I walk everday, I run everyday, and everyday I go out, I see Christian posters and boards telling me that I should join the Church and how "God will Save You" from the Devil. So what's the difference between an Atheist board and a Christian board, they are both exactly the same.
Completely different, children believe he is real, and most importantly, think everyone else does too. Christians know there are lots of people who don't believe in God. This is no more offensive than a slogan saying "God loves you all" or people preaching in the street. Not that it's doing much for the cause of non-religiousism.
We need to get this Dawkins chap and Fred Phelps together for an argument... They both will be revealed for what they are.
Honestly, I find it hard to beleive that anyone could try to make a big deal out of that slogan. I guess, if you really wanted to, you could say that perhaps doing whatever you please isn't in society's best interest. Then again, nor are extremists in ANY religion.
I'm an atheist, but I don't go round shouting about it. If people ask me, I'll tell them (and that's happened about twice in my life). I don't feel the need to "convert" other people to atheism. If other people want to worship what I consider to be a make-believe entity, they're perfectly entitled to - as long as they do so peacefully, and don't persecute others for not believing whatever it is that they believe in, and don't try to convert me to their belief system. By putting these posters out there, atheists are making themselves no different from the religious people they're trying to annoy. Atheism is, after all, just another belief system, albeit one that has no sense of divine being(s).
Well as people have rightly pointed out, people who follow a monotheistic religion believe that all gods except their own are fake. Atheists just take it one god further. IMO, Atheism is the natural conclusion of people who want to analyze religion. If all theists believe that all other theists that don't follow their own religion are wrong, then either a) absolutely everyone is wrong or b) there really IS one valid religion, and everyone else is going to hell. I not only find a much more likely, but believe that if god is real and is as good as all of the theists claim, then he wouldn't banish people to an eternity in hell just for thinking differently - that really sounds like quite the dick move, tbh.
This did make me chuckle, but I must say that it is rather in-your-face. Its like putting "60% of black people aren't educated", or "All BMW drivers are arsehh0les"... they could have been more creative with their atheism promoting ways. Is it me or are we seeing a bit of a table-turning here? Whereas in medieval times and more recently, religion ruled supreme and was compulsory for society, these days, anybody religious is openly ridiculed and anti-religionist views are common. I'm not just talking atheism, I'm refering to those who actively hate religion with a passion, and think that no religion should have a right to express itself... even on here. Reminds me of a regime somewhere East of here...
Seems i'm in the minority here, but i really don't see a problem with this at all. I simply just agree 100%. Even in the UK still it seems still quite a taboo to even question why any religion has more power than any other view. People will go to extraordinary lengths to prevent religious people 'getting offended', but the reverse never happens. What did they do to earn this respect? ...nothing. Whilst i can see where people are coming from with complaining that this is 'stooping to their level' and 'using similar tactics' to religious recruitment, sometimes it's worth it to use a bit of shock tactics to get people to stop and think. That is the real point of this ad campaign after all. The moral high ground is an admirable thing, but sometimes just doesn't work as well
Whilst you'd get me on hugely disliking religion, i don't think they shouldn't be able to express themselves at all, thats wrong. what i do hate though, is the automatic assumption that religion has extra merit. I'm free to think the moon is made of swiss cheese if i wanted, but i don't demand other people respect that view and have to be very carefull not to offend me on the topic.
Hm. Seems like the reciprocal of the local billboards here in the deep south with a plain black background that says, "We need to talk..." -God.
Dawkins may be going off on one and ranting himself - but his rants are for logical thought and a reasonable, scientific approach to society and education. That wins out over rants for taking things on no evidence (i.e faith) and basing your entire world view on religious texts which are flawed, unproven and inherently flawed (not to mention radically censored and dictated by a group of hippocritical old men in capes). Though I'm sure there's an over-worded reply coming from you soon Nexxo
That's all cool and well but scientific, rational viewpoints can be taken to the extreme too (e.g. Eugenics: you know it makes sense, but...). Old Skool Trekkies will remember the intense discussions between the cooly rational Spock and the passionate Bones (well, Bones got intense anyway). Kirk always strikes a balance somewhere in the middle. Science is complemented by an ethical philosophy --whether religion or some other kind of faith. Balance is key, and I think that Dawkins has lost that perspective.
I see nothing wrong with the campaign. It's agenda is to simply point out that a counter-argument should be accepted along with the social norm. What is provocative about it is that it's putting the counter-argument in the same context. However, the athiest campaign uses the keyword "probably" which is a lot less agressive and final as any religious messages I've seen. You have to see religion for what it is - a dangerous viral meme. It promotes the subordination of genetic interest to other interests. Given the correct environment they can induce the host to homicidal and/or suicidal behaviour. How many people have died in the name of Christianity, or Allah, or Communism, or Democracy? You may want to point out that there are many people who have these beliefs but without the negative impacts, but memetics, just as genetics, are prone to mutation...and given a long enough timeline they will mutate in to something that will destroy the host so that the meme, the idea, can survive. Currently the most dangerous meme is a mutation of Islam, but it could easily be any other, and history has shown that it has been - e.g. The Inquisition, human sacrifice, etc. The question is not "Should these people be allowed to have these beliefs?" but "Should these ideas be encouraged to prosper?". No they shouldn't. No idea with an unquestionable authority (the most dangerous) should be allowed to prosper. And you can't lump Science in with that group because science is based initially on questions, and is prone to review given new empirical data. If it wasn't then the zenith of physical understanding would still be Newtonian. The confusion starts because many of our most cherished and useful memes stemmed from the Judeo-Christian religion. But don't forget that for every useful idea from that religion there was an equally destructive idea - and both are given unquestionable authority by the concept of god. The key is to seperate the useful ideas from religion and give them merit through questionable and malleable scientific methodology. - Sociology.
give me a single good example of science being complemented by religion that is unbiased. Science and religion are mutually exclusive. I've met so called christian scientists and honestly they are a joke, where as a normal scientist uses evidence to formulate a conclusion while a christian scientist searches for evidence that suits his conclusion. I've read dawkins books, watched his documentaries and Ifully agree with him, all blind faith and religion has been responsible is persecution and death. I don't see why its okay having huge signs saying: "jesus loves you", "your only salvation lies in christ", etc
Oh come on. Science has had its dangerous memes. Eugenics, phrenology and other mismeasures of "intelligence", evolutionary justifications for the inequality of the races or the survival of the fittest (i.e. richest, smartest) in society, early concepts of "Atomic energy". Then there are its misapplications: weapons of mass destruction and surveillance technology for instance. Then there is sheer recklessness such as genetic modification. It ain't what you do, it's the way that you use it. You are obviously not a researcher. Science is not a democracy. People build careers and research grants on their theories and defend them as vehemently as any religion. A poor understanding and/or application of science can lead to pseudo-scientific rationalisations of immoral behaviour just like any religion. "Science dictates..." is the same as "It is God's will". The confusion starts because many of our most cherished and useful memes stemmed from the Judeo-Christian religion. But don't forget that for every useful idea from that religion there was an equally destructive idea - and both are given unquestionable authority by the concept of god. The key is to seperate the useful ideas from religion and give them merit through questionable and malleable scientific methodology. - Sociology.[/QUOTE] Science asks: "How do we do this"; philosophy asks: "Should we?". There are good scientific reasons for eugenics: the Spartans kicked ass. But are there ethical ones? Religion provides the justification, but science provides the weapons of mass destruction.
True, but Dawkins isn't exactly arguing for that is he? He's arguing for evolution to be taught more throughly in schools, for religion to be recognised as the shammy-opiate it is and for it to play no role whatsoever in education. Religion on the other hand, well that continues to spread all manner of ills even in the everyday lives of middle-of-the-road Christians who don't take an active role in policing their own faith. When Dawkins starts preaching Eugenics then I'll damn him as much as everyone else - but as it is all he's doing is putting posters on buses, so there's no need to take his argument to an extreme yet. Religion has already been to the extremes though. As for Science tempered by ethics: of course, yes, that's well and good. But don't make the mistake of linking religion with ethical philopsophy. Those are different issues. People can be ethical without religion (just as they can be unethical). If anything religion does more to pervert, constrain and limit the ethics of a modern person by telling them laws to live within instead of allowing them to use judgement. Yes, you can say that there is room in Christianity for people to follow their own consciences, but I've yet to see a religion that doesn't lay down at least one or two rules to govern behaviour based on faith and regardless of personal ethic. Dawkins may be a bit unbalanced in favour of hard science, but the scales of everyday life are still massively tipped in religions favour and if he is pushing against that then I welcome any balance it brings for as long as it lasts and I won't have a problem with him until the scales start to overtip on his side. Sometimes you need a heavyweight to find the balance.
You're missing the point Nexxo....yes, Scientific ideas are memes aswell, and being just as prone to mutation as religion, they also exhibit bad ideas. The point is that it is only temporary, until a better idea comes along, that is more in tune with genetic interest. Relgion's idea's are fixed. For example, in a staunchly religious world, if the Bible said "Climate change isn't man made" no one would do anything about it..any detractors would be branded heretics and ohh...i dunno...burnt at the steak or something. Maybe even shot in a bunker with an AK-47 so that the video can be posted online. Scientific methodology looks at the data...any "flaw" in the extrapolation of conclusions is based on human-error, because of the other memes that conflict with raw rational thinking. Also, don't get religion and philosophy mixed up. Religion is a philosophy that has set. Religion doesn't ask "Should we?", religion asks "What does it say in that millennia-old book?".
