| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
mrcozdude 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 25 2007
Location: Devon,UK.
Status: Offline
Points: 2078
|
 Posted: March 13 2009 at 19:38 |
|
I think generally "debates usually end up with no winners, and a bunch of frustrated people with carpal tunnel in their wrists." But then we would have no PA,but every forum discussion and question always comedown to the above quote minus the religious aspect.
|
|
|
 |
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: March 13 2009 at 20:30 |
 Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Secularism has made advances, and rightly so; it is the core tenet or one of the core tenets of Western Civilization. Atheism is different, and is met with hostility by probably 80% of all religious people (probably a bit off). And a recent study came out saying that Agnostics/Atheists make up about 15% of the US population, and trust me they're only now getting any sort of voice whatsoever. When it is still sure political suicide for a politician to come out as not just an atheist but only a non-Christian, you know there is much ignorance and fear of a belief system which above all champions rationality.
That's normal and happens everywhere:
- In Perú a non Catholic hardly be elected.
- In Iran hardly a non Moslem will be elected
- In the former Soviet Union a non Atheist would had been sent to Siberia and in most of the communist countries they can expect problems
Normality =/= right. If it's wrong it should be corrected.
There's no nice way of implying someone has wasted their life worshiping something that isn't there. No wonder it's a contentious issue. Just because it's attacking the beliefs of many people doesn't make it negative. I'll save a Nazi analogy for later.
Now, you are comparing Christians weith Nazis
Not at all. Attacking the beliefs of a Nazi is perfectly right and good, because they're horrible beliefs. The point is that some beliefs should be attacked, with varying degrees of intensity.
BTW: There's no way you can imply to a religious person that there may not be God, because we know in advance there are no proves of his existence, and we don't believe our live is wasted....And why in helńl do you want to convince people? Isn't that evangelism of Atheism?
If it is a private company (and I believe it must be because there would be a sh*tstorm if the government was using taxes to pay for any sort of faith message) then it owes no one any favor for the kind of message it carries, so long as it's not inciteful of violence or makes unprovable claims.
So if a Nazi or anti Latino or anti Black message is ccarried, the bus driver isn't allowed to protest not driving?
That probably depends on the company policy, but I think you're pondering unreality. No company in the civilized world would have a Nazi ad, for the PR backlash. But in case one did, then the driver probably should strike. Better yet, quit the job. No one is entitled to a job at a company no matter what they do, though, so I wouldn't whine if your Nazi company fires you.
You can choose which company to work for and which not to work for. Disregarding for a moment that it is PR suicide for a company to have the messages you said, an employee of the company can either stay with the company or not stay with the company based on his beliefs. He does not have the right to f**k up the daily bus system if he happens to not like whaling when there's an advertisement for a sushi bar.
Tell to a 60 years old guy he can choose where to work  , that canm be only said by a person in his 20's or less, and there are work rights, a worker can protest against abusive or what he considers uinmoral conditions or being forced to carry a message in which he doesn't believe.
You are sitting in the rights of the bus driver because of your comfort.
There's a universal right to strike, and nobody can attempt against it.
If there's a universal right to strike, there's a universal right to conduct business. The company will hire other workers in the interim to take the place of the striker(s). Bunch a luck to the one sap who tries to make a difference. An army of strikers is a different thing. The point here, though, is that public transportation workers have much more limited striking rights, I believe. They can't go around protesting everything or else the city shuts down.
I say minimally because any rational person should not get up in arms over the phrase "There's probably no God, not stop worrying and enjoy your life." If you can't see how that's not a positive message, then you've inextricably linked a good life with the necessity of a belief in God.
Do whatever you want...God probably doesn't exist....How is that positive? And even if it's positive for you, why it has to be positive for me?
I'm not justifying that radical and unprecedented inference with a response other than this.
I believe I'm a moral person inmdependently of my believes, because that's how i was raised, but telling people do what you want is a bit dangerous.
No one, but the fundamental point is if religions can advertise on buses, atheists cannot be culled into not advertising because of fear of illogical reprisal from the crazies.
I'm not a hypocryte, I said multiple times that Religion is for the personal life, Church and religious schools, not for public advices, that wouldd be propaganda.
[ You're confusing atheism with secularism.
Oh please, Iˇ'm secular, but not atheist. I know well the difference
Then stop confusing them 
Iván
|
|
Edited by stonebeard - March 13 2009 at 20:32
|
|
|
|
KoS
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 17 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Points: 16310
|
Posted: March 13 2009 at 20:34 |
|
Well, Stonie and mrcozdude posted what I was going to reply with, so I'm not going to bother repeating the same positions. I am going to see William Craig Lane and Christopher Hitchens in a debate on the existence of God in April, so that'll be fun. The main thing is, that religion can and has been displayed in ads,but as soon as something goes against religion everybody gets their panties in a bunch. If a bus company decides to advertise a certain sport team, lets say the Boston Celtics, would it be fair that Laker fans could protest because they were offended by it? The message by the athiest gruop is no more offensive than "It's Miller time" or "Eat Fresh" or any other message that tries to promote a product, service or idea.
BTW, bus workers in most US cities have very little striking rights(google the New York bus strike) due to the fact that they are basically govt. workers.
Edited by KoS - March 13 2009 at 20:35
|
|
mrcozdude
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 25 2007
Location: Devon,UK.
Status: Offline
Points: 2078
|
Posted: March 13 2009 at 20:35 |
stonebeard wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Secularism has made advances, and rightly so; it is the core tenet or one of the core tenets of Western Civilization. Atheism is different, and is met with hostility by probably 80% of all religious people (probably a bit off). And a recent study came out saying that Agnostics/Atheists make up about 15% of the US population, and trust me they're only now getting any sort of voice whatsoever. When it is still sure political suicide for a politician to come out as not just an atheist but only a non-Christian, you know there is much ignorance and fear of a belief system which above all champions rationality.
That's normal and happens everywhere:
- In Perú a non Catholic hardly be elected.
- In Iran hardly a non Moslem will be elected
- In the former Soviet Union a non Atheist would had been sent to Siberia and in most of the communist countries they can expect problems
Normality =/= right. If it's wrong it should be corrected.
There's no nice way of implying someone has wasted their life worshiping something that isn't there. No wonder it's a contentious issue. Just because it's attacking the beliefs of many people doesn't make it negative. I'll save a Nazi analogy for later.
Now, you are comparing Christians weith Nazis
Not at all. Attacking the beliefs of a Nazi is perfectly right and good, because they're horrible beliefs. The point is that some beliefs should be attacked, with varying degrees of intensity.
BTW: There's no way you can imply to a religious person that there may not be God, because we know in advance there are no proves of his existence, and we don't believe our live is wasted....And why in helńl do you want to convince people? Isn't that evangelism of Atheism?
If it is a private company (and I believe it must be because there would be a sh*tstorm if the government was using taxes to pay for any sort of faith message) then it owes no one any favor for the kind of message it carries, so long as it's not inciteful of violence or makes unprovable claims.
So if a Nazi or anti Latino or anti Black message is ccarried, the bus driver isn't allowed to protest not driving?
That probably depends on the company policy, but I think you're pondering unreality. No company in the civilized world would have a Nazi ad, for the PR backlash. But in case one did, then the driver probably should strike. Better yet, quit the job. No one is entitled to a job at a company no matter what they do, though, so I wouldn't whine if your Nazi company fires you.
You can choose which company to work for and which not to work for. Disregarding for a moment that it is PR suicide for a company to have the messages you said, an employee of the company can either stay with the company or not stay with the company based on his beliefs. He does not have the right to f**k up the daily bus system if he happens to not like whaling when there's an advertisement for a sushi bar.
Tell to a 60 years old guy he can choose where to work , that canm be only said by a person in his 20's or less, and there are work rights, a worker can protest against abusive or what he considers uinmoral conditions or being forced to carry a message in which he doesn't believe.
You are sitting in the rights of the bus driver because of your comfort.
There's a universal right to strike, and nobody can attempt against it.
If there's a universal right to strike, there's a universal right to conduct business. The company will hire other workers in the interim to take the place of the striker(s). Bunch a luck to the one sap who tries to make a difference. An army of strikers is a different thing. The point here, though, is that public transportation workers have much more limited striking rights, I believe. They can't go around protesting everything or else the city shuts down.
I say minimally because any rational person should not get up in arms over the phrase "There's probably no God, not stop worrying and enjoy your life." If you can't see how that's not a positive message, then you've inextricably linked a good life with the necessity of a belief in God.
Do whatever you want...God probably doesn't exist....How is that positive? And even if it's positive for you, why it has to be positive for me?
I'm not justifying that radical and unprecedented inference with a response other than this.
I believe I'm a moral person inmdependently of my believes, because that's how i was raised, but telling people do what you want is a bit dangerous.
No one, but the fundamental point is if religions can advertise on buses, atheists cannot be culled into not advertising because of fear of illogical reprisal from the crazies.
I'm not a hypocryte, I said multiple times that Religion is for the personal life, Church and religious schools, not for public advices, that wouldd be propaganda.
[ You're confusing atheism with secularism.
Oh please, Iˇ'm secular, but not atheist. I know well the difference
Then stop confusing them
Iván
|
|
|
That's fighting talk  I love the discussions expressed none of which I would of expressed myself but none the less great conversations guys!
|
|
|
|
Sasquamo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 26 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 828
|
Posted: March 13 2009 at 21:00 |
|
"No, I
don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should
they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
-Former President of U.S., George H.W. Bush
|
|
BaldFriede
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 02 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10266
|
Posted: March 14 2009 at 06:10 |
stonebeard wrote:
BaldFriede wrote:
Stonebeard, you miss something important already. The message "There probably is no God, so stop worrying and enjoy your life" is misleading already; it implies that people who believe in God worry and don't enjoy their lives. Actually it is rather the opposite way: Anyone who has true faith in God will not worry. Worrying is a sign of doubt.
|
I doubt the humanity of someone who doesn't doubt. 
|
As pointed out before: If you believe then you believe. You may have moments of weakness when you have doubts, I grant you that; even Jesus had them. But apart from these moments of weakness the belief is 100%. And I know a lot of people who don't have any doubts at all and, what's more important: It is an immense asset to them. It gives them strength in situations which appear to be hopeless. By the way: I have absolutely no doubt at all in what I believe to be God either; God is a logical necessity, in my opinion. But I have already explained my understanding of God.
|
 BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue.
|
|
BaldFriede
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 02 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10266
|
Posted: March 14 2009 at 06:29 |
visitor2035 wrote:
A coupla balls to boot into play here. First one.....why has no one ever seen this god person? burning bushes are not included, unless you believe god is/was a burning bush. Secondly only aetheists worry? isn't roman catholicism based on fear.....sin and you'll go to the burning fires of hell nonsense
Each to their own, but in my opinion only believers can be hypocrites, cos aesthiests don't have anything to follow or fairy tale books to believe in. |
Roman Catholicism is not based on fear; that's an obvious misconception. God is forgiving, that's the basic teaching of Roman Catholicism. Secondly I repeat what has been said before. Are you really so naive to believe that God could appear to your senses? Jean mentioned she sees evidence of God everywhere she looks, and I heartily agree with her. You have to deliberately close your eyes to that evidence to deny God, in my opinion. I go by the same method I go by to deduct that other people are conscious: I judge by their deeds and the results of them.
|
BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue.
|
|
Peter
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: January 31 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 9669
|
Posted: March 14 2009 at 09:20 |
Henry Plainview wrote:
Peter wrote:
What's next: pro choice and pro life propaganda on buses? |
I'm pretty sure I remember seeing both on bus and subway ads here in the US.
I don't know what they're trying to accomplish by these ads, but I think that if you're afraid for your safety because of a pro/anti religion ad on your bus, there is something deeply wrong with our society. |
Henry, don't forget I mentioned mentally unstable/schizophrenic passengers. There are plenty of those in big cities (I have seen it many times, and often on public transit), and "God" speaks to some of them, often with horrific results.
I was also thinking more of the driver -- he/she would be on the bus for hours at a time, day in, day out. In Toronto, at least, transit drivers are very often the victims of physical assault. Verbal abuse is a daily occurrence.
I would feel even more like a target, driving such a bus, and I'd bet that was a large factor behind the driver's "principled stance."
I would have no real problem with putting the sign on a billboard, or on the side of a building owned by those behind the sign. (Other nearby businesses and homeowners might protest/feel threatened, though.)
Just for the record, I do think there is something deeply wrong with our (western) society, but that's another, HUGE discussion which i have neither the time, energy, or inclination for. (Especially on a forum.) 
|
|
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
|
|
Peter
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: January 31 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 9669
|
Posted: March 14 2009 at 09:30 |
My concern was not abstract notions of 'right or wrong" as per freedom of speech or conscience. You and the various organizations and lawyers can ague about all of that until you're all blue in the face, and/or amicable accord is at last attained.... Ha!
My concern was for actual, modern reality (especially in big cities, where the unstable/fanatical often end up), and public and driver safety. Why wait for something nasty to happen on one of the buses? Put your inflammatory message on your billboard, building, private car, house or T-shirt -- not on public transit vehicles. THAT is my point.
It just seems like common sense to me, Stoney et al. 
Edited by Peter - March 14 2009 at 09:33
|
|
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
|
|
Finnforest
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Online
Points: 17540
|
Posted: March 14 2009 at 09:38 |
Problem is Peter, inflammatory is in the eye of the beholder. To me, corporate advertising can be inflammatory....yet I have to look at it everywhere I go.
|
|
|
|
Finnforest
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Online
Points: 17540
|
Posted: March 14 2009 at 09:43 |
|
I find this notion that religious belief has to be 100%, without doubt, to be sad, unfortunate, and perhaps destructive. What a ridiculous way to approach something as unknowable as a God figure in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: March 14 2009 at 10:03 |
|
There is an important difference between an ad on the side of the bus and someone in your face.
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
BaldFriede
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 02 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10266
|
Posted: March 14 2009 at 10:05 |
Finnforest wrote:
I find this notion that religious belief has to be 100%, without doubt, to be sad, unfortunate, and perhaps destructive. What a ridiculous way to approach something as unknowable as a God figure in my opinion.
|
But that's what "belief" means, else it is nothing but a wishy-washy "yes, maybe". I actually see nothing sad about that. On the contrary, the 90% belief idea seems ridiculous to me. To belief means having no doubts. Suppose someone tells you something, and you say "I believe you". Do you mean it, or do you mean "yeah, maybe, but I have my doubts". If the latter, why do you tell him you belief him then when actually you don't?
|
BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue.
|
|
Peter
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: January 31 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 9669
|
Posted: March 14 2009 at 10:07 |
Finnforest wrote:
Problem is Peter, inflammatory is in the eye of the beholder. To me, corporate advertising can be inflammatory....yet I have to look at it everywhere I go. |
(Here's that darned 'one last interesting post to respond to" thing again, Dean.  )
Well yes, FF -- I for one yell at TV ads regularly. They must think I have no brain -- so, this product will arrest/reverse aging, and driving this car is actually good for the planet??? Wow! Duhhhh! 
BUT: religious matters have been, and are particularly inflammatory, in our world, are they not? Don't people regularly harm each other over them? Must this ad fan those flames on a public transit vehicle, carrying large numbers of innocent bystanders (and a driver who is in his/her place of work, and has a right to reasonable safety and freedom from abuse)?
My yelling at my TV (even smashing it  ) is one thing -- yelling at a bus driver, or firebombing a bus (extreme scenario, but entirely possible, and much more possible, where religion is involved) would be quite another!
Again, a bus is a vehicle carrying vulnerable human at speed -- it is not a stationary billboard.
That's a huge concern for me, and the crux of the issue -- at least as I perceive modern reality.
Edited by Peter - March 14 2009 at 10:09
|
|
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
|
|
Finnforest
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Online
Points: 17540
|
Posted: March 14 2009 at 10:13 |
BaldFriede wrote:
Finnforest wrote:
I find this notion that religious belief has to be 100%, without doubt, to be sad, unfortunate, and perhaps destructive. What a ridiculous way to approach something as unknowable as a God figure in my opinion.
|
But that's what "belief" means, else it is nothing but a wishy-washy "yes, maybe". I actually see nothing sad about that. On the contrary, the 90% belief idea seems ridiculous to me. To belief means having no doubts.
Suppose someone tells you something, and you say "I believe you". Do you mean it, or do you mean "yeah, maybe, but I have my doubts". If the latter, why do you tell him you belief him then when actually you don't?
|
90% belief seems much more healthy. Always keeping an open mind to the possibility one may be wrong. That's a good thing. To your second, why would I tell someone "I believe you" if I didn't? You are setting up a false premise there. If I'm skeptical about something with friends, I'm not shy about saying so.
|
|
|
|
Finnforest
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Online
Points: 17540
|
Posted: March 14 2009 at 10:15 |
|
Understood Peter. I'd actually like to see all ads off of busses and buildings. I love those towns in Europe that have restrictions about public advertising. Their streetscapes are SO beautiful compared to what you see in America
|
|
|
|
BaldFriede
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 02 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10266
|
Posted: March 14 2009 at 10:24 |
Finnforest wrote:
BaldFriede wrote:
Finnforest wrote:
I find this notion that religious belief has to be 100%, without doubt, to be sad, unfortunate, and perhaps destructive. What a ridiculous way to approach something as unknowable as a God figure in my opinion.
|
But that's what "belief" means, else it is nothing but a wishy-washy "yes, maybe". I actually see nothing sad about that. On the contrary, the 90% belief idea seems ridiculous to me. To belief means having no doubts.
Suppose someone tells you something, and you say "I believe you". Do you mean it, or do you mean "yeah, maybe, but I have my doubts". If the latter, why do you tell him you belief him then when actually you don't?
|
90% belief seems much more healthy. Always keeping an open mind to the possibility one may be wrong. That's a good thing.
To your second, why would I tell someone "I believe you" if I didn't? You are setting up a false premise there. If I'm skeptical about something with friends, I'm not shy about saying so.
|
I am not discussing whether it is healthy. It just is not "belief". You can say "in my opinion there is an 80% chance it is true", and that's fine. But that's not believing, since you have 20% doubts. It is as simple as that. Belief is belief; it is the very meaning of the word.
|
BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue.
|
|
Spammer21
Forum Newbie
Joined: March 12 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 21
|
Posted: March 14 2009 at 10:26 |
BaldFriede wrote:
On the contrary, the 90% belief idea seems ridiculous to me.
|
It sounds like you're not in favour of having an open mind.
|
|
BaldFriede
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 02 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10266
|
Posted: March 14 2009 at 10:37 |
Spammer21 wrote:
BaldFriede wrote:
On the contrary, the 90% belief idea seems ridiculous to me.
|
It sounds like you're not in favour of having an open mind.
|
Where do you deduct that from? Because I don't use "I believe" when I am only 80% sure? What has that to do with the price of fish? When I am not sure I say "I am not sure", and that includes being convinced, for example, 80%. But I definitely don't say "I believe". Here is the dictionary definition of "to believe": to have confidence in the
truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without
absolute proof that one is right in doing soMark that you don't need proof to believe. On the contrary, as soon as there is proof belief no longer is necessary. Saying "I only believe in what is proven" is absolute nonsense; that has nothing to do with belief at all. As soon as it is proven you no longer need belief.
|
BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue.
|
|
Finnforest
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Online
Points: 17540
|
Posted: March 14 2009 at 10:46 |
BaldFriede wrote:
Finnforest wrote:
BaldFriede wrote:
Finnforest wrote:
I find this notion that religious belief has to be 100%, without doubt, to be sad, unfortunate, and perhaps destructive. What a ridiculous way to approach something as unknowable as a God figure in my opinion.
|
But that's what "belief" means, else it is nothing but a wishy-washy "yes, maybe". I actually see nothing sad about that. On the contrary, the 90% belief idea seems ridiculous to me. To belief means having no doubts.
Suppose someone tells you something, and you say "I believe you". Do you mean it, or do you mean "yeah, maybe, but I have my doubts". If the latter, why do you tell him you belief him then when actually you don't?
|
90% belief seems much more healthy. Always keeping an open mind to the possibility one may be wrong. That's a good thing.
To your second, why would I tell someone "I believe you" if I didn't? You are setting up a false premise there. If I'm skeptical about something with friends, I'm not shy about saying so.
|
I am not discussing whether it is healthy. It just is not "belief". You can say "in my opinion there is an 80% chance it is true", and that's fine. But that's not believing, since you have 20% doubts. It is as simple as that. Belief is belief; it is the very meaning of the word.
|
BaldFriede, I'm not going to argue the semantics with you. Or even get mired in this whole debate. I someone envy you. I wish I could have a bit more belief, I think it is a comforting thing. But I can't force myself to believe something because it would be a lie to myself. I can only say I hope there is a good God and that I try to be a good person. I hope all of the world's people, who believe in thousands of different ways (which to me makes the idea of one rigid belief all the more ludicrous) are blessed with an afterlife if such things exist. I hope to find spiritual peace one day as well, I am not an atheist, I am a person who simply says "I don't know."
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Atheist bus campaign
