Dawkins' atheist ad campaign hits fundraising target An atheist bid to counter religious advertising, backed by the evolutionary theorist and anti-religion firebrand Richard Dawkins, has hit its £11,000 fundraising target. The money will pay for the UK's first "atheist bus campaign", which see will the slogan "THERE'S PROBABLY NO GOD. NOW STOP WORRYING AND ENJOY YOUR LIFE" …
What a horrible analogy. No, it's like claiming that being anti-Nazi is a *political* belief, even if you don't espouse any particular political cause yourself.
And I don't see that most people would argue with *that* definition.
Now, if I'd claimed that a stated lack of belief in the Abrahamic God was a *Christian* belief, your point might hold water. But that would be silly.
1. Critically examine the loopholes in your opponent's hypothesis
2. Exaggerate these to the point of ridicule
3. Personally attack the individuals holding that viewpoint
4. Under no circumstances critically examine your own viewpoint
5. Stick to your ground rigidly, remember, you are right and they are wrong!
The entire point of this campaign is to raise society's consciousness regarding the special priveliges that religion enjoys. It's certainly acheived that goal already, even before the campaign has started. I guarantee that there'll be a whole bunch of fuss made about this, and the Humanist Society and Dawkins et al will be interviewed, and the net result almost certainly will be an increase in the nation's numbers of atheists.
And to those who are saying "Isn't Dawkins an atheist? Why's he saying probably?" Read the article again. The entire thing was set in motion by the British Humanist Society, and received the backing of Dawkins. Dawkins is not behind this. He's a late-comer to the party, offering to match the first £5500 in donations with his own money. Dawkins therefore had no kind of input into what wording the advert contains. If it had been up to Dawkins, I'm sure it would have said something like "A personal god does not exist. Your prayers are not being heard."
On a personal note, I give a big thumbs-up to the campaign. Dawkins got it unequivocally correct when he stated that religion enjoys privileges not afforded any other kind of opinion- or belief-based subject. It's about time non-religion enjoyed the same privileges.
As you say, belief in God does not prove his existence. It is a matter of faith. Dawkins has faith that God (probably) does not exist while others have faith that he does.
Mother Teresa spent 50 years in the Calcutta slums in the belief that God existed and that he had told her to work there. This enriched her life and the lives of those that she helped.
Dawkins faith would never lead him to do that. His faith leads him to fear that God might exist and thus have some impact in his life which he might not like.
His professed lack of belief of the existence of God brings him fear and selfishness.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Religion?o=0
options 3 & 6 could apply here.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience
Atheism could be considered a religious belief structure, religion doesn't need a figurehead deity, just a common set of beliefs.
1. This is not a Richard Dawkins campaign, he is just it's biggest financial contributor.
2. The word 'Probably' is being included out of necessity. The owners of the bus don't allow adverts that may offend the religious, the Probably gets around this in the same way the Carlsberg do in their adverts.
3. Atheism/Theism is a statement of belief. Gnosticism/Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge. Two different things. You can believe and still be agnostic, and you can disbelieve and be gnostic.
PH, she believes in many odd things.
"The problem is with those who not only reject the belief system of another, but assume the right to enforce their own views. "
Uh, that's what the religious nuts are doing.
How many scientists go door-to-door knocking on the door and asking "Have you thought of letting Christ out of your life?". Someone did that in Utah. VERY violent reaction. Yet how many atheists do you hear of threatening with physical violence (with a GUN!!)?
Are atheists trying to get their scorn of religion taught in RE classes? Ot Churches to teach evolution?
No.
The worst this is from the side of the atheists is a public discussion between the two sides.
The godbotherer side is using the public discussion and private lobbying and legal pressure to have their side taken on.
"Mother Teresa spent 50 years in the Calcutta slums in the belief that God existed and that he had told her to work there. This enriched her life and the lives of those that she helped."
Ok... so by this statement you are saying that Mother Teresa enriched the lives of the people she came into contact with, and thereby enriched her own life.
I feel my life has been greatly enriched by reading Dawkins' "The God Delusion". Therefore Dawkins has at least enriched my life, and undoubtedly the lives of others all over the planet, not just in the Calcutta slums. In doing so, I'm pretty sure that Dawkins' derives a certain satisfaction from the fact that he's helping people become cured of religion.
So - in that context - he's not that different from Mother Teresa after all. If you'd read any of his works you'd understand that - at least where the existence or non-existence of god is concerned - he has no fear of that. If you believe there's no god, how is it possible to fear it?
You're just spouting righteousness, which just makes your comments seem crass and closed-minded in the context of open and serious debate about the subject; the ultimate "ner ner!"
Perhaps you should read a few books on atheism, or at least realise that the possibility that there actually is a personal god "out there" that listens to your prayers is actually highly, *highly* unlikely.
I'm hoping that this will be the final post I make on the reg about a religeous story, I try not to, but I really can't let this one go. I realise you are probably trolling, I suspect that you're sat down with a smug sense of self satisfaction for rather unimaginatively having taken one of Dawkins' ideas from "The God delusion" and regurgitated it like it is your own, but to say:
"These religions persist purely through the most appalling life-wrecking child abuse."
Is not only ignorant in the extreme, it is grossly insulting to those who suffer actual child abuse.
It should also come with the caveat: "If I am right", because if you aren't, not telling a child about God, if you are the parent/guardian, would be the same thing.
Mother Teresa spent 50 years in the Calcutta slums justifying the suffering of the poor, as they would be rewarded in heaven.
Are you really suggesting this is a good model for human behavior?
She was a model advocate FOR poverty, still helps the rich sleep at night.
FAIL FAIL FAIL Michael FAIL FAIL FAIL
"Mother Teresa spent 50 years in the Calcutta slums in the belief that God existed and that he had told her to work there. [...] Dawkins faith would never lead him to do that."
Since the campaign under discussion is run by humanists, you might want to consider other motivations for helping people in the Calcutta slums apart from "God told me to do it". Religion isn't a necessary precondition for being a good person.
@Michael: The thing is, some of the views held by people are based on faith. Some of them are not.
A definitive belief in God is based on faith. Strong atheism (God does not exist) is based on faith. Weak atheism and agnosticism *are not faith based* because they don't make definitive statements that go beyond the actual evidence available to us and what we actually observe. Which is why they're (in my opinion) the only sensible position for a rational person or one who claims to respect logic and the scientific method.
Also @Dan Cooke: Can we *please* stop misrepresenting agnosticism? No it isn't a case of just saying "I dunno", and it isn't weaker than or incompatible with the more rational forms of atheism. You might want to take a look at the Wikipedia page on the subject, particularly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Types_of_agnosticism and if you're genuinely interested follow up some of the sources. It just annoys the hell out of me (pun possibly intended) that people who claim to be representing the rational (SCIENCE LOL!!1) against the irrational (RELIGION LOL!!1) have a worrying tendency to not only be painfully wrong with the basic definitions of the things they're discussing, but also to exhibit a wilful disregard for the fundamental rules of logic. Makes me ashamed to be an atheist at times, just as many reasonable religious people are ashamed by the behaviour of the fundamentalist nutcases who make up the majority of the anecdotal evidence in discussions like this.
I understand the think freely idea, but for the life of me I can't work out the point behind this. If you're already religious, you're not going to care about an advert on the side of the bus, especially one endorsed by that pompous twat Dawkins. If you're not, it's direct tone is almost insulting. For the ones I've seen, the Alpha course is more asking questions in the spirit of encouraging lively debate, this is just a direct statement that will offend a fair few people.
As someone with a religiouis family background (my father was a minister), I've generally found that Christians (I can't really speak for the other religions)are as happy in their lives as equivalent atheists (if not moreso when they have less), they just live their lives in a slightly different way, and have different priorities. In general, if you're a good person, whether you're religious or not you'll do good things. If you're a happy person, with or without religion you'll be a happy person, and quite frankly, some people do find happiness through religion and a sense of fulfilment, whereas I, and many others, find fulfilment through other means. Whatever gives you happiness in life I think you should grab with both hands and hold onto, not be cowed into something else (either by fundies, or by militant atheists).
On whether religion causes more harm than good, I've always argued against it. Religion has brought a lot to our world, and I'd argue that religion itself is never the real reason behind any war, but it's really either politically motivated, greed motivated, or power motivated. This doesn't mean that the footsoldiers are recruited by being told "we need to take over this land for stability", they're fed whatever crap is the flavour of the day in order to motivate them to kill people. Eg. hatred for communism for Vietnam, terrorism for Iraq. Without religion, governments will still find excuses to kill people (as we are seeing in an increasingly atheist world, eg. Vietnam, Iraq, various South American countries). Religion has just been used as an excuse, and in the most part, the things that religion has provided for us (I don't really have time to list them, but Red Cross, printing press, etc.) have generally allowed for a better world.
Lastly, I really can't understand why people would put good money into something like this. I really don't think it's going to change many peoples minds, all it will achieve is offending some people, and I don't really think spending 11 grand to offend some people is a good cause. It actually must be insulting, especially to charities (even moreso to Christian charities like Christian Aid which do a LOT of good aid work overseas) that people are willing to part with that much money to do something that's pretty much pointless, but can't stump up a measly tenner a month to help some people who are in dire need of aid. If that's what being pro-atheism means, why would anyone want to be an atheist?
>Mother Teresa spent 50 years in the Calcutta slums in the belief that God existed and that he had told her to work there. This enriched her life and the lives of those that she helped.
>Dawkins faith would never lead him to do that. His faith leads him to fear that God might exist and thus have some impact in his life which he might not like.
Mother Teresa was an evil whore, she relished suffering, caused people to die who would otherwise have lived, took money from terrorists, criminals and the poor to fill the Vaticans coffers, I suspect you are right, Dawkins wouldn't do that, to be truly evil take religion.
The facts of her life are out there and completely undenied, like people who believe in the bible but have never read it, her life is a sham, but what do you expect from an organisation who has ex hitler youth for a pope and refused to condem the Nazis?
Theists are ignorant, which would be fine if their ignorance didn't kill people, nobody objects to personal comforting belief (even Dawkins, when he talks fondly about a priest from his childhood), but theist ignorance is abused by those who weild religious power for their own aims, raising awareness of ignorance would reduce their power and make the world a better place.
Many have said something similar to, "If you're already religious, you're not going to care about an advert on the side of the bus, especially one endorsed by that pompous twat Dawkins."
I'm having trouble understanding how so many people have thought so little about this!
Many people are *only* religious because they have been brainwashed and browbeaten from being tiny babes into it with threats of eternal pain and suffering, hell and damnation, the bloody and violent revenge of a childish and petty god, original sin (look this gem up, if you're not familiar with it), fear and guilt and more, (a nice bunch, the religious, aren't they).
This is the very point of the ad: to make honest god-fearing people feel comfortable questioning what they have been sheepled into from the day they were born. The religious propaganda and marketing machine has had 6000 years to learn how to manipulate the minds of the masses. We (as vociferous atheists) have only been trying to undo the harm for the last 20 years.
As for Dawkins, he says he is sick of the undeserved respect and reverence religion and religious people enjoy. He pulls no punches, and you don't like it. Dawkins is merely a taste of your own medicine. The pious pull no punches and will gladly tell me I'm going to endure an eternity of pokers up my arse in hell. And worse.
I have a blog in which some entries sometimes criticise religion. The nastiest, most hateful and foul emails come from, you guessed it, christians. Read Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation" to get a taste of what I mean.
I defy *anyone* to look into religion with an honest enquiring mind and not see it for the sham it really is and for the harm it really does.
Religious people really are *nasty*.
You've said a lot so I'll apologise up front for only answering some soundbites;
You say religon is used to justify bad things "whatever crap is the flavour of the day in order to motivate them to kill people" is honest and a I thank you for that, take religon away and you have less "crap" to motivate killing, i.e. the world would be a better place without religon, yes, something else might fill it's place, but much harder to justify than blind dogma.
Notwithstanding, what about the indirect suffering, Mother Theresa, Condom use, pro choice, preventable cervical cancer - all suffering caused by the church.
Organisations like "christan aid" saves lives, but better non aligned organisations like doctors without borders do it altruisticly with no agenda behind it, giving a child a toy at christmas sounds nice, but find out who funds it, what they expect in return before you think you're doing a good thing, some of these people are like child abusers that have a pocket full of sweets.
Your post seems nice and well meaning, you sound like a nice person, I would suggest, if you want to, read "Letter to a Christian Nation", it's very short but may open your mind to the suffering caused by others less well meaning.
If you feel offended by "THERE'S PROBABLY NO GOD. NOW STOP WORRYING AND ENJOY YOUR LIFE" then I suggest tht your outlook is biased, which you can either reject, accept, or accept and try and do something about it, knowlege will not kill you, only ignorance.
Thanks for calling various of my friends and members of my family '*nasty*' from your position of arrogant ignorance. It only helps to make the point that anyone who takes an insular viewpoint and condemns other people based solely on the fact that they belong to some wide-ranging group quickly becomes an obnoxious bigot, whether they're religious or atheist.
If your occasional blog entries are as filled with such weak trolling as your post here, then you can hardly be surprised that some of the more extreme religious idiots write in to have a go at you. Would you be shocked to learn that people who write blogs that occasionally criticise atheism also receive hateful bile-filled emails from... you guessed it, *atheists*?
Some people are asshats. This is hardly news. Some religious people are asshats, some non-religious people are asshats. Trying to assert that there's a direct correlation between being a credulous god-botherer and being an asshat or a godless heathen and being an asshat just puts you firmly in the asshat category in my book, whatever your belief system.
<sigh> I guess the research was right - people really *do* lose their capacity for rational thought when it comes to religion and politics.
Maybe *you* would be a better person if you learned to read, rather than jumping to incorrect conclusions. As I've said before in this thread, I'm an agnostic and an atheist and I think everyone else should be too.
Your comment is irrelevant anyway. Whether people *could* be better or not, the assertion being made was a generalisation that "Religious people are *nasty*". And as anyone who bases their opinions on actual observation and has met any typical religious people would know, this is clearly not a valid generalisation. I know some very nice people who are religious (across a range of religions). I know some very nice people who are atheists. All the violent murderous thugs I've known have been atheists, but the sample size is quite small (I try not to associate with violent murderous thugs) and I'm convinced by the evidence that there are violent murderous thugs who are religious as well (choosing to take a liberal interpretation of 'thou shalt not kill' or the equivalent in their particular faith).
The stunning level of self-righteous hypocrisy from a lot of people in the atheist camp is why I find discussions like this so aggravating. It's bad for religious people to be judgemental and hold irrational beliefs about non-believers, but at the same time it's fine to spew this sort of garbage claiming that being religious makes you a '*nasty*' person? When atheists do bad things then there are other underlying reasons, but when nominally religious people do bad things then it's the evils of religion to blame? And this from the people who claim that rationality is on their side? <sigh> That's why I so often find myself playing devil's advocate.
And yes, it's fine to have a strong belief that invisible pink unicorns don't live in your house. It's fine and, in my opinion eminently sensible, to live your life on the basis that this is indeed the case. But don't tell me that it is definitively the case that they don't and you can prove it, because you can't. Don't tell me that the probability that they exist is vanishingly small without showing workings of how you reached that probability. In particular, don't do these things and accuse *other* people making similar leaps of being irrational because of it. It's only fair. And don't confuse the adjective 'strong' applying to belief with the phrase 'strong atheism' - in that case it's not a sliding scale, it's a binary distinction between whether you actively assert the definitive non-existence of god or not. And I don't have a problem with people *being* strong atheists - some of my best friends are strong atheists. The problem comes with being unable to acknowledge the leap of faith that you have to make above and beyond what you can prove in order to hold that position.
What a pathetic slogan. If it's down to 'probably' then you might be wrong and then you won't enjoy yourself in the end.
"Rejoice, O young man, in your youth, And let your heart cheer you in the days of your youth; Walk in the ways of your heart, And in the sight of your eyes; But know that for all these God will bring you into judgment." Ecclesiastes 11:9
In any case why shouldn't a religious person enjoy themselves? As the hymnwriter wrote "Religion never was designed to make our pleasures less". Of course it has to be a rational religion - not the Atheist one. Strange how so many people here are totally irrational on the subject
Martin
And maybe you should be more forgiving.
YOU posted your outrage.
I responded with a message about how your indignation was misplaced because they WERE NOT saying ANYONE was bad for being religious. YOUR PARANOID put those words in there.
So learn to read yourself and don't let the voices in your head make you look dumb.
RE: the PS. well that's the point. I CANNOT *know* can I.
But not believing in IPU isn't faith no matter how adamant at my disbelief I am.
@Steven Raith: 13:33
"Which is the whole point - to make people think; not to jab them in the fucking eye about their personal beliefs."
- in your first few paragraphs you put the case for inclusion of 'probably' very well (no I'm not being sarcastinc), the above sentence is funny, trouble is, why pander to them? Why not put the actual message across instead of a confusing message (see next)
@blackworx: 14:00
"There probably isn't a god" <=> "There might be a god"
well done! see Steven, that's the problem.
@Adrian Jackson:14:41
"the slogan is based on the fact that there is no proof *either way*"
Jezus! That's the friggin problem & the bit you clearly don't get. Have you read The God Deluison? An Atheist does not have to prove ANYTHING!! How can I prove that something does not exist, consider.....
[to paraphrase badly]
... if I told you that I believe there is a purple teapot full of warm tea in orbit around Jupiter. Would you believe me? What's that, no? You want me to prove it you say? I know it's a fact, I believe in it, I don't need to prove it... you need to prove to me that there isn't a teapot....
DUMB ISN'T IT?
The advert on the bus should have the disclaimer "Agnostic Society - not endorsed by Atheist"
"Erroneous Posters Everywhere"
Er,..
QUOTE [Anyone see him on telly declaring that "oh yes, we call it the *theory* of evolution, but that's just a convention, it's the truth" ? That's not science. The point of science is that you never get *the* truth, you just get the best truth yet.]
WRONG.
You are correct in saying that some things are just theories, or our best guess yet of how things work, but this is not the case with evolution, it is no longer a theory but an accepted scientific fact.
Consider a working 2008 Ford Mondeo falling backwards in time to 1800. The best scientist would deduce that the magic carriage is not magic put is propelled somehow by the combustion of refined hydrocarbons which drive pistons, but how the SatNav works we haven't a clue....
BUT, as the years progress the scientists would develop better and better theories of how the Magic Mondeo works, until finally they knew EXACTLY how it worked. At this stage it would no longer be a Theory of Mondeo, just Mondeo (evolution).
and some lunatic sysadmin is going to reboot the system soon, so live life whilst you can mateys !
I told that to a psychiatrist , and he said I was delusional, so he gave me some neuroleptic drugs, that soon cured the delusions. They cured them so much that I couldn't think at all straight.
whilst I was on the hospital ward I found a load of other people had some delusional ideas, and lots of them had a God theme and the ones that wouldn't let go of these God delusions well they got filled up with Neuroleptics too. That taught the buggars.
Anyway I decided to view my imagination just as imagination, and now think it's a laugh to imagine things I can't prove, and that I'm only delusional when I really believe in things that are unprovable. ( like your average God believer )
Maybe we should have a national campaign of filling everyone who claims to believe in God up with neuroleptics, after all it worked for me. The horror of letting those lunatic psychiatrists fill me up with neuroleptics makes sure to not entertain delusional ideas again, and to make the correct choices about what I believe in (i.e. things I can PROVE ).
Believing in God should be classified as a mental illness. Come this way and get filled up with neuroleptics !! They worked for me, they can work for you too ! They are a bit like when Pavlov electrocuted his dogs to change their behaviour, brutal but they work.
I'd like first of all to point out that though I'm from a religious background, I'm agnostic at best, and generally hold the view that God is something that's created out of people doing kind things to other people, personifying that kindness isn't necessarily a good thing. That's just what I believe, in a VERY brief overview, although as with all things spiritual, it's rather more complex than that. All you have to know is that whilst I have a family with a strong belief in the big beardy, I defininitely do not have such a belief.
I don't think it is so hard to fill a void with such dogma. Look at the IRA, Basque seperatists, Baader Meinhof, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the war in the Falklands, the war in Vietnam, and look at the core motivations behind them. 25% of terrorist acts are comitted by Islamic Fundies, the majority are comitted by people wth political perspectives. The IRA is a particularly good one, in that it operates the same way as indoctrinated religion, targetting the young and unfulfilled, and filling them for hate for something through ideology. There's a religious element, but it can't be denied that the republican cause is motivated by political means. There was always exactly the same power of motivation as in religiously motivated violence (the fact that they didn't blow THEMSELVES up can be put down to intelligence). World religions always condemn acts of violence as soon as they have the chance if their religion is named as the cause. For an even better example, just look at how easily Hitler motivated the Germans, purely based on fear of recession and scapegoating of the Jews, it had nothing to do with religion, and it's by far the biggest war we've faced. Religion isn't a motivation for violence, extreme belief is, but that can be a belief in anything.
I honestly think Mother Theresa had good intentions, whilst her homes are terrible, is it true that a well meaning atheist who setup similar homes might not end up with the same situation? I think not.
Condom use, Catholic church. Personally I think putting all that power in front of one man is dangerous, as was shown clearly in the Crusades. However, if you follow the tenets of Catholicism you won't have sex till you're married, so why's condom use a problem? If you break one why not break the other? Pro choice is a difficult one. I find it very difficult to just treat a human baby, at whatever stage, as just an embryo. Put it this way, I would cry if my wife had a miscarriage. What's a valid reason for abortion over adoption? I know not everyone feels the same way about things like that as me, and that's their option. If it's legal you can do it, if you're a good Catholic maybe you won't, but once again that's a Catholic thing.
Preventable cervical cancer. If I remember rightly that's a single school, and the Catholic church (again) didn't have much to say on the matter other than "that's their choice". If the parents think it's a good idea they can take their kids to the family doctor. I don't agree with the school btw.
Christian Aid don't have an agenda behind them either, they exist to offer aid, they just do it with the backing of church communities. Put it this way, from just googling a charity I remember hearing about when I was younger, think how many people with HIV Tearfund could provide ARVs to with 10k. That's 20 years longer to live for every person treated properly with it..
I don't necessarily agree with the idea of using church funds to put adverts on the sides of buses (especially considering I have a fair idea of the terrible wages ministers get while on call 24/7), but if you really wanted to make a difference, or balance out the evil in the world (I say in the world, as I don't think religion is realistically behind the evils in the world), how about giving some money that could actually save someone's life?
You may enjoy reading _The_Clay_Machine-Gun_ by Victor Pelevin (ISBN 0-571-20126-1). Drugs, lunatic asylums, inquiring into the nature of reality, frequent reboots, etc. Quite good. An excerpt (random page):
'So you're telling me that it's rendered real by a certain substance of which it consists?'
Maria thought.
'Yeah, more or less,' he said
'Well, that's why we're drawing Aristotle. Because before him there was no substance,' said Volodin.
'What was there then?'
'There was the number one heavenly automobile', said Volodin, 'compared with which your Mercedes-600 is nothing but a heap of shit. This heavenly automobile was absolutely perfect. And every single concept and image relating to automobiles that drove around the roads in ancient Greece were no more than its imperfect shadows. Projections, so to speak. Understand?'
'Yeah. So what came next?'
(for that you'll have to read the book)
Knowing if God exists is simple: persistently and sincerely ask, like "God if you exist please revels yourself". Faith isn't voodoo magic: it is defined as "Assent to divinely revealed truth". Ie, God proves his own existence and then we must freely agree to that proof (in belief *and* conduct). Obviously reasonable. Baptism, which you can find out about yourelves, is the mechanism of objective knowledge from God, and "baptism by desire" how non-christians are saved. The definition found in the OED "Belief without proof" was invented by modern philosophy, and is BS. Indeed a true atheist "To deny the gods/God" better fits that bogus definition as they believe something not provable. Lovely irony.
The innocent suffer in union with Christ the pains deserved by the guilty that they may be given the chance to repent and so enter in to the joy of the infintely good God.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
