Atheists hope (don't pray) to bring ads to Toronto (G&M)

[urbanboom]

not all of it. for example, when the bible instructs you to kill disobedient children, how can you take that out of context? what other meaning could it possibly have?

you can't just choose what you like in the bible and disregard the rest and say god is good based on what passages you choose. i'm sure most murderers are good for most of their lives but judgment is cast upon them not by how good they were for the majority of their lives, but for the horrible acts they have committed. you think a judge would care if a mob hitman coached a baseball team or donated money to orphans during sentencing time? you think the hitman would be deemed good because he was good 98% of the time while killing and being evil only 2% of the time?


if you wanna be a deist that's all fine and dandy but don't tell me that the god of the bible, new testament and old is a good god because of the good passages because he is most certainly not. the god of the new testament is even far worse because of the eternal hellfire punishment for trivial things.

I don't understand how you could think God is evil at the core, when you say he doesn't even exist! This attitude was one of the things that made me question my atheist beliefs.

What I was trying to point out, is that you can throw out any obscure bible verse and claim that it proves that religion is wrong when the Bible itself is iffy at best.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Poll isn't quite clear. Does one support the campaign itself - or simply the right for groups to have such campaigns?

For example, if the NDP, Tories, and Liberals each were to have an advertising campaign on buses, I couldn't support ALL of them - but I'd certainly support the right of them to do so.

if you support the ad you support the right to display the ad but supporting the right to display the ad, doesn't necessarily mean you support the message.


i should have added the options: "support the right for ad but not the message" & "don't support the right for the ad but support message".

i regret that i didn't.

if anyone has one of those two positions, make it known in this thread.

if a mod can add it to the poll options, that would be great.

 

[Disparishun]

remember how john tory wanted to fund all faith schools? to be fair? i'm pretty sure he's not an atheist. an atheist would have made catholic schools go secular or lose funding.

Really? I don't claim to know much about atheism -- for instance, I had thought that it sprung from a personal certitude as to the absence of a deity, and was unaware that it was a movement with common policy positions -- but is a component of atheism the desire to "cure" others of their absence of atheism?

Most jurisdictions fund the general studies portion of faith-based schools in a manner similar to what Tory had proposed. Is this seen as an affront to the goals of atheists? I would have thought many atheists were comfortable with the ongoing existence of religious traditions, provided that there comes a point at which people are allowed to come around to the inevitable (for atheists) conclusion of godlessness. I do understand that atheists are likely to see God-related teachings as wasteful. But is it always true that they go further and, in fact, see such teachings as noxious? Is the idea to halt all religious traditions, now?

As to the bus ads, I must say, I did not think they would be particularly controversial. Noone is under the illusion that there don't exist many people who think that there is probably no god. Is there a fear that an ad like this will sway the beliefs of those who do think there are gods? That these ads will result in a climate that is generally hostile to continued god-mindedness? I don't really understand the point of them -- a sort of counterpoint to evangelists and proselytisers, I guess? -- but it's equally hard to see the counterpoint.

i should have added the options: "support the right for ad but not the message" & "don't support the right for the ad but support message".

i regret that i didn't.

if anyone has one of those two positions, make it known in this thread.

OK, well, I: support the right for ad but not the message. I mean, I don't have any particular problem with the message. I just don't particularly support it, either.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

I don't understand how you could think God is evil at the core, when you say he doesn't even exist! This attitude was one of the things that made me question my atheist beliefs.

i believe freddy from nightmare on elm street is evil and i also believe he doesn't exist in reality.

What I was trying to point out, is that you can throw out any obscure bible verse and claim that it proves that religion is wrong when the Bible itself is iffy at best.

nothing obscure about those passages. those are just a few. there are many, many more. if you read between the lines, the main message is that somebody has to pay/suffer. the main point is revenge and sacrifice. why did jesus have to die for our sins? was there no other way? could god not have found another way for our sins to be forgiven? this is the god of which all is possible, isn't it?


p.s, have you read the entire bible?

 

[gei]

That ad is brilliant. Bring it on I say.... it's fun to offend these religious types.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Really? I don't claim to know much about atheism -- for instance, I had thought that it sprung from a personal certitude as to the absence of a deity, and was unaware that it was a movement with common policy positions -- but is a component of atheism the desire to "cure" others of their absence of atheism?

Most jurisdictions fund the general studies portion of faith-based schools in a manner similar to what Tory had proposed. Is this seen as an affront to the goals of atheists? I would have thought many atheists were comfortable with the ongoing existence of religious traditions, provided that there comes a point at which people are allowed to come around to the inevitable (for atheists) conclusion of godlessness. I do understand that atheists are likely to see God-related teachings as wasteful. But is it always true that they go further and, in fact, see such teachings as noxious? Is the idea to halt all religious traditions, now?

As to the bus ads, I must say, I did not think they would be particularly controversial. Noone is under the illusion that there don't exist many people who think that there is probably no god. Is there a fear that an ad like this will sway the beliefs of those who do think there are gods? That these ads will result in a climate that is generally hostile to continued god-mindedness? I don't really understand the point of them -- a sort of counterpoint to evangelists and proselytisers, I guess? -- but it's equally hard to see the counterpoint.



OK, well, I: support the right for ad but not the message. I mean, I don't have any particular problem with the message. I just don't particularly support it, either.

you're right. it is not a movement with common policy positions and atheism has nothing to do with seeking to cure people of their beliefs. it only means disbelieving in a deity.

when i said "an atheist wouldn't.....etc." i was making a generalization and shouldn't have.

i regret this error of choice of words.


an atheist can be pro-religious school funding, etc. it may seem strange but it's possible.

my text should have read "i would have made catholic schools go secular or lose funding".

i would not extend special privileges to religious groups. i believe people have the right to believe god(s) and practice their religion within reason, with respect to the well being of others and their safety. i don't think religious groups should have an elevated status in society, nor be protected from criticism and be given carte blanche to do what they want in the name of religion.

p.s, did i say i wanted to cure anybody?

 

[urbanboom]

The reality of the world is that things do take sacrifice. People died in WWII, and it is accepted today that to protect our freedom, those sacrifices were justified. And in many ways it made us say "never again."

It was in the same way that Christ died, for had he not died he couldn't have risen.

ps, i have read the bible

and to gei, who's offended? people can shout slogans at each other all they want but that wont change their minds. I doubt anything I say to Prometheus will make him Christian and I doubt anything he or she says to me will make me an atheist. The only people offended by this are people are offended by that ad (or any "Jesus died for your sins" ads) are close minded people who view the world in absolutes. Hopefully that breed is near extinction.

 

[toraerach]

I voted to support the campaign only because there was no "I don't care" option. It's freedom of speech and they have every right to say whatever they want no matter how many people it pisses off. It's not hate speech, so I don't see any harm in it. Most people just block out the ads mentally anyways. Maybe they could get some money and buy the naming rights to SkyDome instead. At least that way they'd be doing us a service.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

The reality of the world is that things do take sacrifice. People died in WWII, and it is accepted today that to protect our freedom, those sacrifices were justified. And in many ways it made us say "never again."

It was in the same way that Christ died, for had he not died he couldn't have risen.

you can't compare the two. people died win WWII to protect us because there was no choice. there was no other way. these are mortal beings, not supernatural beings which can defy the rules of nature and logic.

god and jesus defy the rules of nature and logic? no? which means they can do anything they want.

instead of having jesus die for our sins, why couldn't he just sing a song? or wave a wand? why must the god of the bible always demand blood?

 

[adma]

Imagine, if you will, a subway car wrapped in aborted fetus imagery...

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Imagine, if you will, a subway car wrapped in aborted fetus imagery...

what? why?

 

[nfitz]

i should have added the options: "support the right for ad but not the message" & "don't support the right for the ad but support message".

i regret that i didn't.

if anyone has one of those two positions, make it known in this thread.

Still doesn't cover me ... I support their right to send the message - and couldn't give a toss about the content of the message itself.

 

[Disparishun]

an atheist can be pro-religious school funding, etc. it may seem strange but it's possible.

my text should have read "i would have made catholic schools go secular or lose funding".

p.s, did i say i wanted to cure anybody?

That makes more sense -- I had always understood atheists to be those who are quite certain that there mustn't be any gods, but recently it seems there has been a much more, if you will, activist version which dedicates itself to working towards convincing others, too, that there mustn't be any gods. To win converts, if you like, in contrast to an apathetic believe-whatever-you-like-ism. Hence, presumably, this ad campaign (and a spate of rather shrill books over the last few years). Hence "cure", as in, correct the beliefs of those with incorrect ones.

But, you're right, it's perfectly possible to oppose the public funding of the general studies portion of faith-based (or, really faith-tradition-based) schools on the grounds, not that they are harmful, but that they are a net cost and are unhelpful.

There are a lot of assumptions in that position that go well beyond purely atheism (if that means, only, the belief that there is no god), including the repudiation as useless or harmful (in the immediate) of faith-based traditions and not just the god-belief, the assumption that parallel administration must be costlier and cannot create beneficial regulatory competition in administrative or educational approaches, and so forth. But it is certainly a position that one can advance and defend. So I was wrong to assume that wanting to abolish faith-based (it seems to me, faith-tradition-based) schools must come from not wanting people to be indoctrinated, as the argument mioght go, into a faith tradition. One can want them to abolished on completely different grounds.

i would not extend special privileges to religious groups. i believe people have the right to believe god(s) and practice their religion within reason, with respect to the well being of others and their safety. i don't think religious groups should have an elevated status in society, nor be protected from criticism and be given carte blanche to do what they want in the name of religion.

It sounds like you are alluding to a whole other series of objections and underlying arguments, but I don't know what those are, and am not sure they need to be addressed just to talk about these bus ads.

Still doesn't cover me ... I support their right to send the message - and couldn't give a toss about the content of the message itself.

I'm with nfitz (and others) on this. Not to say that there can't be messages that are truly harmful and noxious and worth caring about, in the nature of particularly effective hate propaganda, say. But this isn't anything like that. If someone wants to spend money earnestly assuring others that there might not be any gods out there then, by all means, spend away!

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Still doesn't cover me ... I support their right to send the message - and couldn't give a toss about the content of the message itself.

you're right.

i was looking at all the possibilities for options this morning but i chose two rather than adding many to keep it simple.


instead of making it about advertising, i made it specific about the ad message. probably wasn't a good idea.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

It sounds like you are alluding to a whole other series of objections and underlying arguments, but I don't know what those are, and am not sure they need to be addressed just to talk about these bus ads.

keithz was saying that atheists disproportionately criticize christianity while ignoring islam. i was implying that i would not grant one religion perks over another, etc.

has nothing to do with bus ads. i know.


also, i don't think there is a movement to convert. i do there is a movement to encourage free thought and rationalism.