a) This isn't fundamentalist atheism. Fundamentalist atheism says "There is no God.", no "probably" about it. b) It's there as an awareness-raising device and for social normalisation - there are adverts for religion on the side of buses, and the more it permeates culture the more people assume that because it's everywhere unchallenged it's ok. Getting the other side out there is important.
Nobody is telling people they can't think what they like - but getting ideas out there so that people can consider all alternatives can only be a good thing in my book.
I agree with that aim, but I don't think this does say that. I think it harms the atheist/humanist cause as much as 'adverts for religion' harm that religion.
Also there is no such thing as an advert 'for religion'. There are 'adverts' (though I don't think that's quite the right phrase) for specific religions. This campaign offends everyone with any kind of religious conviction, even though the majority of them will also be offended by, say, a fundamentalist Christian message (including most Christians). We don't have enough buses for everyone to have their say. Now, a 'why not try religion - there are lots to choose from' campaign would be interesting.
The US and Aussie slogans - "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake" "Atheism – sleep in on Sunday mornings" repsectively - great, fine. But 'There probably isn't a god' is a statement of fact entirely without backup.
This campaign offends everyone with any kind of religious conviction
Why does disagreement offend these people?
'There probably isn't a god' is a statement of fact entirely without backup. If you're the kind of person who requires proof to believe that something exists then it's got as much backup as "There probably isn't a dolphin in my bathroom." - a statement which isn't, I would have thought, going to find much disagreement.
Because it doesn't say 'some people disagree with you and we should uphold their right to do so' it says 'everything you believe and base your life on is probably bollocks'.
And? It's stated in a neutral manner, not an offensive one. If you stated "Gay people have a right to marry." then that would offend some people, and this would not be your problem at all, because it's a statement of your belief, stated in a neutral manner, and that's fine.
'Gay people have a right to marry' is a right under law.
Were it not a right in this country, then the statement should read 'Gay people should have a right to marry'
That is a legal issue, not a religious one.
'People can choose not to believe in god'. Fine
Also - 'gay people have the right to marry' and 'gay people do not have the right to marry' are incompatible opposites. 'People have the right to religion' and 'people have the right to atheism' are compatible. So I don't think that's a very good analogy.
This isn't really a rights issue in the same sense - people do have the right to atheism. People are not being persecuted for it, and moreover it is entirely socially acceptable - if not, indeed, considered the default position.
It's a matter of faith but also of convention. When I tell people I'm married to a woman people wholly accept it. Where there is no 'civil partnership' box on forms, I tick 'married' and that's considered correct.
And a matter of faith cannot/should not be upheld by a country. That's where the whole thing goes wrong.
Of course as far as gay marriage is concerned that's exactly what the UK government are doing - they are not calling it marriage to uphold people's faith who don't think it is. Legally - it's marriage. It's the same thing. It's purely a name, and a differentiation (which I think is more dangerous that the name because it brings in the capacity to differentiate on issues eg what Roseanne Sturgeon tried to do with the adoption bill.)
And a matter of faith cannot/should not be upheld by a country. Absolutely. And yet the head of state has the title "Defender of the Faith" and is not allowed (by law) to be a Catholic. Members of the CofE get seats (and votes) in the House of Lords.
And as you rightly point out it's never _just_ a name :->
I disagree entirely. People should be free - and probably even encouraged - to talk about their ideas, beliefs, and feelings. They shouldn't be told that certain of them aren't fit for public consumption.
As Morag says, it's not a right - and you saying that they should have that right will offend some people. But that's fine - _talking_ about things is always good (in my opinion). Stating your opinion, and having conversations about your beliefs is something people should be encouraged to do, not told to avoid, lest someone be offended that they even have an opinion that's different.
Ok but again we're getting off the point - I totally and completely support the theory behind this campaign, I just think it's a bad way of achieving it.
I have never seen a slogan on a bus by a religious group that equates to this statement of fact.
In fact I have never seen a religious slogan of any kind on the side of a bus.
I have been handed pamphlets on the streets by crazy people. These people are not the alternative to atheism. The only 'slogans' I have seen are:
1. Bible/similar quotations. This is what this person says about x. That's fine. Were it even a quote - ' "There's probably no god" Stephen Fry', for example, I would have different view on things.
2. Quotes such as 'Jesus saves' - which however you want to look at it is true - I'm not a Christian but Christianity has helped people. I suppose a statement along the lines of 'Atheism saves' could be true for many people, so that would also be better.
I'd really like to know what bus slogans are being responded to by this campaign.
(To clarify, I would still find either of the 'religious slogans' at 1 and 2 above offensive on the side of buses. I also find a lot of film adverts on the side of buses offensive.)
Also - _talking_ about things is always good
A slogan on a bus is not talking about things, neither is it really encouraging people to do so.
I agree with Mr D - I think this, for example, is a discussion. I'm genuinely interested though - I'm genuinely surprised you find it offensive. I'm even more interested that you used that, pretty strong, word.
I think it offends people. I don't think there is valid reason for faith or lack thereof should offend people.
I would also find a religious campaign in this vein offensive. But I could say that freely and people would agree with me. Whereas saying that this is offensive has caused people to be angry/upset/consider my faith/doubt my intelligence.
This to be would prove that atheism is the standard expectation. I think it's fighting a battle has already been won.
Have you just posted back to this link? Because that confused me for some time.
We're not really 'talking about things' in the sense that you originally meant it. This discussion is about the campaign. If the aim of the campaign was to make people talk about the campaign then...well why? The discussion that I began here was about the slogan being offensive, not about atheism in it's broader terms. Although it has turned into that a little, there is no one on this thread claiming that atheism is unacceptable in any way, therefore the aspects that do discuss atheism are pointless discussions. We all respect each other's right to believe what we want to believe.
If there are people who are inclined in any way not to regard atheism as acceptable (and I really question how many rational people this would include), this slogan is only going to prove their point.
I'm saying that if I claimed to have a dolphin in my bathtub then you'd want some evidence for it. If I claimed there was no dolphin in my bathtub then you'd be perfectly happy to accept that. Generally speaking people want proof only for positive statements. It's only with religion that people seem to want proof of negative ones.
I've never seen evidence of pixies, Santa Claus, boggarts, ghosts, elves, invisible unicorns, or any of the various Gods people speak of. I therefore rank their likelihood as low. Or to put it another way, I believe that "There probably is no Santa Claus."
Well there are several counter points to this, but essentiallt:
The about dolphins analogy was inaccurate, this equates more to saying dolphins don't exist. That's why I really didn't get it first time round.
Also, to many people, the world's very existence is inarguable proof of the existence of God. The concept of God is basically a response to 'why/how are we here?' Also, people pray for stuff and it happens. If I wrote to Santa Claus asking for a new bike and I woke up on Christmas morning to find one there, I would tend to believe in Santa Claus. As a child, I did. Later I discovered it was my parents so, ok, now no longer believe in Santa Claus. People with answered prayers often continue to have to other explanation - except perhaps coincidence, but coincidence is as flimsy as faith.
Largely though, not my point. Incidentally, my belief system is probably closer to humanism than any other in it's core tenets. I find 'do you believe in God' to be a massively complicated question, but forced to come out one side or the other, then I'd probably go with no. I'm not arguing against atheism or humanism or any belief system at all. I just think this is an ineffective and counter-productive way of furthering that cause.
to many people, the world's very existence is inarguable proof of the existence of God. I'd like to see that laid out as some kind of logical proof - because I can't see how A leads to B.
Also, people pray for stuff and it happens. People pray. Stuff happens. Nobody has ever been able to show that prayer actually affects what happens. Large scale tests of anonymous prayer for sick people have shown that it has no effect.
But - this is almost besides the point. The world is full of adverts for God - I walk home past a few of them every day. The TV has shows dedicated to God. Occasionally standing up and saying "You know, I believe there isn't a God." is a good start in counteracting that.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-01-07 09:51 pm (UTC)b) It's there as an awareness-raising device and for social normalisation - there are adverts for religion on the side of buses, and the more it permeates culture the more people assume that because it's everywhere unchallenged it's ok. Getting the other side out there is important.
Nobody is telling people they can't think what they like - but getting ideas out there so that people can consider all alternatives can only be a good thing in my book.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-07 09:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-07 09:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-07 10:14 pm (UTC)Also there is no such thing as an advert 'for religion'. There are 'adverts' (though I don't think that's quite the right phrase) for specific religions. This campaign offends everyone with any kind of religious conviction, even though the majority of them will also be offended by, say, a fundamentalist Christian message (including most Christians). We don't have enough buses for everyone to have their say. Now, a 'why not try religion - there are lots to choose from' campaign would be interesting.
The US and Aussie slogans - "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake" "Atheism – sleep in on Sunday mornings" repsectively - great, fine. But 'There probably isn't a god' is a statement of fact entirely without backup.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-07 10:15 pm (UTC)Why does disagreement offend these people?
'There probably isn't a god' is a statement of fact entirely without backup.
If you're the kind of person who requires proof to believe that something exists then it's got as much backup as "There probably isn't a dolphin in my bathroom." - a statement which isn't, I would have thought, going to find much disagreement.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-07 10:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-07 10:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-07 10:28 pm (UTC)Were it not a right in this country, then the statement should read 'Gay people should have a right to marry'
That is a legal issue, not a religious one.
'People can choose not to believe in god'. Fine
Also - 'gay people have the right to marry' and 'gay people do not have the right to marry' are incompatible opposites. 'People have the right to religion' and 'people have the right to atheism' are compatible. So I don't think that's a very good analogy.
This isn't really a rights issue in the same sense - people do have the right to atheism. People are not being persecuted for it, and moreover it is entirely socially acceptable - if not, indeed, considered the default position.
an aside
Date: 2009-01-07 10:56 pm (UTC)Not in the UK, by your definition.
Gays have a right, legally, to a civil partnership. Any assertion on the part of a same sex couple that they're married is entirely a matter of faith.
I think gays have a right to marry - for me that's a matter of faith, and that right is not being upheld in the country in which I live.
Re: an aside
Date: 2009-01-08 03:04 pm (UTC)And a matter of faith cannot/should not be upheld by a country. That's where the whole thing goes wrong.
Of course as far as gay marriage is concerned that's exactly what the UK government are doing - they are not calling it marriage to uphold people's faith who don't think it is. Legally - it's marriage. It's the same thing. It's purely a name, and a differentiation (which I think is more dangerous that the name because it brings in the capacity to differentiate on issues eg what Roseanne Sturgeon tried to do with the adoption bill.)
Re: an aside
Date: 2009-01-08 03:20 pm (UTC)Absolutely. And yet the head of state has the title "Defender of the Faith" and is not allowed (by law) to be a Catholic. Members of the CofE get seats (and votes) in the House of Lords.
And as you rightly point out it's never _just_ a name :->
Re: an aside
Date: 2009-01-08 03:42 pm (UTC)Re: an aside
Date: 2009-01-08 04:02 pm (UTC)Re: an aside
From:Re: an aside
From:Re: an aside
From:no subject
Date: 2009-01-08 09:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-08 10:18 am (UTC)I have never seen a slogan on a bus by a religious group that equates to this statement of fact.
In fact I have never seen a religious slogan of any kind on the side of a bus.
I have been handed pamphlets on the streets by crazy people. These people are not the alternative to atheism. The only 'slogans' I have seen are:
1. Bible/similar quotations. This is what this person says about x. That's fine. Were it even a quote - ' "There's probably no god" Stephen Fry', for example, I would have different view on things.
2. Quotes such as 'Jesus saves' - which however you want to look at it is true - I'm not a Christian but Christianity has helped people. I suppose a statement along the lines of 'Atheism saves' could be true for many people, so that would also be better.
I'd really like to know what bus slogans are being responded to by this campaign.
(To clarify, I would still find either of the 'religious slogans' at 1 and 2 above offensive on the side of buses. I also find a lot of film adverts on the side of buses offensive.)
Also - _talking_ about things is always good
A slogan on a bus is not talking about things, neither is it really encouraging people to do so.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-08 10:35 am (UTC)And here's where we have our major disagreement. Because not only do I believe it is, I refer you to this page where people are doing exactly that.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-08 10:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-08 11:04 am (UTC)Sorry which word - offensive?
I think it offends people. I don't think there is valid reason for faith or lack thereof should offend people.
I would also find a religious campaign in this vein offensive. But I could say that freely and people would agree with me. Whereas saying that this is offensive has caused people to be angry/upset/consider my faith/doubt my intelligence.
This to be would prove that atheism is the standard expectation. I think it's fighting a battle has already been won.
(also see below re first point)
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-01-08 10:59 am (UTC)We're not really 'talking about things' in the sense that you originally meant it. This discussion is about the campaign. If the aim of the campaign was to make people talk about the campaign then...well why? The discussion that I began here was about the slogan being offensive, not about atheism in it's broader terms. Although it has turned into that a little, there is no one on this thread claiming that atheism is unacceptable in any way, therefore the aspects that do discuss atheism are pointless discussions. We all respect each other's right to believe what we want to believe.
If there are people who are inclined in any way not to regard atheism as acceptable (and I really question how many rational people this would include), this slogan is only going to prove their point.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-08 11:07 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-01-07 10:58 pm (UTC)Edited because I'm a numpty and let my train of thought get in the way of my writing.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-07 10:38 pm (UTC)Except I have to go to bed so I'll have to find out in the morning.
'Night!
no subject
Date: 2009-01-08 09:27 am (UTC)I've never seen evidence of pixies, Santa Claus, boggarts, ghosts, elves, invisible unicorns, or any of the various Gods people speak of. I therefore rank their likelihood as low. Or to put it another way, I believe that "There probably is no Santa Claus."
no subject
Date: 2009-01-08 10:43 am (UTC)The about dolphins analogy was inaccurate, this equates more to saying dolphins don't exist. That's why I really didn't get it first time round.
Also, to many people, the world's very existence is inarguable proof of the existence of God. The concept of God is basically a response to 'why/how are we here?' Also, people pray for stuff and it happens. If I wrote to Santa Claus asking for a new bike and I woke up on Christmas morning to find one there, I would tend to believe in Santa Claus. As a child, I did. Later I discovered it was my parents so, ok, now no longer believe in Santa Claus. People with answered prayers often continue to have to other explanation - except perhaps coincidence, but coincidence is as flimsy as faith.
Largely though, not my point. Incidentally, my belief system is probably closer to humanism than any other in it's core tenets. I find 'do you believe in God' to be a massively complicated question, but forced to come out one side or the other, then I'd probably go with no. I'm not arguing against atheism or humanism or any belief system at all. I just think this is an ineffective and counter-productive way of furthering that cause.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-08 11:05 am (UTC)I'd like to see that laid out as some kind of logical proof - because I can't see how A leads to B.
Also, people pray for stuff and it happens.
People pray. Stuff happens. Nobody has ever been able to show that prayer actually affects what happens. Large scale tests of anonymous prayer for sick people have shown that it has no effect.
But - this is almost besides the point. The world is full of adverts for God - I walk home past a few of them every day. The TV has shows dedicated to God. Occasionally standing up and saying "You know, I believe there isn't a God." is a good start in counteracting that.