 20 tele-evangelist channels all after your cash - as the late, great George Carlin said "there is this all powerful, all knowing, all seeing being and he always needs money !"

But maybe things are starting to slowly change - a film called "Religulous" by Bill Mahler (an agnostic) has just been released - not sure if it will get to the UK. It's been shown at the big Multipexes , not just the niche cinemas, and is getting pretty good attendances and reviews - not that long ago the theatres would probably have been petrol bombed in some states. It attacks the whole of religion in general, but Mahler does it without the agression and arrogance of Dawkins - he uses humour and gives his interviewees enough rope to hang themselves, which most proceed to do. Because of this it will probably have more effect. Great film - watch it if you get the chance.

 

[Bluejuice]

Anyone listening to the debate on this on FiveLive now with Richard Bacon?

Left the radio on after Danny Baker's phone in.

Anyway, the Christian who is fighting against the atheist bus ads is an absolute embarrassment. He point blank refuses to entertain anybody elses opinions on this matter and simply laughs when challenged on anything, then when backed into a corner starts pulling out all the emotive bollocks giving it all that about women "murdering" their unborn children by having the right to choose abortion.

Utterly pathetic.

I am 100% behind this idea to run the ads which clearly aren't offensive BUT I am mature enough to appreciate some people don't feel the same way and if they want to believe differently that's up to them. We all have the right to our own opinion but to blindly refuse to even acknowledge that your view might not be 100% right is deeply sad.

Any sensible Christians (if such a thing exists) would recognise that the rights of atheists to express their beliefs really does make little difference to their religion. All this fuss they are determined to kick up does them far more harm.

How can you take these morons seriously?

Surely there must be Christians out there who are shaking their heads at the sheer mockery some of their own are making of the whole situation

 

[Biscuit]

Just in case this thread starts to lull after we 'agree to disagree' about the possible (or not) existance of an imaginary friend that a) talks to you b) wants you to eat/drink his/her/its symbolic remains of flesh and blood every Sunday for the rest of your life c) refuses to provide evidence of his/hers/its existance in any measurable way, maybe we could talk about:

9/11
Deaths during Haj (Hajj) from poor crowd control
Middle-East crisis (aprox. 2600 years and running)
Televangelists who own diamond mines
The holocaust/WWII
The Albigensian Crusade (1209-1255)
The Sack of Constantinople
The Holy Crusades
Selling Papal Indulgences
Witch burnings
Attempted genocide of Amerinds in N. and S. America
Henry VIII
The idea of Personal responsibility
Transplants

no?

Didn't think so.

You side with cattle sacrificing primitives who thought that every animal species in the world lived within walking distance of Noahs house, believed the world was flat and they could produce rain/sun by sporting a glass skirt and dancing like a prat..

I'll side with science.

 

[Biscuit]

You wanna try being an atheist in the States.........

They have 'IN GOD WE TRUST' on their money.

We have Darwin.


Makes ya proud doesn't it.

 

[beorhthelm]

... an atheist advert surely is attracting people to DO NOTHING - which is hardly constructive.

the underlying point is to raise awarness and engage the silent majority that are convienence believers, agnositic or atheist that we dont need to be subservient to relgious doctrine anymore. the vocal religious have a disproportionate power and influence in our world and some feel its time that was rebalanced. now you probably dont agree with that, but that the purpose. It would seem that you perceive this as unproductive for no rational reason, simply that it is against your believes. I could say exactly the same for religious missionaries trying to "spread the word", that they do nothing productive other than swell the numbers for their group.