Could The Nefarious Hand Of Antifa Be...
News1 min ago
Atheists on the offensive?
84 Answers
Atheists are starting an advertising campaign to alert the public to the fact that there may not be a god.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7813812.stm
My question is this. I am not a god botherer, in fact I'm pretty much as far from that as you can get, but when did atheism becom proselytizing? Why spend �140,000 promoting your beliefs if your beliefs are that everyone else is wrong? Surely by definition that's fundamentalism, and therefore defeats the point of atheism? Or am I completely at 6s and 7s here?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7813812.stm
My question is this. I am not a god botherer, in fact I'm pretty much as far from that as you can get, but when did atheism becom proselytizing? Why spend �140,000 promoting your beliefs if your beliefs are that everyone else is wrong? Surely by definition that's fundamentalism, and therefore defeats the point of atheism? Or am I completely at 6s and 7s here?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Whickerman. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
it just says 'probably'. if that's fundamentalism, I wish al-Qaida would try it.
More broadly, 'atheism' is just an abstract noun, it can't do anything like proselytize. Individuals can get together and pay for ads on buses if they like. People do sometimes do things that aren't going to make them a profit. Or they can go into the Religion section on AB and tell each other what fools believers are, which happens more or less non-stop.
More broadly, 'atheism' is just an abstract noun, it can't do anything like proselytize. Individuals can get together and pay for ads on buses if they like. People do sometimes do things that aren't going to make them a profit. Or they can go into the Religion section on AB and tell each other what fools believers are, which happens more or less non-stop.
Any religious group that promotes itself is essentially saying that everyone else is wrong. Why should atheists be any different? They believe that all religion is false. Why shouldn�t they have a right to state their point of view?
As Jno states, this isn�t proselytizing. It�s informing people that there is an alternative to religion. It would be more accurate to describe it as a public information campaign.
As Jno states, this isn�t proselytizing. It�s informing people that there is an alternative to religion. It would be more accurate to describe it as a public information campaign.
I don;t think truth does equal faith ummm - surely the definition of faith is belief that sometrhing is true, which means that it cannot be proven as true - truth, but is believed to be true - belief.
It's on such semantics that religions are formed.
I consider myself an atheist, but I would suggest that this is based on lack of belief that there is a God, rather than belief that there is no God, which again is a small but vital difference in perception.
I consider the poster campaign to be disturbing for those who's faith is not as strong as maybe they would wish, and it seems to me that actively pursuing a belief - or indeed lack of it - is somewhat of a pointless exerciise.
People who care will question and debate the issue anyway - as we are doing here - people who don't care - the other 99%, will ignore it.
It's on such semantics that religions are formed.
I consider myself an atheist, but I would suggest that this is based on lack of belief that there is a God, rather than belief that there is no God, which again is a small but vital difference in perception.
I consider the poster campaign to be disturbing for those who's faith is not as strong as maybe they would wish, and it seems to me that actively pursuing a belief - or indeed lack of it - is somewhat of a pointless exerciise.
People who care will question and debate the issue anyway - as we are doing here - people who don't care - the other 99%, will ignore it.
I think what they're doing is more an exercise in opening up public debate, and creating a general awareness of atheism in general. There's a hugely significant part of the population that class themselves as atheist now, but there is no real focal point or mouthpiece for expressing a collective opinion. I guess that Dawkins is the most outspoken at the moment, but I think there's a general concern that their opinions are not represented in the public forum at the moment.
Personally, I'm an atheist and feel more outspoken than i have in a number of years, not so much against the established major religions, but in particular against cod-spirituality such as crystals, mediums etc and anyone who is peddling lies to vulnerable people trying to reach out for something more in life.
Personally, I'm an atheist and feel more outspoken than i have in a number of years, not so much against the established major religions, but in particular against cod-spirituality such as crystals, mediums etc and anyone who is peddling lies to vulnerable people trying to reach out for something more in life.
I don't think they need to do that at all. Most people in this country, although stating they are christian, only see the inside of a church at a wedding or funeral and maybe a christening.
Ask them if they believe in God and usually the answer will no. More people believe in the Devil which is a bit bizaar.
Ask them if they believe in God and usually the answer will no. More people believe in the Devil which is a bit bizaar.
In line with jno's tone, at least, I'll attempt participating in this forum, having given up on the referenced Religion section, primarily for the reasons also referenced.
I'd ask the question: "At what point does any firmly held world view become a 'religion". Atheism, being an -ism has either become such or is rapidly gaining that nomenclature. Given that the existence or non of God (I'm speaking of the God of the Christian/Judaeo Covenant) cannot be proven or disproven and given that Christians are tarred with the broad brush of unfounded and unreasonable faith is it not just as fair to describe the committed atheist in the same fashion?
Here's the point; there are many things in life that we don't like, accept or even believe in. The list is long, depending on each individual. However, they may irritate us or even confound us, but they aren't a point of contention. Usually the most rabid brussels-sprout hater only shakes his head when meeting those that profess a liking for the sulphur filled little belchers. No campaign is launched to change either group by the other. vivre sa vie is the word of the day, no? But, athiests, so it seems to me, hold their belief system as dear as do Christians. In many cases (exemplified by the vitriolic attacks expressed by many in R&S) the athiests have just as much a need to evangelize as do Christians, yet without any provable basis, the petard upon which they seek to hoist the Christians.
Th evast majority of those with whom I share a deep abiding faith are college graduates, Phd's., professionals as well as working people. The singular thread between all is a rational, well considered investigation of all sides of the Question.
I'd ask the question: "At what point does any firmly held world view become a 'religion". Atheism, being an -ism has either become such or is rapidly gaining that nomenclature. Given that the existence or non of God (I'm speaking of the God of the Christian/Judaeo Covenant) cannot be proven or disproven and given that Christians are tarred with the broad brush of unfounded and unreasonable faith is it not just as fair to describe the committed atheist in the same fashion?
Here's the point; there are many things in life that we don't like, accept or even believe in. The list is long, depending on each individual. However, they may irritate us or even confound us, but they aren't a point of contention. Usually the most rabid brussels-sprout hater only shakes his head when meeting those that profess a liking for the sulphur filled little belchers. No campaign is launched to change either group by the other. vivre sa vie is the word of the day, no? But, athiests, so it seems to me, hold their belief system as dear as do Christians. In many cases (exemplified by the vitriolic attacks expressed by many in R&S) the athiests have just as much a need to evangelize as do Christians, yet without any provable basis, the petard upon which they seek to hoist the Christians.
Th evast majority of those with whom I share a deep abiding faith are college graduates, Phd's., professionals as well as working people. The singular thread between all is a rational, well considered investigation of all sides of the Question.
Clanad, I think one part of Whickerman's question (which I didn't address in my earlier answer) is in effect whether atheism is becoming organised, whether it's developing... not a church, perhaps, but some form of co-operation that encourages them to put advertisements on buses. The ads are in fact rather mild, but that's to do with advertising law rather than the self-confidence of the advertisers. (Basically, you're not allowed to make unsupported claims that your product is the best; one beer has long had fun with a campaign that it is 'probably the best lager in the world'.)
I'm not quite sure of the answer to this, because I'm not sure if the purpose of the ads is to convert anyone or just to proclaim their own certitude. Because I never heard of anyone being converted to atheism by something on the side of a bus, I suspect it's the latter; but maybe they really do hope to change people's minds.
I'm not quite sure of the answer to this, because I'm not sure if the purpose of the ads is to convert anyone or just to proclaim their own certitude. Because I never heard of anyone being converted to atheism by something on the side of a bus, I suspect it's the latter; but maybe they really do hope to change people's minds.
I'd like to see a day when a Prime Minister or President could declare themselves an atheist and stand a chance of election....
Clanad - I really shouldn't be scratching this itch, in this question, in the News section, but I would disagree that the resolute belief that God does not exist is the same as the resolute belief that God does exist. You can't prove anything ultimately, and I can't prove that I'm sipping from a cup of tea right now, but the overwhelming evidence is that I am, so that makes the most sense to have as a world view. Likewise God.
Clanad - I really shouldn't be scratching this itch, in this question, in the News section, but I would disagree that the resolute belief that God does not exist is the same as the resolute belief that God does exist. You can't prove anything ultimately, and I can't prove that I'm sipping from a cup of tea right now, but the overwhelming evidence is that I am, so that makes the most sense to have as a world view. Likewise God.
Clanad, as humorous as it is, your analogy between religion and a Brussels sprout doesn�t work. We can all avoid Brussels sprouts if we so wish, but none of us can wholly avoid religion. For example, there are some atheists on AB who object to their taxes going towards the upkeep of faith based schools, but they have no choice in the matter.
You may have a point naomi, but my tome was penned from my American view point where such taxes are verboten... in fact, we home school and other friends send their children to private schools that are sponsored by one chruch or another. Not only do the parents have to pay the tuition for their children they still have to pay the school taxes assessed by each County.
I'd probably disagree, gently, with your assessment of my brussels-sprout analogy in that even if one couldn't avoid the nasty little green bulbs totally (see them in the frozen food section, part of the local Lutheran fund raising dinner, or, illogically, advertised by the next Green Giant TV ad), my response might be surprise that they are still cultivated and devoured but nothing much more. I have no interest in organizing a boycott, nor writing a book exposing the fallacies inherent in their ugliness. I'd simply leave 'em alone and those that support them.
So, I understand your comment since it applies in your case....
I'd probably disagree, gently, with your assessment of my brussels-sprout analogy in that even if one couldn't avoid the nasty little green bulbs totally (see them in the frozen food section, part of the local Lutheran fund raising dinner, or, illogically, advertised by the next Green Giant TV ad), my response might be surprise that they are still cultivated and devoured but nothing much more. I have no interest in organizing a boycott, nor writing a book exposing the fallacies inherent in their ugliness. I'd simply leave 'em alone and those that support them.
So, I understand your comment since it applies in your case....
I agree. Religion's encroachment into the lives of non-believers is just not acceptable.
Bishops in the House of Lords laying down laws for us, blasphemy being a criminal offence, faith schools funded by the state, dangerous fundamentalism that affects our safety.
As a non-believer, I happily rail against these things. It's about fairness. But that doesn't mean I'm going to tell my mum she's thick for going to church and praying to a God I think isn't there.
What's a bit unsettling about this debate (and my oh my, it's in your face in the R&S section) is that the atheists use this 'fairness' justification as an cover so they can waggle their intellect round like a big willy, sneering at believers and feeling very, very, very, very pleased with themselves.
Having said that, I like these bus posters. They're upbeat and funny.
Bishops in the House of Lords laying down laws for us, blasphemy being a criminal offence, faith schools funded by the state, dangerous fundamentalism that affects our safety.
As a non-believer, I happily rail against these things. It's about fairness. But that doesn't mean I'm going to tell my mum she's thick for going to church and praying to a God I think isn't there.
What's a bit unsettling about this debate (and my oh my, it's in your face in the R&S section) is that the atheists use this 'fairness' justification as an cover so they can waggle their intellect round like a big willy, sneering at believers and feeling very, very, very, very pleased with themselves.
Having said that, I like these bus posters. They're upbeat and funny.
There is a simple riposte to non-believers. Just quote Charles Darwin. His writings mirror those of ficticious writers such as Enid Blyton. Just add 2 + 2 together to make 5. Or work backwards and assume if you go back far enoughyou will reach a single celled organism. What tosh! Its like saying a computer could be designed by a chimp.
There might not have been a god but certainly there was a higher level of inteligence than ourselves. Design always flows downwards not up.
There might not have been a god but certainly there was a higher level of inteligence than ourselves. Design always flows downwards not up.
...Let me add, as an after thought, that even if I totally hated (which I do not) Brussels sprouts, I can't see myself engaging in polemic filled with vitriol about how stupid and uneducated the eaters of such obviously prelapsarian herbs must be. I can't for the life of me, think of anything in the area of belief related items that I could become so involved that I would dislike the person so engaged. (There are other factors that can be considered, however). I might advise them about how bad their breath stinks and other jactitational causing shortcomings of the virescent orbs reminiscent of a pilgarlic alien... but evangelize... no...
