Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
aside from siding with toynbee perhaps
Almost as much as I hate Toynbee.
with an advert for god on the back of it ... why is the atheist thing so much more offensive?
just that I didnt like it. Seems a bit silly really and the Guardian totally love themselves over it.
I think I may just be going right off the Guardian tbh. :o/
stewart lee's a hero
Sadly, I think we're going to live out the rest of our lives with religion playing a major role in world events.
i think weve done some pretty great shit,and were improving in a better direction
but why is humanism better than being religious?
Like, for instance, the papacy still condemns condom use in Africa (and elsewhere of course, but that's where it's the biggest problem) even with the continuing rise of AIDS. At least, the last pope outright condemned it; the current pope has mainly avoided it. ANYWAY. Why is religion better than more independent thought?
not as severe as any religion,but the belief in progress as an improving force,and more importantly as humanity as some how separate from animals and nature are no more based on reason than the immaculate conception
a VAST amount of humanistic beliefs came from christianity anyway
and the pope thing,you can hardly point to banning of condoms as the cause for the rise of AIDS,there are other factors at play,most importantly the sleeping around,which the pope is also against
so if african catholics only pick and choose which beliefs to follow,you cant blame the religion(although you have to try very hard not to)
independent thought?religious people arent part of a hive mind!(yes,i know what you mean)they can question their beliefs too,and its their right to do so
anyway i never said it was better!
it was the "Humanism has to be the future" that i wanted a justification for
Perhaps the wrong thread for this. I don't even know much about humanism, I don't think.
I didn't say condemning condoms is the cause for rising AIDS, I just said AIDS is a reason not to condemn condoms (aside from every other), and this is an example of religion being a stupid guide.
importance to religion and letting it play such a major part in micro and macro affairs should be embarassing at this stage in our development.
I don't need to make an argument as to why it's embarassing. The argument started long before I was born and still continues. If you choose to ignore the argument or listen but can't accept it, then I can't help that.
these are the only two options people have then,religious or humanism?
and you really do need to make an argument why religion should be embarrassing,in effect ostracising people for little reason?
oh,thats a fine example of a humanist mind at work
p.s. its exactly "If you choose to ignore the argument or listen but can't accept it, then I can't help that." that i dislike about humanists
I, for one, think it has actually had quite a diminished role in recent decades.
Im not anti humanist at all, please dont think Im in disagreement with you. I just hate the atheist bus as I dont really see it as being very constructive at all.
because it's so NOT an atheist bus! what the caption - 'God probably doesn't exist'? It has 'probably' in there anyway - that makes it an AGNOSTIC bus! grrr
would the probably bit not make it sensible,rather than agnostic?
to be agnostic wouldnt it be "god may or may exist,we dont know", anyway?
but anyways, atheism is a certain conviction that there is no god - so putting the word 'probably' in their slogan completely defies this.
i badly worded it,what i meant was that leaving some space for questioning is better than saying "this is right,you are wrong"
being an agnostic is being unsure on the existence of god,right?
and probably is likely,in that this stands a very good chance of happening
so i dont see the agnostic connection,as its saying that "to the best of our knowledge,there are no gods"
if it were agnostic,it wouldve said "to the best of our knowledge,we dont know"
if it had just said "might" instead of "probably",then id be agreeing with you
or have i picked this up wrong?
we were talking at cross purposes, I completely understand now!
the slogan is ''There is probably no god''. surely that's allowing room for doubt, like you suggest, and this makes it agnostic. Doubt doesn't appear in atheism, and so it cant be an atheist slogan.
of course, leaving space for questioning is better than 'I'm right, you're wrong' behaviour, but that isn't what happens. I must admit I do like the slogan, it's just not actually saying what you'd expect of atheists.
so therefore they'd disagree with you on the definition of atheism. I think the vast majority would agree it's impossible to be certain.
The default position on matters spiritual is that of complete indifference. There is no belief in god/a gods, nor is there any anxiety about the degree of justification for that belief because there's been no reason to doubt the current state of affairs.
Atheism has no 'probably'. It's a shut and closed declaration of non-belief. Agnosticism is any instance where doubt is introduced into the equation.
where I am not :)
like Carlsberg do
i wonder how far you could push that probably thing...."its probably mostly chocolate" on some sort of newspaper/rat superfood
weren't quite strong enough in their conviction and toned it down for fear of getting into trouble. silly atheists - if you're going to hold beliefs, hold them properly!
'atheism' can be very simply defined as 'a' - which, as a prefix, negates what comes after it, and 'theism' - god. if they got this wrong, they're pretty silly, which we've estblished anyway.
are Hitchens style anti-theists using public transport advertising to smash monotheism down from it's pedestal and laughing mockingly and haughtily at it's broken remains
but if you were going to spend money on a bus slogan, you'd at least pick a slogan that faithfully GEDDIT represented your beliefs, no?
and has lost some of it's ideals because of it.
churchs always have big "GOD IS REAL AND IF YOU DON'T JOIN US YOU'LL DEFINITELY FOR REAL BURN IN AGONY FOR ALL ETERNITY bake sale thursday at 10:30" signs out the front of them
someone should've found a way of getting this secularist message out someplace where the ASA can't touch them.
(although obviously stephen green would still be out the front of wherever it was with a pitchfork and burning torches witchhunt mob of frothing fanaticists)
what a twat.
It's not what atheists believe. We believe there is almost certainly no god, which arguably would have been a better slogan for the side of the bus. Agnostics aren't sure whether to believe or not.
Atheists have weighed the evidence and come to the conclusion that there is almost certainly no god. Like scientists, we're also prepared to consider evidence that there may be a god, but it had better be damn good evidence.
Incidentally, Dawkins has never said there is no god. He just says that's it's overwhelmingly unlikely there is one. That the is mainstream atheist position.
We also happen to believe it's exceedingly unlikely there is a Ra, Odin, Zeus or Ganesh or there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, but for some reason people don't seem to think we're taking an extreme position in relation to any of them.
most people in this thread are wrong