[Cold Iron]

Terez, on Jan 9 2009, 10:43 AM, said:

You accused me of wanting to impose my beliefs on others. What is the basis for your accusation?

PS - I already made it perfectly clear that's what the strawman was, when I replied "that's not what's going on here." Reading comprehension fail.

The fail is yours, that was to Camel (which is why I quoted Camel in that post).

[Terez]

Ah, good point.

[Cold Iron]

Terez, on Jan 9 2009, 10:55 AM, said:

Ah, good point.

So I'd like a reply to the post that was to you..

[Terez]

Cold Iron, on Jan 8 2009, 05:15 PM, said:

Terez, on Jan 9 2009, 09:45 AM, said:

Sorry CI, but doing "the same dumb shit" is the only way to get them to realize how dumb it is, and how offensive their proselytizing is to us. These guys aren't in it to have permanent atheist advertising - they're in it to draw attention to how religio-centric society really is. Atheists still have class, which is why we can laugh about it.

I disagree. All it's going to get anybody to realise is that you have an agenda to push, just like they do.

That's a good thing, IMO.

CI said:

You're giving them a common enemy to unite against, it's possibly the single most effective method you could use to bolster their strength.

I disagree - the more obvious it becomes that atheists are not a cowering minority, the more their position, the strength of which is mostly rooted in tradition and the assumption that atheists will be a cowering minority, will weaken.

CI said:

You have gone from a people with better things to do with your time and money to a people with nothing better to do with your time and money.

False dichotomy.

CI said:

Do you think you are in some obtuse way fighting terrorism? Or just an arbitrarily annoying social phenomenon?

A bit of both, really. The religious spectrum is far-ranging.

[Cold Iron]

Terez, on Jan 9 2009, 11:13 AM, said:

That's a good thing, IMO.

But in so doing, you enter the game, instead of holding yourself aloof from it.

Terez, on Jan 9 2009, 11:13 AM, said:

I disagree - the more obvious it becomes that atheists are not a cowering minority, the more their position, the strength of which is mostly rooted in tradition and the assumption that atheists will be a cowering minority, will weaken.

I really forget sometimes how bad it must be to live in a country with religiously dominated politics. It is my (perhaps misguided) opinion that in no other western nation is there a need for atheists to even be an identifiable group, let alone a group identifiable as something other than a cowering minority. The fact that this advert was written by a comedian and had the purpose of uplifting people as opposed to worrying them should indicate that this was not, exactly, a politically motivated stunt. Certainly not in the way that it would be in the US.

Terez, on Jan 9 2009, 11:13 AM, said:

False dichotomy.

My point was this - why is any atheist involving themself in this debate? I did not take legislation into account. I suppose if you life in a country where the government is dominated by fanatics I can see a motivation for getting involved. Still, I would not do this by involving myself in a debate over the existance of god, rather by championing secular politics, regardless of atheism, agnosticism, or any other ism.

Terez, on Jan 9 2009, 11:13 AM, said:

A bit of both, really. The religious spectrum is far-ranging.

They're both ridiculous. The first for believing that religion is the root cause, the second for letting other people's pass times bother you.

This post has been edited by Cold Iron: 09 January 2009 - 12:45 AM

[Terez]

Cold Iron, on Jan 8 2009, 06:44 PM, said:

Terez, on Jan 9 2009, 11:13 AM, said:

That's a good thing, IMO.

But in so doing, you enter the game, instead of holding yourself aloof from it.

We are in the game already, whether we want to be or not - especially in the US, where the religious are constantly seeking to impose their beliefs on others, and seeking to indoctrinate not only their own children, but everyone else's too. Being "aloof" is not really an option for those of us opposed to such things.

CI said:

My point was this - why is any atheist involving themself in this debate? I did not take legislation into account. I suppose if you life in a country where the government is dominated by fanatics I can see a motivation for getting involved. Still, I would not do this by involving myself in a debate over the existance of god, rather by championing secular politics, regardless of atheism, agnosticism, or any other ism.

IMO, a debate about the existence of god is as good a place to start as any.

[Cold Iron]

Terez, on Jan 9 2009, 11:54 AM, said:

We are in the game already, whether we want to be or not - especially in the US, where the religious are constantly seeking to impose their beliefs on others, and seeking to indoctrinate not only their own children, but everyone else's too. Being "aloof" is not really an option for those of us opposed to such things.

When religion is a mask for bigotry fighting the religion will not help. You can fight the injustices without fighting the philosophy.

Terez, on Jan 9 2009, 11:54 AM, said:

IMO, a debate about the existence of god is as good a place to start as any.

No, it's a rubbish place to start because you throw away your best weapon, reason. You can show, with logical reasoning, why all the changes you want to see in the world are good. You can't show that god doesn't exist.

[Terez]

Cold Iron, on Jan 8 2009, 07:07 PM, said:

Terez, on Jan 9 2009, 11:54 AM, said:

We are in the game already, whether we want to be or not - especially in the US, where the religious are constantly seeking to impose their beliefs on others, and seeking to indoctrinate not only their own children, but everyone else's too. Being "aloof" is not really an option for those of us opposed to such things.

When religion is a mask for bigotry fighting the religion will not help. You can fight the injustices without fighting the philosophy.

Fighting the injustices doesn't help when everyone is convinced that the injustices are ordained by god. I could try to convince them that "god doesn't really want this" or "god doesn't really want that" but I don't believe in god, so why should I take that approach? I think their beliefs are idiotic.

CI said:

Terez, on Jan 9 2009, 11:54 AM, said:

IMO, a debate about the existence of god is as good a place to start as any.

No, it's a rubbish place to start because you throw away your best weapon, reason. You can show, with logical reasoning, why all the changes you want to see in the world are good. You can't show that god doesn't exist.

I haven't thrown away reason at all, and you claiming it doesn't make it so. I never said I was going to show that god doesn't exist. Just that I think it's perfectly fine for people to express their disbelief in god in ad campaigns so long as the religious feel free to express their disbelief in god in ad campaigns. It opens a discussion on the issue, and the public discussion is what is lacking.

[Cold Iron]

Terez, on Jan 9 2009, 12:15 PM, said:

Fighting the injustices doesn't help when everyone is convinced that the injustices are ordained by god. I could try to convince them that "god doesn't really want this" or "god doesn't really want that" but I don't believe in god, so why should I take that approach? I think their beliefs are idiotic.

It is my belief that there is a deeper understanding of the concepts that would change your mind. I wish I could verbalise it easily. I will try, give me time.

Terez, on Jan 9 2009, 12:15 PM, said:

I haven't thrown away reason at all, and you claiming it doesn't make it so. I never said I was going to show that god doesn't exist. Just that I think it's perfectly fine for people to express their disbelief in god in ad campaigns so long as the religious feel free to express their disbelief in god in ad campaigns. It opens a discussion on the issue, and the public discussion is what is lacking.

Saying god does or doesn't exist is outside the realm of reason. Public discussion of the underlying issues would be fantastic, a public war about something that can't be proven is just childish.

[Terez]

Cold Iron, on Jan 8 2009, 08:51 PM, said:

It is my belief that there is a deeper understanding of the concepts that would change your mind.

Ha, and don't you think that's arrogant, implying that my understanding of the subject is shallow?

Terez, on Jan 9 2009, 12:15 PM, said:

Saying god does or doesn't exist is outside the realm of reason. Public discussion of the underlying issues would be fantastic, a public war about something that can't be proven is just childish.

It's only a war if people make it out to be. The atheists aren't the angry ones here - we're having a good time. We're enjoying the political climate that allows us, in lucky countries like the UK, to make statements such as these.

And, because it's funny (emotes mostly removed cause invision won't let me post them):

8:39:59 PM Brood: sometimes i want to punch all you fundies
8:40:12 PM Terez: lol
8:40:18 PM Terez: you're an agnostic fundie!
8:40:33 PM Terez: always feeling the need to butt into threads and call everyone hypocrites for giving a shit
8:40:34 PM Terez: lol
8:40:49 PM Brood: that's not fundie, that's just irritated
8:40:56 PM Terez: whatever
8:41:05 PM Brood: anyway, i'm not agnostic, i just dont feel the need to impose on everyone else
8:41:46 PM Terez: yeah, you've described your beliefs before, but there are a few different definitions of agnostic, and iirc one of them fits you
8:42:24 PM Terez: and a lot of theists for that matter
8:42:40 PM Brood: stretching it very thin
8:43:17 PM Terez: lots of theists and atheists are agnostics
8:43:21 PM Terez: http://skepdic.com/agnosticism.html
8:43:26 PM Terez: some etymology
8:43:43 PM Brood: well you're not
8:43:48 PM Terez: am too
8:43:50 PM Terez: lol
8:44:04 PM Brood: no, you're a fundie
8:44:05 PM Terez: the first "agnostic":
8:44:11 PM Terez: "They were quite sure that they had attained a certain "gnosis" -- had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. "
8:44:15 PM Terez: no, you're a fundie
8:45:04 PM Brood: how can i be an agnostic and a fundie? you're mixing your arguments:P
8:45:17 PM Terez: no, you're just confused about what you believe
8:45:18 PM Terez:
8:45:30 PM Brood: i'm not talking about what i believe!!
8:45:40 PM Terez: you believe I'm a fundie!
8:45:52 PM Brood: i'm talking about punching you lot that argue on the religion board about inarguable topics
8:46:25 PM Terez: and I'm talking about you insisting that topics are inarguable when obviously they are arguable because people are arguing
8:46:32 PM Terez: and presumably, everyone arguing wants to argue
8:46:53 PM Terez: and just because you don't want to doesn't mean you get to impose your self-morals on everyone else
8:47:00 PM Brood: because you're fundies
8:47:02 PM Terez: see, your morals are even making you feel violent!
8:47:04 PM Terez: you're a fundie
8:47:08 PM Terez: so shut it
8:47:22 PM Brood: fundie fundie fundie
8:47:32 PM Terez: fundier! fundier! fundier!
8:48:48 PM Brood: fundiest fundiest fundiest!
8:48:52 PM Terez: oh yeah?
8:49:00 PM Terez: you're omnifundamental
8:49:01 PM Brood: zing zing mofo
8:49:02 PM Terez: so there
8:49:32 PM Brood: your face is omnifundamental
8:49:58 PM Terez: your face is emo
8:50:05 PM Brood: WAS emo
8:50:10 PM Terez: is, forevermore
8:50:16 PM Terez: pictures are immortal
8:51:01 PM Brood: true :$

[caladanbrood]

I hate fundies. That includes the vast majority of you all

[RodeoRanch]

This thread makes me and imaginary baby Jesus laugh and cry. At the same time.

[Terez]

RodeoRanch, on Jan 8 2009, 10:07 PM, said:

This thread makes me and imaginary baby Jesus laugh and cry. At the same time.

You should take pictures of that, like Bwoodie did. I'll take the imaginary baby Jesus in my grilled cheese sandwich, kthx.

Bwoodie said:

I hate fundies. That includes the vast majority of you all

Just like a fundie, to pretend that everyone else is the fundies.

[Terez]

I like this article even better (this one from a nice UK source, rather than Yahoo):

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/opinion-for...036;1259459.htm


Christian challenges atheist bus advert

The source of the problem

Thursday, 08, Jan 2009 06:14

By Ian Dunt

A leading Christian activist has made a formal complaint about the atheist bus adverts which were launched nationwide this week.

The 800 buses launched for the campaign feature the slogan: "There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

Now Stephen Green of Christian Voice, who formally hit the front pages by launching a legal challenge against Jerry Springer the Opera on the BBC, has complained to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and is calling for the adverts to be withdrawn.

Mr Green has challenged the adverts on grounds of "truthfulness" and "substantiation", suggesting that there is not "a shred of supporting evidence" that there is probably no God.

Speaking to politics.co.uk distinguished philosopher A C Grayling defended the slogan, saying there was ample justification for the claim.

"The evidential basis for God is the same as for believing there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, and if you don't believe the latter, you shouldn't believe the former," he said.

Professor Grayling admitted secretly welcoming any Advertising Standards inquiry into the adverts, because it would necessarily impact on Christian adverts as well.

Most notably, it could effect the adverts of the Alpha Foundation, an organisation whose advert prompted the atheist response. It organises Christian seminars nationwide and is described by God Delusion author Richard Dawkins as "a pretty dopey sort of organisation".

Hanne Stinson, chief executive of the British Humanist Association (BHA), said: "I've sought advice from some of our key people here, but I'm afraid all I've got out of them so far is peals of laughter.

"I am sure that Stephen Green really does think there is a great deal of evidence for a God (though presumably only the one that he believes in) but I pity the ASA if they are going to be expected to rule on the probability of god's existence."

Mr Green was unavailable for comment.

[caladanbrood]

Terez, on Jan 9 2009, 04:42 AM, said:

suggesting that there is not "a shred of supporting evidence" that there is probably no God.

That is funny.

[Terez]

Isn't it?

[Cold Iron]

Terez, on Jan 9 2009, 02:57 PM, said:

Cold Iron, on Jan 8 2009, 08:51 PM, said:

It is my belief that there is a deeper understanding of the concepts that would change your mind.

Ha, and don't you think that's arrogant, implying that my understanding of the subject is shallow?

Yes, it's arrogant. Now go read it and tell me what you think.

[Terez]

I've heard enough of your thoughts on that particular subject, so I doubt it will be enlightening.

[Cold Iron]

Terez, on Jan 9 2009, 04:39 PM, said:

I've heard enough of your thoughts on that particular subject, so I doubt it will be enlightening.

Then don't read it. It's not as if I'm trying to proselytise.

[Terez]

Of course not.