....Now stop worrying and enjoy your life. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7681914.stm I love the slogan
This sounds like a pretty malicious ad campaign to me. I mean, why deliberately hurt people like this? I mean, it's almost as bad as signs that say "Santa Claus ain't real, get over it" and the such.
"thinking is anathema to religion"? that's why i don't really give dawkins the time of day. all he seems to be interested in is attacking fundamentalist creationists, and buries his head in the sand the second anyone with a remotely rational head on them who happens to believe that "hey, science and the idea that maybe we were created aren't actually completely incompatible", appears, pretty much as a media tactic. ugh. he's such a **** - as bad as, if not worse than, any religious fanatic. And before anyone starts on me, I don't take issue with the campaign. There's probably no god. You're probably going to die today. Doesn't mean you will.
I totally agree. Freedom of speech is great, but this is a rather, well, childish retort to religious messages. It's like the "Darwin" coelacanth symbols people put on their cars in retort to the Christian fish symbols. I thought it was ironically funny at first, but then I realised: why should I make fun of other people's harmless, non-offensive expression of their faith? What's next: make fun of a Sikh's turban? So why do atheists/humanists need to refer (negatively) to religion at all? Why not create their own, atheist humanist message such as: "Life is what you make of it: now go and get creative"?
I agree. It's not the fact he doesn't believe in God, and is vocal about it which annoys me, it's the fact he contradicts his own arguments (He hates aggressive religion, yet he is more religious and more aggressive then most religious people I have ever meet). It's like when he debated the theologian Alistair McGrath, then cut it out his show and put in a rather "vocal" American Pastor instead.
Well, I found some amusement when I came across a Jesus fish eating a Darwin fish once. Because, you know, that's not demonstrating evolution or anything. I'd love to see what would happen if you tried that campaign over here in the states. I'd cheer it, but I envision a lot of hypocrites starting riots over it. Love thy neighbor unless he disagreeith with you, in which case burneth his ass to the ground, right? Some people can take religion as a personal belief and leave it at that, and that's OK with me. I think they're wrong, but so long as they keep it to themselves then that's not my problem. The problem is that here in the states, it's not at all hard to find people who are 10x more religiously aggressive than Dawkins but in the other direction. Not so much near where I live thankfully, but there's certainly a reason that half of our election issues are religious pandering.
True, but over here Dawkins' religious fervor is just obscene. In america he'd be much more in-tune with the climate of debate; here he's like an old man shouting at happy children. Nobody in england cares enough for his violent attacks on faith to be justified. He seems to be confused as to which landmass he's on.
It is interesting to me how few people complain about all the religious adverts telling people they're going to hell unless they believe in god and worship him/her/it. Put a pro atheist message out in a public place and the righteous start screaming persecution. Either everyone has a right to free speech or no one has it. If your offended by either message, don't read or listen to them.
I thought they had already done this in New York, to combat the religious groups using public transport to peddle there wares
With freedom comes responsibility and self-restraint. You cannot complain about aggressive religious proselytising and then engage in exactly the same behaviour. Lead by example. The price of being the wiser one is that you have to be the wiser one, you know?
Meh so what? some religious nutjobs might complain? who cares if they do? besides that advertising doesnt even try to sell it as the ultimate truth by having a probably in it.
I don't have a problem with this, any more than I have a problem with theist adverts. I think they slightly pander to human desperation, but freedom of speech if more important. However, Richard Dawkins annoys me intensely. I think I basically boils down to that if you think you are right (and they are wrong) there is no need to be a **** about it. As an atheist I find it odd that I spend quite a bit of time defending the validity of theist beliefs against people who are anti-religion rather than just not believing it.
I had a good chuckle myself. Not because it was trying to slam religions, (You want to have a belief in a God or two, go for it, I'll just be over here not giving a crap) but because it's so.. I can't even think of the word. Not dismissive, but similar.
This is retarded; it goes against the main principles of humanism. For those not in the know; "Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appealing to universal human qualities, particularly rationality." If people want to believe in a/many [g/G]od(s) then that should be OK and they should be entitled to it.
Why do exactly what you criticise the other for doing? You can stoop to their level, or rise above it. One is defined by their actions.
