The Value of Atheism?

deanhills · Sep 23, 2009

The Parakeet said:
What'd you expect? They were paying by the letter .

On a serious note, why should they? Do those religious ads make any considerations for others? Are all of those supposed to convert people? Why should atheists have to walk on pins and needles to not "offend" anyone.

Agreed. But then the argument that was put to me was that the atheists only meant the message to be for atheists, not non-atheists. If that were true, then the message should have said that. It did not.

Source: http://richarddawkins.net/articleCo...-bus-ad-campaign,Ariane-Sherine,page11#315344

Dirk · Sep 23, 2009

deanhills said:
Agreed. But then the argument that was put to me was that the atheists only meant the message to be for atheists, not non-atheists. If that were true, then the message should have said that. It did not.

Source: http://richarddawkins.net/articleCo...-bus-ad-campaign,Ariane-Sherine,page11#315344

What do you expect? Where else would you put it? There is such a thing as freedom of expression. And it comes along with another freedom, twinned with it. The freedom of selective senses. It was directed at atheists. What do you want? An "atheists eyes only" disclaimer?

I'm a vegetarian. If i go to a public restaurant and have a meal, would i complain that the people on the next table are eating chicken within my sight?! No! Of course i wouldn't! Yet, the chicken isn't meant for me, it's meant for the people at the next table.

I have the right to choose to ignore what my visual and olfactory senses are picking up.

deanhills · Sep 24, 2009

Dirk said:
What do you expect? Where else would you put it? There is such a thing as freedom of expression. And it comes along with another freedom, twinned with it. The freedom of selective senses. It was directed at atheists. What do you want? An "atheists eyes only".

Since there is no qualification on the ad to say it is only meant for atheists, it would then mean that atheists can't defend it as being completely inoffensive to others on the grounds that the ad was not meant for those who were not atheists. Nor is it really honest to say that it was only meant for themselves. They were really trying to get their dig in. So be honest about that!

Dirk · Sep 24, 2009

deanhills said:
Since there is no qualification on the ad to say it is only meant for atheists, it would then mean that atheists can't defend it as being completely inoffensive to others on the grounds that the ad was not meant for those who were not atheists. Nor is it really honest to say that it was only meant for themselves. They were really trying to get their dig in. So be honest about that!

Right, let's settle this finally. At last, i found the original article the campaign was originally founded upon.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/20/transport.religion

deanhills · Sep 27, 2009

Dirk said:
Right, let's settle this finally. At last, i found the original article the campaign was originally founded upon.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/20/transport.religion

I tried the above link, but it timed out. The one I quoted from Richard Dawkins' Website (link below) also contains the facts surrounding the campaign (the link is immediately below the photo of the bus and goes straight to the article). Can't see how your article could be any different? Or is it? Maybe you can cut-and-paste the crux of it if you think I am missing something?

I doubt it · Sep 27, 2009

I read the bus to mean it's ok to be atheist, it's pretty sensible and also that anyone who's not atheist...is a bit ...nutty/excitable?

I think there is some value in what activist atheists do. Although they seem to be getting a bad name at the moment and risk turning people off religion in the way that extremists can turn people off animal rights

...still, religious fanatics seem to influence unreasonable government initiatives just by being so very noisy. The squeaky wheel gets the oil.

If there's to be cognisance of reality, you could say that atheists need to start speaking up.

Dirk · Sep 27, 2009

deanhills said:
I tried the above link, but it timed out. The one I quoted from Richard Dawkins' Website (link below) also contains the facts surrounding the campaign (the link is immediately below the photo of the bus and goes straight to the article). Can't see how your article could be any different? Or is it? Maybe you can cut-and-paste the crux of it if you think I am missing something?

*From today's launch, two hundred of the buses will run in London, because the campaign was originally started as a positive counter-response to the Jesus Said ads running on London buses in June 2008. These ads displayed the URL of a website which stated that non-Christians "will be condemned to everlasting separation from God and then you spend all eternity in torment in hell … Jesus spoke about this as a lake of fire prepared for the devil". Our rational slogan will hopefully reassure anyone who has been scared by this kind of evangelism.*

~ From your own link!

*Since when is it OK to spread the fear of God from the side of a bus? Let's get together and distribute reassurance*

~ From mine.

In the article i quoted, she talks about how she saw one of the Jesus Said buses. She described what it said thusly:

"we'll all face the ire of the son of man when he comes, then [it] link to a website advocating endless pain for atheists."

She then proceeded to present a hypothetical bus campaign to provide reassurance.

deanhills · Sep 29, 2009

Dirk said:
~ From your own link!

RIGHT! I gave that link to you! And to be honest Dirk, I was rather irritated that you should think me such an idiot not to have done my reading properly. I don't see how the content of that article makes any difference. I don't see all the people of the UK reading that specific press article. I see them taking note of the message on the bus that says quite clearly: "There is probably no god". Nowhere in the message is there a qualifier, or an instruction to please look up the latest news article as that will explain that we are responding to "Jesus Said" ads. "Jesus Said" ads do not represent the majority of believers in the world.

So this is my argument. Since the message on the bus does not identify its specific audience, and there is no qualifier, atheists can't claim that it was not offensive to believers. Any person who believes in God would have been offended by it. And most of them would not even have known about the existence of the "Jesus Said" ads.

Dirk · Sep 29, 2009

Okay, let me get that right. You are arguing that it could be perceived to be directed at the religious?

In which case, we are arguing different points. I am pointing out that it was not intended for the religious. I agree that it could be misunderstood.

Have you seen the religious comeback yet?

deanhills · Oct 2, 2009

Dirk said:
Okay, let me get that right. You are arguing that it could be perceived to be directed at the religious?

NO!!!! NO!!! NO!!! Have you read any of my postings? When some of the religious movements complained about the advertisement, those responsible for the advertisement replied that it was only aimed at the "Jesus Said" advertisements "for fun". So my argument is "how so?" There is nothing on the Bus Ad that says that the ad is there as a response to the "Jesus Said" ads only. No qualifiers. So any person who believes in God would have been offended by it, whether it was meant "in jest" or not.

Dirk · Oct 2, 2009

deanhills said:
NO!!!! NO!!! NO!!! Have you read any of my postings? When some of the religious movements complained about the advertisement, those responsible for the advertisement replied that it was only aimed at the "Jesus Said" advertisements "for fun". So my argument is "how so?" There is nothing on the Bus Ad that says that the ad is there as a response to the "Jesus Said" ads only. No qualifiers. So any person who believes in God would have been offended by it, whether it was meant "in jest" or not.

For fun? I wasn't aware it was "for fun"? Explain.

deanhills · Oct 6, 2009

Dirk said:
For fun? I wasn't aware it was "for fun"? Explain.

You're playing now Dirk. Trying to deflect. Take the "for fun" away then. I think I've explained enough. Atheists placed ads on buses that were offensive to those who believe in God. When those offended protested, atheists said that it was aimed at the Jesus Said ads that had been run before. So basically if Jesus Said can offend atheists, then atheists can offend everyone else.

prasanth5 · May 11, 2010

One has to agree with the statement of Swami Vivekananda, the great monk from India that one who does not believe in oneself cannot be an achiever even if he believes in God.

alexmike · May 23, 2010

I have time and time again found this hard to believe. Atheism claims to have all the answers with the help of science and people tend to think that maybe people who believe in God don't. I can for a fact say that even atheism doesn't have all the answers, in fact they're choosing to close their eyes.

Dirk · May 23, 2010

alexmike said:
I have time and time again found this hard to believe. Atheism claims to have all the answers with the help of science and people tend to think that maybe people who believe in God don't. I can for a fact say that even atheism doesn't have all the answers, in fact they're choosing to close their eyes.

Nobody has all the "answers", and nobody claims to. I certainly don't presume to think I know everything. I tend to be sceptical of a lot of things, until they have been proven to me to my satisfaction.

Being an atheist is different from being a self-important pompous know-it-all.

adagio · May 27, 2010

deanhills said:
I've asked atheists a question whether there could be any atheism without a God? As somehow God or religion seem to feature in most of their discussions. I was then told that atheism (a+theism) stands outside religion, and that it has no interest in religion. Sort of completely baffles me though?

Why? God or religion would only be featured in a discussion about God or religion. For example....this one.

adagio · May 27, 2010

deanhills said:
Right, and they are very vocal about it. With T-Shirts, and Richard Dawkins' Red Bus Advertisements. Still boggles my mind that they can spend so much time and interest on something that does not really exist for atheists.

Not really. Look at the advertising that is done for religions. It's everywhere. I suspect that atheists like knowing that there are others that think as they do.
You have to remember also that there are a lot of attempts to legislate religious views in this country. Atheists have a reason to promote reason in their government.

adagio · May 27, 2010

deanhills said:
That sounds like a line from Richard Dawkings' red bus campaign ..... I thought that was unbecoming as if atheists have spare cash they should invest it into science and math teaching, to educate children, not take pot shots at those who take their religion seriously and whose minds cannot be changed. In other words they should invest spare cash to broaden minds, not narrow minds.

If a persons mind cannot be changed then who is it with the narrow mind? I think that where atheists choose to spend their money depends on what they feel is important just like other people. I find that a person who's mind can't be changed is a person who refuses to allow it to be opened. They hold onto a theory of rationality which decides for them what is true and what isn't. I've found that a number of people that "take their religion seriously" have pretty deep hatred of atheists. They were even blamed for 9/11 by...who else..Jerry Falwell, a man who took his religion seriously.

adagio · May 27, 2010

">So any person who believes in God would have been offended by it, whether it was meant "in jest" or not."<

Uhh...just out of curiosity, why is it vital not to offend a person for the way they think? I mean this isn't an attempt to offend somebody over their race which is something they can't do anything about. Religion is a way of thinking. A person decides to think this way or that about the idea of God. We can criticize a person's thinking in terms of being liberal or conservative and that's ok, but criticizing the way they think about religion is off limits? Why? They can change the way they think. They can't change their color. If a person wants to preach to me about their religious beliefs, they are opening up a debate that I don't think they would want, and depending on the mood I'm in, I'm not likely to be too concerned about whether they're offended by what I think of the way they think.

adagio · May 27, 2010

alexmike said:
I have time and time again found this hard to believe. Atheism claims to have all the answers with the help of science and people tend to think that maybe people who believe in God don't. I can for a fact say that even atheism doesn't have all the answers, in fact they're choosing to close their eyes.

First of all, I don't know any atheists that claim to have all the answers. Religion however DOES claim to have all the answers. The answers are in the Bible. Whatever the question is...God is the answer. So I'm not sure where you come up with this idea, but it's not grounded in any fact as you claim. Secondly, how can you say "in fact they're choosing to close their eyes"? Where did you come up with this fact. What is the basis for it.What exactly is it that they are closing their eyes to? You must have something to justify that claim other then you just making an empty statement that has no basis in fact and claiming that it is a fact. So...can you demonstrate the truth of what you're saying?

Let me ask you a question. What's more important to you, Your religion or Truth? You probably think that your religion IS truth. But if that's the case then doesn't it nullify your claim that it's atheist that claim to have all the answers. If you think that your religion IS truth, then you are in FACT making the claim that it's your religion that has all the answers.:unsure:

The Value of Atheism?

Similar threads