[Gimli's love child]

I dont know if many of our European and American counterparts have seen this but recently in London Richard Dawkins has teamed up the British Humanist Association and come up with the following slogan to be dispalyed on inter-city buses across the UK:

http://www.justgiving.com/atheistbus

The Slogan reads:

'There's probably no god now stop worrying and enjoy your life'

Now as far as I am concerned this is a step in the right direction however I cant but feel abit apprehensive. Somehow putting this kind of the up seems like preaching. As an athesist I hate it when people try to shove their religious opinions down my throat and I would never like to be accused of doing the same.

Any thoughts?

[caladanbrood]

Gimli's love child, on Dec 3 2008, 07:42 PM, said:

Now as far as I am concerned this is a step in the right direction however I cant but feel abit apprehensive. Somehow putting this kind of the up seems like preaching. As an athesist I hate it when people try to shove their religious opinions down my throat and I would never like to be accused of doing the same.

Any thoughts?

Why the hell is this "a step in the right direction". Seems very much like shoving personal beliefs down people's throats. And what's wrong with having faith in the first place that is the "wrong direction"?

[Aptorian]

It's my impression that Dawkins is a science fanatic, he's sort of in the opposite end of the scale as the religious zealots.

[teholbeddict]

Aptorian, on Dec 3 2008, 01:51 PM, said:

It's my impression that Dawkins is a science fanatic, he's sort of in the opposite end of the scale as the religious zealots.

Well he describes himself as an atheist, sceptic and scientific rationalist. He's a big supporter of the Brights Movement. The movements three major aims are:

• Promote public understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements.
  
• Gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance.
  
• Educate society toward accepting the full and equitable civic participation of all such people.

I actually have quite a few of his books, his last one The God Delusion, was very informative but also quite dry. He really promotes a logical argument to atheism. which is quite refreshing.

[Darkwatch]

Quote

With your help, we can brighten people's days on the way to work, help raise awareness of atheism in the UK, and hopefully encourage more people to come out as atheists. We can also counter the religious adverts which are currently running on London buses, and help people think for themselves.

Yes because thinking for yourself is to follow slogans on buses.

The way their talking with the "help raise awareness of atheism in the UK" and the "hopefully encourage more people to come out as atheists." really makes it sound like an ideological mouvement with a set philosophy behind it, specificaly that of knowing the TRUTH (that there is no God).
Ironic when you think about it (Oh! Burn!)

Quote

As Richard Dawkins says: "This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think - and thinking is anathema to religion."

Hum... I'm trying to understand Dawkins' beef, is it with religion or the concept of God? And if it's religion is it religious sentiment in general of the organizational structure, in which case he should say Church?


The great thing in all this is that Dawkins' is as bad as the people he's fighting. He already has an "Us vs. Them" mentality and is convinced that he is right and will oblige no difference of opinion. He is also becoming progressively more aggressive and insulting, which is counter productive to trying to get people on his side.

[Sinisdar Toste]

it feels like dawkins is trying to get atheism recognized as an official... i dno, pseudo religion... or like... the official non-religion of the world. weird
and he's using the same tactics that religious institutions have used for years. propaganda and extortion

This post has been edited by Sinisdar Toste: 03 December 2008 - 10:39 PM

[Urb]

I saw him in a debate once, and it seemed he was mostly concerned with teaching children about all the different alternatives, instead of indoctrinating them into only one. Sort of like it was a crime to take the child's choice away. He's quite fun to listen to. Doesn't hold back on anything

[frookenhauer]

In terms of teaching children about the alternatives...Good on him. I'm generally against kids getting indoctrinated into the faith of their parents, but its unavoidable because they are only doing what is the best for the kids in their eyes, so...*hands tied*

[Trull's son]

I have read the Selfish Gene by Dawkins, but never one of his books that discuss his atheistic views. can someone recommend one of his best that deals with the subject? please and thank you

[teholbeddict]

As I mentioned in my post the God Delusion his latest, deals directly with his views on atheism and gives a pretty thorough argument in the defence of his position. Just be prepeared for the fact that it can be a little dry at times, he goes well beyond the cliche arguments and into scientific theories. He's often been described as Darwin's rottweiler. In Delusion he contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that faith qualifies as delusion/fixed false belief.

[Terez]

Gimli's love child, on Dec 3 2008, 01:42 PM, said:

Now as far as I am concerned this is a step in the right direction however I cant but feel abit apprehensive. Somehow putting this kind of the up seems like preaching. As an athesist I hate it when people try to shove their religious opinions down my throat and I would never like to be accused of doing the same.

Any thoughts?

I had a glance at Bwoodie's post and decided to give my own answer before looking at the rest of the thread, because I'm not in the mood to go off on anyone (and it's pointless to go off on Bwoodie).

I don't believe it's the same as trying to convert someone to a religion. It's more like saying, "hey, there are other people out there like you - so many that (gasp) it is now socially acceptable to run such advertisements (religious advertisements have been all over the place for years)." It's a step in the right direction because atheism has been suppressed for so long. Perhaps one day soon we won't have either religious or atheist advertisements, and that would make me perfectly happy, but so long as religion is recruiting, it makes sense to push the agenda of making atheism more socially acceptable.

[Vicodin&FantasyBooks]

Meh... iternets...

Dawkins is only interested in his book sales I believe and having read a few pages of The God Delusion I think it's meant as a book for kids and foreign students from the arab states. First of all parental authority is much more important to kids and the muslim are probably the toughest people to dissuade away from religion. Secondly belonging to your family is much more important than 'objective' truth and you don't even have to oppose the two to lead a happy life like Dawkins is doing. For him it's either religion or science but never both of them at the same time. And as far as the muslim are concerned what can we say about belonging to society at all.

The problem is that religion is not inherently wrong but more so a mass of people don't understand it or only look at it from a superficial point of view. The later being something I've been nagging on @frook for ever since he made that Genesis thread. You see a superficial point of view is just that no mater if it's based on a fanatical mind-set or a purely scientific one. It's ultimately leading to a great deal of missunderstanding through missinterpretation.

There you can argue that there is no one true interpretation and that a scientific one is also a valid one. But you see I have quite the imagination so let's say that i pick up my organic chemistry textbook and do an analysis of the theistic refferences in it. Where do you think that would lead? To a greater understanding of organo-chemistry? Are you serious about this?

That's roughly what Dawkins is doing right now. First of all he's missing the point that the existence of God is non-debatable for a religious person. Secondly he's a copycat of most everybody before him. For one you should understand that we already had a great prophet of atheism in the face of Nietzsche, we had a suporter of Satan's point of view in Milton and who knows what else that I personally haven't read yet.

One of the basic requirements to create a scientifically meaningful theory is the knowledge of all the work that's been done in the area by people before you. Else you just end up rediscovering tap water and often a lot less efficiently than the original pioneer.

Now to come to what I've always believed about Dawkins I have to say that he's probably neither as delusional or fanatic or as ignorant to past works on the topic of atheism. He's a businessman. The guy writes and sells books. I believe the latest info in this thread points well enough in that direction too.

PP: Did you know that on his forum they actually refer to him as The Prof, capitalized. The Lords name always be capitalized by religious doctrine and all that, it seems quite peculiar.

This post has been edited by Vicodin&FantasyBooks: 04 December 2008 - 08:25 AM

[Terez]

That's all Christianity is about. Selling books.

[Use Of Weapons]

I'd recommend reading Dawkins' _A Devil's Chaplain_ instead of _The God Delusion_. ADC is a collection of Dawkins' essays on a variety of subjects, touching on some of the topics in TGD but more wide-ranging. It's a great way of giving a flavour of the man's writing, his rhetorical style, and the breadth of his interests, without being too concerned with a single topic.

He is a very angry man, in TGD.

[Mezla PigDog]

Dawkins has chosen the wrong group of people if he is trying to mobilise atheists into some kind of action! I agree with most of his opinions but I wish he'd shut up, similarly I wish religious people would shut up. Religion needs to be something people do in the privacy of their own personal lives. I suppose Dawkins thinks that he needs to be out there in order to get collective religious opinion more centralised. I just want everyone to shut up

[Gimli's love child]

I dont agree that its all about book sales

Dawkins has been a very successful scientist and has been making television for sometime. I would seriously doubt that he is motivated by money as others pointed out you could agrue the same of religion or virtually anything these days, money is generally always at the heart of most things.

His intense love of science I would agrue is his main motivation. All you need to do is listen to him for 5 minutes and this becomes clear.

All religions have a membership base which provides them the support they need when challenged. So when Dawkins challenges religion they respond in kind. Due to the or very nature Atheists do not have a rallying point. This obviously leaves us exposed when a religious person attacks our ideals as we have no organised means of rebuttal so I welcome some form for us to solicit our ideals and to be heard as an equal voice amongst all the other opinions.

To compare this to a church or a a religion is unfair. Obviously the ommision of certain specific things such a place of worship or a holy book takes atheists far from a religion. I understand the concept that at the end of the day Atheism is argued as a faith but this is not the same thing.

Taking into consideration that I think about 36.46% of reponses to a survey on this forum stated that they were Atheist, it is clear that a personal belief which, is very widespread, has no representation when it comes to more direct issues.

For instance in N.Ireland the churches have stepped into a discussion about the 11+ and added heavy support for its removal. Now why should they be involved in this type of thing at all I dont know but surely it is only fair to represent the full spectrum when considering these debates and at present the atheist community has essentially no voice in this type of issue.

So heres the question, how do you proceed? To start a official society? or pollitical party?

Add campaigns like this show Athesits that they are not alone and as support is drawn the chances of us eventually having a voice are increased, this is why I support the drive.

EDIT: @Melza

why dont you shut up!? eh? eh?.. thats right...

This post has been edited by Gimli's love child: 04 December 2008 - 12:59 PM

[teholbeddict]

Vicodin&FantasyBooks, on Dec 4 2008, 02:14 AM, said:

Meh... iternets...
Dawkins is only interested in his book sales I believe and having read a few pages of The God Delusion I think it's meant as a book for kids and foreign students from the arab states.

Well it's a shame you read only the first few pages and now make this kind of judgement. I would think that a concept such as natural selection and similar scientific theories being superior to a "God hypothesis" — the illusion of intelligent design— in explaining the living world and the cosmos, is a bit beyond kiddie level. He also mentions the "catholic child" as well as the "muslim child" as examples. His point was that children should not be automatically labelled by the religion of their parents, but be allowed to make their own decisions. He also uses the example of a "Marxist child" or a "Tory child" in the case of political associations. He questions whether a young child can be developed enough to have these views. You could put any religion in front of the word child and still make the point, those were just examples. It isn't just a book of flippant one offs with nothing to back up what he's saying.

[caladanbrood]

Terez, on Dec 4 2008, 04:30 AM, said:

It's a step in the right direction because atheism has been suppressed for so long. Perhaps one day soon we won't have either religious or atheist advertisements, and that would make me perfectly happy, but so long as religion is recruiting, it makes sense to push the agenda of making atheism more socially acceptable.

Don't kid yourself. He's doing this in London, not Ohio. We simply don't have religion involved in our politics, education and lives to the extent the US does. Athiesm is of a same level of social acceptability as Theism, if not more in young people.


Dawkins main problem is the same as most athiest fundies. He confuses Christianity with Creationism.

[Cause]

people who believe that a man was nailed to a cross died and was resurected, and people who believe the world is only 6000 years old both believe in the fantastical. Who knows one or both could be true but to say the ones beliefs are more acceptable than anohers is ludicorous, the one is more socially acceptale true but thats it.

Im a firm believer in that their can be only one answer to the god question. God exists or he does not. I believe their is evidence which can point you further to one side of the debate than the other. I think a sign on a bus is not one of those evidences and in general not helpfull.

As an aside why is a humanist group participating in this?

[stone monkey]

Whilst I agree with Dawkins I do wish he would stfu sometimes. I haven't gone anywhere near The God Delusion because I fear Dawkins occasionally falls into the same trap when he talks about religion as the fundies do when they talk about atheism - that of wilfull misinterpretation.

His books devoted to evolution are a joy - I particularly like The Ancestors Tale and Climbing Mount Improbable - they are both well and lucidly written. The Selfish Gene whilst somewhat outdated in a few respects is still a classic of its kind.

As for the ads; well, there probably is no God and we should all get on with living our lives. If someone wants to object to that statement being actually voiced, that's just idiotic.

I do agree somewhat with Mezla - organising atheists probably has a lot in common with herding cats... And, in common with anarchists, an atheist reserves the right to disagree with every other atheist.