This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
U.S. atheists sue to run bus ads for a God-free lifestyle
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Gone
Explain how a bus ad about the opposite of religion can and should not turn into a religious debate, please.
Because people on both sides have very srong opinions. One person is looking for an excuse to bash either religion or atheism, other people jump in to defend it, and it snowballs from there.
Post by
166779
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
Ryjacork, please then answer me these four simple questions:
1. Do you believe in your religion?
2. If yes to (1), then presumably you think that you are right?
3. If yes to (2), then presumably those who believe in something else are wrong?
4. If yes to (3), then surely claiming to respect their opinion as a belief is either lying or patronising? You cannot respect a belief which you know to be wrong. Again - I emphasise that respecting someones right to an opinion is not the same as respecting their opinion.
The only way out of this loop is if you are agnostic; i.e. you do not believe in the absolute surety of your belief system. Agnostics do not (on the whole) advertise.
Ergo, it is you who have been thrusting your belief system on others in this arguement, by suggesting that gnostics are able to genuinely respect other opinions in the same way agnostics can.
For the record, I'm perfectly accepting of other people. That doesn't extend to being accepting of their belief systems. Conflating the two is somewhat foolhardy.
1) yes
2) yes
3) not entirle, but yes
4) no
No im not.
No I havnt.
I only answered that so you cant claim that Im avoiding the questions and I didnt expand on my answeres because Im tired of this off topic debate. As I said im done with this argument, its just going in circles and its gone way off the original debate posted in the thread.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
It's not about respecting the validity of their belief- it's about respecting the fact that, as thinking and reasoning human beings, they have the right to HAVE that belief.
My own two cents- I don't follow any religion, but I do not think that religion itself is what causes all of these problems. I think it's the human tendency towards intolerance, their desire to make themselves feel more secure by ridiculing and hating those that are different than them, and trying to build their sense of community by exclusion, rather than inclusion. Many people use religion to do this, it's true, but just as many use race, sexual orientation, nationality, etc.
I don't think the end of religion will bring an end to the fighting and hate people spew in it's name- they'll just find different excuses for being xenophobic and homophobic. Honestly, people who are intolerant of religion are as much a part of the problem as those who are intolerant in the name of religion.
Post by
ExDementia
Honestly, people who are intolerant of religion are as much a part of the problem as those who are intolerant in the name of religion.
I strongly disagree. What atheists have done against religion is much, much less than what the religious have done in the name of their religion. Examples:
-The World Trade Center (we all knew I would say that one)
-Abortion clinic bombings and doctors being murdered by religious activists
-The entirety of The Crusades
-The bombing in Oklahoma City
What have Atheists done to the religious? I haven't researched any, but I can't think of anything besides poking fun or some heated debates. If you know of some, please, post them up.
But before someone says it, yes, there are more than plenty of conflicts not involving religion too. They just aren't the point of the argument.
Post by
xaratherus
I know I've said this before, but:
The argument that I must respect that which I hold to be absolutely, mind-bogglingly dumb is patently, 100% false.
I can respect (by definition: "admire; hold in regard or show consideration for) the person's right to their own beliefs enough that I will not interfere in their beliefs or the practice thereof (to the extent where they are doing no harm and are not intruding upon my person), but that does not require me to respect that belief.
If someone believes that a magical, talking taco birthed them from within its floury tortilla womb, and that one day it shall rain down vengeful salsa and destroy the world, then I'm going to call them a f***ing nutter. That doesn't mean I have the right to stop them from believing in Tacoism, nor can I stop them from practicing it (until such a time as their Mexican-food-based faith intrudes on my own 'bubble'), but I don't have to respect it, because in no way can I show admiration or consideration for something so blisteringly idiotic.
I just realized that a simple typo turns Taosim into Tacoism. Who knew?
Post by
Azazel
This might be slightly off-topic, but boy I'm glad HSR isn't here.
Post by
238331
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
Honestly, people who are intolerant of religion are as much a part of the problem as those who are intolerant in the name of religion.
I strongly disagree. What atheists have done against religion is much, much less than what the religious have done in the name of their religion. Examples:
-The World Trade Center (we all knew I would say that one)
-Abortion clinic bombings and doctors being murdered by religious activists
-The entirety of The Crusades
-The bombing in Oklahoma City
What have Atheists done to the religious? I haven't researched any, but I can't think of anything besides poking fun or some heated debates. If you know of some, please, post them up.
But before someone says it, yes, there are more than plenty of conflicts not involving religion too. They just aren't the point of the argument.
None of what yoy said is the point of the argument either. For every one war or crime you can list that was caused by religion there are easily x100 that have been caused by race, land, or just anger. And the numbers dont lie there has been much more good done by religon than bad (charities, feeding and clothing the holmless, educating children from third world countries, ect). And before you mention that those could all have been done by non religious orginisations that is a moot point for two reasons, first the fact that they could have been done by non religious orginisations does not change the negate the fact that they were still done by a religious one, and second every bad thing you mentioned could have also happened for non religious reasons.
And frankly thats not what this thread is about, this has all gone way off topic and im kind of suprised a mod hasnt said anything.
Religion = the lack of Atheism and general contradiction of all other religions
Religion is not the lack of atheism, thats a double negetive since atheism is a lack of religion or belief in a deity.
Either all religions and Atheism can advertise or none of them can. Period, point blank, simple as that. A bus ad is no different that a billboard or a magazine ad or a television ad.
I actualy said from the begining putting any kind of religious or atheistic ad on a bus was stupid...
EDIT: Honestly you can attack my posts and my spelling if you want to. Yes Im not good with spelling, its something ive always been self consious about actualy, my spelling sucks. Does that have any bearing on any of my points? And no offence but any time I have seen you post in a debate like this your always kind of biased. I said several times atheists should have the right to have the ads that they want but that I
could see how people may take offence to is
, I didnt say they were right to be offended. And honestly if you think everybody would just see an ad like that and smile and there would be no problems, then you are deluded.
Post by
xaratherus
And frankly thats not what this thread is about, this has all gone way off topic and im kind of suprised a mod hasnt said anything.
Because no one's reported it, and off-topic threads are given a great amount of leeway? And it's not really way off topic. The central point of discussion still pertains to atheism and religion. Now, if we were talking about the correlation between wealth and the length of women's skirts, then that would be way off-topic.
Religion is not the lack of atheism, thats a double negetive since atheism is a lack of religion or belief in a deity.
Again, atheism is
not a lack of religion
. It may be most common, but again I point out that Buddhism (generally accepted as a religion) is most frequently atheistic in nature.
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Extending it to other things because you think that's what it means doesn't alter its root meaning. An atheist can technically belief in UFOs and the Piltdown Man, and as long as he doesn't believe in any god, he's still an atheist.
Post by
ExDementia
None of what yoy said is the point of the argument either. For every one war or crime you can list that was caused by religion there are easily x100 that have been caused by race, land, or just anger. And the numbers dont lie there has been much more good done by religon than bad (charities, feeding and clothing the holmless, educating children from third world countries, ect). And before you mention that those could all have been done by non religious orginisations that is a moot point for two reasons, first the fact that they could have been done by non religious orginisations does not change the negate the fact that they were still done by a religious one, and second every bad thing you mentioned could have also happened for non religious reasons.
And frankly thats not what this thread is about, this has all gone way off topic and im kind of suprised a mod hasnt said anything.
Hey Ryja, did you miss this part of my post?:
But before someone says it, yes, there are more than plenty of conflicts not involving religion too. They just aren't the point of the argument.
I guess so...
Also, notice who and what I was quoting. I was replying specifically to something someone had said. And it hasn't really gone that far off topic. Way off topic would be talking about banana's or the validity of grapefruit in the classroom.
Post by
238331
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Azazel
The crusades. Nuff said.
Post by
Gone
What about the last couple thousand, where all they've done is persecute the non-believers and kill innocent people.
Really? Thats all they have done in the past couple thousand years? You absolutley sure thats the argument you want to take?
Oh and Christianity? I was talking about religion in general, I find it strange you jump roght to that.
I mean I guess I wont mention that Christianity has only been a major world religion for
maby
a thousand years, and before that Christians were actualy the ones persecuited for their beliefs. Or the fact that we have only been documenting charity in recent years where as war is not something that gos unrecorded in history.
Anyway besides the crusades, show me a large scale example of how christianity has persecuited and killed people, more than a few hundred years ago?
Also @Ex, no I did not miss that part of your post, but just because you mention something in your post dosnt mean somone els wont bring it up after to refute your points.
EDIT: Also you cant really have examples of things done in the name of atheism, because for the millionth time
atheism is not the same as a religion
, its like listing things done in the name of being a vegitarian, its a life choice not a cause
Post by
ExDementia
Oh man... I don't have the energy to argue with this guy right now.
Post by
Adamsm
How the heck is this thread still going?
Post by
Gone
Oh man... I don't have the energy to argue with this guy right now.
Yes you start bringing up the crusades and 9/11 in a discusion about weather an atheistic ad should be put on a city buss. Im clearly the problem here
^ Sarcasim
How the heck is this thread still going?
Beats the *!@# out of me, Im done. As I have been trying to say for three pages, this isnt a thread about the goods and bads of religion and atheism. Its about an ad on a bus that happens to be about atheism. Im not gonna get dragged into this thread anymore.
Post by
109094
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
How the heck is this thread still going?
Beats the *!@# out of me, Im done. As I have been trying to say for three pages, this isnt a thread about the goods and bads of religion and atheism. Its about an ad on a bus that happens to be about atheism. Im not gonna get dragged into this thread anymore.
Well since you seem to be the replying person for most of the last few pages.....
Post by
xaratherus
Anyway besides the crusades, show me a large scale example of how christianity has persecuited and killed people, more than a few hundred years ago?
Does
this
count?
The Ugandan law that allows for the execution of homosexuals was almost entirely funded by evangelical Christians, and was supported by a number of American Christian personalities.
Ante Pavelic, a puppet dictator for the Nazi regime in Croatia in the 1940s, ran concentration camps and killed anyone who refused to convert to Catholicism; Pavelic was a frequent visitor to the Pope, and while the Catholic Church did not openly support his actions, they also never condemned them.
Source
Ngo Dinh Diem (a fanatical Catholic) ran concentration camps in South Vietnam in the mid-1950s; an estimated 80,000 people (primarily Buddhists, who Diem saw as heretics) were executed, and another 500,000 were rounded up and placed in detainment and tortured. He also funneled all incoming food and medical aid to Catholic organizations in the country, with an enforced statute that the aid should only be provided to Catholics.
Source
I don't pin any of this on Christianity, because an organization is an illusory concept. It's the fault of the people who perpetrated the crimes. But they undertook their actions (and in each of the quoted cases, considered it sanctioned) in the name of their religion. Was that the primary reason? Probably not in Pavelic's case, but in both the Ugandan example and in Diem's case, they were essentially crusades against the heretics, coupled with a desire toward power.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.
