Christians hit back against the Atheist Bus Campaign
(Image may have nothing to do with the article)
*edit. lots of debate on this. I have my own views that I'm not goign to force on anyone. (if you really want to know more check my profile)
(
Crap Little Monkey Deathstar, so good they built it twice, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 13:31,
Reply)
Hmm
Given that the atheist ads were required to put the word 'probably' in to avoid problems with the ASA, how come the godbotherers get to say 'definitely' on theirs?
*Edited* - I just submitted a complaint. Anyone want to join me? www.asa.org.uk/asa/how_to_complain/complaints_form/
(
flatfrog Staring vacantly into space, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 13:42,
Reply)
Possibly because the statement there is definitely no god,
was proposed by a group who claimed scientific basis, therefore it was false advertising?
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 13:44,
Reply)
They have it in quotes
So perhaps they're claiming it's a quoted opinion, and not fact?
Unsure, but it's all quite amusing. Perhaps the atheits and god bothers could have it out in a giant snowball fight
(
LemonEntryMyDearWatson This time, Moriarty, the hand is on the other foot, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 13:48,
Reply)
The god botherers would win,
because they believe in stoning, and would just wrap snow round rocks :D
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 13:49,
Reply)
He only said Jehovah...
Aiiieeee!
(
LemonEntryMyDearWatson This time, Moriarty, the hand is on the other foot, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 13:50,
Reply)
why do you assume
that the word probably was just put in to please the ASA?
(
Sonic 2 and Knuckles, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 14:11,
Reply)
I don't assume that
They've said so repeatedly.
(
flatfrog Staring vacantly into space, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 15:23,
Reply)
I've put a complaint.
(
Kung_Fu_Russ ran out of amusing signatures on, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 15:07,
Reply)
This is always the result of forcing religious views
on a secular public! As far as I am concerned, the atheist bus campaign served as little purpose as a christian campaign would.
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 13:43,
Reply)
^
This.
I think that anyone is allowed to follow whatever belief system they want as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's rights. (or is Scientology, sorry but there is an exception to every rule)
(
Crap Little Monkey Deathstar, so good they built it twice, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 13:49,
Reply)
Pfft!
I myself am a catholic, but I would never try and force my beliefs on other people. If they asked me about it, I would be happy to talk to them about what I believe in and why. The problem is with these atheists, is that they don't seem to realise that they are as fundamental about their beliefs, as certain religious people are, thus contradicting their whole point.
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 13:50,
Reply)
That's why I'm a fundamentalist agnostic.
I don't have the answers, and neither does anyone else, because it is impossible to know.
(
Fishcat Difficult difficult lemon difficult., Thu 5 Feb 2009, 13:55,
Reply)
I have a friend with the same views
and I think it's a bit lame. Do you believe there is a god or don't you? Obviously we can't prove there isn't (cf Russell's teapot), although God could really save us all a lot of bother by manifesting in Trafalgar square and clearing the whole thing up. But do you really not have an opinion one way or the other?
(
flatfrog Staring vacantly into space, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 13:58,
Reply)
If there is a "God", i.e. some all powerful being that watches over us/ created us
he is nothing at all like the "God" that all the religions describe.
When good things happen, people thank God - he made it right. When things go badly, God is either ignored or it's "all part of his plan". I like what David Attenborough said about the worm whose sole purpose is to burrow through eyeballs.
I think it's very obvious that most religions arise from the fact that our ancestors couldn't comprehend a lot of what happened, so they filled in the gaps with God.
(
The Coast Of Yemen, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 14:09,
Reply)
It's being open minded to the possibilities
i mean i dont seriously believe in santa claus or faries but that alone doesn't mean they can't exist.
Suspending Judgement is the only way to go when this are not knowable and since philosophy teaches us that Knowledge can never be achieved we have to at suspend judgement on everything...at least a little
(
Sonic 2 and Knuckles, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 14:16,
Reply)
I don't believe in a god, as in a beardy consciousness in the sky,
But I'm open to many ideas that are beyond our comprehension. Perhaps the universe is just an eternal and cyclical system with no plan? Perhaps it had a begining and will have an end? Perhaps god is chaos? Perhaps the universe is ordered into an intelligence of its own? Perhaps our universe is simply a computer simulation by some consciousness beyond our abilities to percieve?
I don't believe in God or Allah or Jehova, as these are just humanised labels that have been given to things we can't possibly hope to understand. BUT, unlike many of my atheist friends, I am willing to live with cognitive dissonance over this- pretending that you can know 'the truth' is arrogant. It's possible to reject human-based religious traditions without rejecting spirituality. It's also possible to reject the ego-centric/human-centric view of 'God' without claiming that nothing exists beyond our own comprehension (an equally ego/human-centric position).
So I suppose my thoughts about 'god' are confused by the labelling- god is the only word we have for what is beyond our understanding. The core of my belief is that the human mind is a wonderful, but ultimately limited and flawed instrument for attempting to understand the universe. Thus, pretending to know any absolutes is ridiculous.
Having said that, we must learn to explore the nature of the universe within the constraints of our minds. I believe science is the best tool we (currently) have for this, and so I lean much more towards the conventional 'scientific' understanding than I do to a religious one.
So: I suppose I reject the conventional idea of God, but am unwilling to reject the possibility of something beyond ourselves (or 'god'!).
(
Fishcat Difficult difficult lemon difficult., Thu 5 Feb 2009, 14:17,
Reply)
it's hard to pigeon hole god
even every Christian has a different idea of what God is
(
Sonic 2 and Knuckles, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 14:24,
Reply)
Bollocks
Sorry, I know we've had this discussion before, but still, I can't let that pass. How is 'There is probably no god, so stop worrying and enjoy your life' even comparable to the statements of fundamentalist religious nutters? When did Richard Dawkins advocate killing people who disagreed with him or blasphemed against the sacred word of Darwin? Get some perspective.
(
flatfrog Staring vacantly into space, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 13:55,
Reply)
You misunderstand me.
I am not saying that it does, however, I have never read a religious text that does sanction or advocate murder. That is down to the interpretation of certain people for their own ends. The point I was trying to make was that a fundamental discounting of anyones beliefs, either way, serves no purpose.
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 14:01,
Reply)
Jehovah!
skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/stoning.html
(
The Coast Of Yemen, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 14:04,
Reply)
If it's all based on interpretation and peoples own agendas
then how can the word be relied upon?
(
Sonic 2 and Knuckles, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 14:20,
Reply)
I'm not saying it can be relied upon.
But that is the nature of humanity, no matter who put it here....
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 14:36,
Reply)
not true
clearly the bible has too many metaphors and hyperbole than any factual story
(
Sonic 2 and Knuckles, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 14:46,
Reply)
I just think there's a big disparity between the views
Atheists generally believe there is no god because there is no evidence to suggest that there is one. It's easy to suggest examples of hypothetical evidence which, should it appear, would change their mind (cf my post above, but also Haldane's 'Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian').
Religious people believe despite the lack of evidence, and there is no evidence that you can suggest that would make them change their view (indeed, the whole 'virtue' of faith is that it is maintained despite the lack of evidence)
(
flatfrog Staring vacantly into space, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 14:37,
Reply)
Well of course there is.
However, the point of faith is just that.
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 14:44,
Reply)
It raised consciousness about the issue
and sparked off a massive public debate. Seems like a good thing in my view. I thought it was fascinating that such a mild-mannered thing could spark so much outrage.
(
flatfrog Staring vacantly into space, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 13:51,
Reply)
I am not sure that anyone who wasn't
involved in the debate was made any more aware by the campaign, it simply forced people into it more which I don't believe is necessary.
And on the mild-mannered thing, I don't see how anyone could expect a public advertisement that states everything that you believe in is bollocks can really be claimed as mild mannered, no matter the naivety of the intention.
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 13:55,
Reply)
*Officially* it was aimed at those who were non-believers that were scared by threats of hellfire
not at believers. Obviously that's a bit disingenuous, but still, it's incredibly mild compared to the Christian ads you see all over the place, which claim that everything *I* believe in is bollocks. In fact, doesn't *every* ad claim that one way or another?
(
flatfrog Staring vacantly into space, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 14:01,
Reply)
I totally agree about the christian adverts.
I personally think that anything that claims truth not based on proven evidence shouldn't be allowed.
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 14:03,
Reply)
If it said "Have faith in God..." etc that would be better
Me, I'm a agnostic, no religion gives me any answers, but I really hope that humanity is not the highest level of conscious in the universe.
(
Monty Propps, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 14:11,
Reply)
Well this is part of the problem isn't it.
I have faith, but I don't necessarily believe in Jesus Christ being the son of God, and I don't necessarily believe in a God who controls all that happens on earth and in the universe. However, I do consider myself a Catholic.
Religion, as with any tool, is only as helpful or as dangerous as the person who is using it. A hammer in a builders hands helps make a house, but in a Yorkshiremans hands it becomed a murder weapon ;)
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 14:17,
Reply)
But you can't fit that on the side of a bus ;)
But yay! for mannered dabate :)
(
Monty Propps, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 14:42,
Reply)
but what if the correct way to use it
is to use it for bad?
then its you who is wrong, not the fundamentalists
(
Sonic 2 and Knuckles, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 14:53,
Reply)
*murders someone just to cover his bases*
;)
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 15:03,
Reply)
Why do you need faith in some undetectable thing (in terms of morality)?
Do you not have faith in yourself?
(
mr.dogshit The world's premier anthropomorphic canine faeces, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 15:21,
Reply)
Like the "Jesus Said" campaign?
That's what kicked off the "Atheist Bus" campaign.
(, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 14:09, Reply)
I'm sorry,
I don't get your point. I didn't see those adverts, but as far as I am concerned, people will not suddenly not believe in God or Jesus Christ as the Messiah purely as a result of an advert. And I also believe the opposite is true.
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 14:15,
Reply)
Whilst this is probably true
It doesn't take into account the dialogue that has begun about advertising religion, which was possibly the point in the first place. I don't want any view pressed upon me, thank you very much.
I love the etiquette the ASA had to use in order to inoffensively point out that *both* sides don't have any imperical proof of their opinions, hence rendering both arguements useless.
Bu tthe person up there making the 'lion on the loose' analogy has it precisely right - if ou can't prove it either way, stop advertising opinion as fact altogether.
That is all.
(, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 14:23, Reply)
I totally agree.
If you read through my first comment, I stated that I don't agree with Christian advertising either, and I am a Christian.
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 14:29,
Reply)
My point was a Christian campaign has already happened...
...and this whole Atheist campaign is nothing but a reactionary stunt.
(, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 14:27, Reply)
So you're saying 2 wrongs make a right?
Well I don't believe that to be the case. As I stated, I don't believe in Christian advertising either. However, what this has done is not bring to the fore the opinion that christians, muslims, jews, whoever can't advertise, it has just made the carte blanche a lot bigger by setting such a public precedent.
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 14:31,
Reply)
I liked this quote I read recently (apparently called a trilemma)
1. if God is willing but unable to prevent evil, he is not omnipotent
2. if God is able but not willing to prevent evil, he is not good
3. if God is willing and able to prevent evil, then why is there evil?
And if he is unwilling and unable to prevent evil, why call him God?
(
Alzo wouldn't ride your mum into battle, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 19:18,
Reply)