Well atheism as a world view is the belief that no god exists.
The creation/evolution example was a radical one. My point is that atheists are not persecuted or discriminated against so I don't see why such a drastic backlash against persecutions is needed.
(this point was made in reply to a point which to me implied that atheists were being in some way persecuted or discriminated against)
You seem to be taking a lot of my examples and analogies and dissecting the minutae of them, which is why I keep asking the bigger questions, 'do you disagree with this fundamental point?'
My point was that 'atheism is the standard expectation' which I will now revise slightly in view of some of the above comments to 'an atheistic viewpoint, as described above (no presumption of belief in god(s)), is the standard approach.'
Do you disagree with this point or just my way of phrasing it?
My point is that atheists are not persecuted or discriminated against
By whom? There are people out there influencing people's beliefs, morals and actions based on beliefs. There are lobbying groups run by religious people who are trying to change laws so that they are based on religious beliefs. This, in my view, can certainly justify an advert stating that the Humanist Association believes that God probably doesn't exist.
'an atheistic viewpoint, as described above (no presumption of belief in god(s)), is the standard approach.' I disagree. If it was we'd have Gay Marriage, not civil partnership, we'd not have a head of state who is also the Defender Of The Faith, we wouldn't have the government encouraging faith schools and we wouldn't have people in the House of Lords purely because they're ranking members of the Anglican Church.
There are people out there influencing people's beliefs, morals and actions based on beliefs. There are lobbying groups run by religious people who are trying to change laws so that they are based on religious beliefs. This, in my view, can certainly justify an advert stating that the Humanist Association believes that God probably doesn't exist.
Quite right, absolutely agree with you. But my point is that this advert doesn't say that. It says 'There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy life.' That is what I find to be offensive and patronising.
Some comments on this thread seem to be implying that atheists are being burnt at the stake or something, and I think this is a bit radical. However you are quite right that there are people influencing things based on their beliefs and I therefore fully support atheists to do the same (the belief being, as stated on the buses 'There's probably no God'). I would fully support the Humanist Association, probably above any other, to: * lobby parliament * hold discussion meetings and give talks * attend Alpha courses (or similar) to put forward the Atheist viewpoint (the people I have known in Alpha groups were actively wanting someone of a non-Christian viewpoint to come along and debate with them) * Try for more media coverage * Be able to legally perform civil partnerships (at the moment that can legally perform weddings but not CPs) * Hand out leaflets on the street * Hold conferences * Proclaim on buses that some people don't believe in God and that's fine, or that we should all respect and care for one another regardless of religion. etc etc.
I have got bogged down on sidepoints on this thread because I don't really believe that atheists are as underrepresented as has been claimed. Only if they really are would such a violent campaign be, possibly, maybe, necessary and worthwhile.
'There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy life.' I find to be an offensive slogan. I think there are much better ways of the Humanist Association spending £141,000.
I also find it offensive that the 'cool viewpoint' is to support this campaign and presume that there is something substandard about a differing viewpoint. There are people who have emailed me about this campaign, for example asking for donations, who actively mock those with religious convictions and I feel that the slogan used furthers that mockery.
People have been quite defensive but I really wouldn't count anyone on this thread as belonging to the above category. (I am becoming somewhat irritated at the amount of times people have explained the point of the campaign. I get it. I'm not stupid. I understand the point and moreover agree with the point, but disagree that this is an effective way of making that point. So to me that can come across as 'doubting my intelligence', but I can see that may be my own sensitivities.) I do think some people are perhaps unwittingly perpetuating the mockery, however, which is why I disagree with the campaign.
That is what I find to be offensive and patronising. I still don't understand _why_ it's either of those things.
Some comments on this thread seem to be implying that atheists are being burnt at the stake Really? Which ones are you thinking of? I've not seen any which implied that.
I also find it offensive that the 'cool viewpoint' is to support this campaign and presume that there is something substandard about a differing viewpoint. "Cool"? If you mean that your largely atheist friends think that it's great that they finally get their own bus slogans rather than Alpha course ones, then I'm afraid that I'm with them. And as I strongly agree that every argument I've ever seen for a religious point of view has been substandard. If you have links to some of a decent quality then I'd be happy to read them.
Well I'm not going to trawl through 100+ comments to find which ones specifically I am thinking of, because the point is that I felt that the negative plight of atheists was being overplayed, which is why I go sidetracked in the discussion as to whether or not it was. Whatever the original comments said, that was my inference and so that is what I was questioning.
You're presuming to know a lot about my friends, the majority of which you have never met. But ok, this is an LJ thread partially borne out of LJ links. A quick scan of my friends list shows that where I know or strongly suspect belief; 13 are atheist, 4 agnostic and 13 believe in god(s) in some form (mix of Christians, Pagans and Jews). A further 15 are people where I wouldn't be able to hazard a guess.
Is this a reaction to the Alpha campaign? The Alpha slogan I saw this morning was 'Why believe in God? If there was a God, what would you ask him?'. I consider that to be quite measured. I also know the point of the Alpha campaign was to make people examine their faith and question it - to give a chance to people who has been going to church all their life as part of a cultural obligation to scrutinise the faith they belong to. The humanist campaign dictates and claims to 'know better', rather than asking and encouraging people to examine their own belief system. That's what I find patronising.
I'm afraid that I'm with them. You agree that I should be victimised for defending my viewpoint and putting across another side of the argument?
Have you read Fliss's comment below? Becasue it nicely summarises my point when it comes to this part of my argument.
And as I strongly agree that every argument I've ever seen for a religious point of view has been substandard The last point of that sentence appears to be missing. As you agree that, what? Am trying not to make any assumptions as to what the last part of that sentence is.
What's decent quality? As faith is a personal and subjective issue then surely any one argument is of equal quality to any other. Unless it uses statistical information - is that what you would mean?
Also, do you really believe that people should be converted from their genuinely-held beliefs, to atheism? Because whilst I don't believe that is the point of the campaign,your other comment suggested that you did and this completely baffles me and I'd like to know why.
I find the Alpha campaign to be in about the same level as the Humanist one. It may be slightly better phrased, but they do assume a god, and they're not just aiming their mission at Christians, but everyone else too. Some of their ads are clearly aiming at people who wish there was more to life.
I said: I'm afraid that I'm with them. You said: You agree that I should be victimised for defending my viewpoint and putting across another side of the argument?
I don't see how I said anything like that. I said "If you mean that your largely atheist friends think that it's great that they finally get their own bus slogans rather than Alpha course ones, then I'm afraid that I'm with them." - i.e. with them that they get their own bus slogans. I don't see how you've been victimised at all, anywhere. Can you show me where you were?
The last point of that sentence appears to be missing. As you agree that, what Nope - it's all there - I agree that every argument I've ever seen for a religious point of view has been substandard. I don't see how that's an incomplete sentence.
As faith is a personal and subjective issue I don't care about faith. I care about descriptions of the world. Either something is a decent description of the world or it isn't. Faith seems, to me, to be someone saying "I don't have a good reason for believing that my description of the world is right, but I'm going to hold it anyway." If they had observations of the world that matched up with their beliefs then they wouldn't need faith, after all.
Also, do you really believe that people should be converted from their genuinely-held beliefs, to atheism? Converted forcibly? No. Do I believe that people talking about the world and encouraging each other to attempt to reach better understandings of it? Yes. If people don't want to engage in those discussions I'm certainly not going to sit them down and make them do so.
It may be slightly better phrased That's my point!!! It's BADLY PHRASED. I think I might just copy and paste this: I do not disagree with the point behind the campaign. I disagree with the slogan used.
Can you show me where you were? The 'I'm afraid I'm with them' you posted was in response to my mentioning the presumption that there is something substandard about a differing viewpoint. When you said you were with them I understood this to mean you were with them in believing that my viewpoint is substandard. (not my viewpoint of whether or not I believe in God/s but my viewpoint that I find the slogan offensive) I, also, am 'with them' in getting a bus campaign if that's what they really want to do. I do not disagree with the point behind the campaign. I disagree with the slogan used.
Nope - it's all there - I agree that every argument I've ever seen for a religious point of view has been substandard. I don't see how that's an incomplete sentence. There was an 'as' at the beginning of that sentence: And as I strongly agree.... I thought it was a precursor to a further point. Looks like it was just a misplaced 'as'.
I don't care about faith. By faith in this sense I mean belief, I mean your view of the world.
So you believe that holding religious beliefs is a substandard viewpoint but don't see how anyone would find that patronising?
I believe that people talking about the world and encouraging each other to attempt to reach better understandings of it You believe that 'a better understanding' is more likely to be an atheist viewpoint? I respect your right to believe that. Were someone to believe the exact same thing but that the better understanding were a religious viewpoint, they would be considered evangelical.
Anyway, as I've said, I don't think the point of the campaign is to do this. I think it's to encourage discussion and highlight that some people are atheist and that's fine. I do not disagree with the point behind the campaign. I disagree with the slogan used.
DO you find it offensive that I disagree with the slogan, or do you genuinely not see why anyone could be offended by it? (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith)
So you believe that holding religious beliefs is a substandard viewpoint but don't see how anyone would find that patronising? I don't look down on the people who hold views that aren't easily backed up. I reserve the right to hold those views to be substandard. I can attack a viewpoint and not the person.
You believe that 'a better understanding' is more likely to be an atheist viewpoint? If I didn't, why on earth would I have that viewpoint?
Were someone to believe the exact same thing but that the better understanding were a religious viewpoint, they would be considered evangelical. Nope - evangelising is "to spread the word", not to believe that ones viewpoint is correct. And of course religious people believe that their viewpoint is more correct than mine - otherwise they'd hold my viewpoint and not theirs!
Why would I find it offensive that you disagree with the slogan? I'm not offended by it - I've just checked a dictionary to make sure I have the right definition "the state of being insulted or morally outraged" - I'm not insulted or morally outraged by people believing things different to myself, or stating those opinions clearly.
Why would I find it offensive that you disagree with the slogan?
I don't know either. I've stated my viewpoint several times. I am aware that people disagree with me. I was aware of this before I even posted. I have given further explanation where people have asked for it. You still seem to be arguing a point and I'm not sure what point you are arguing - logically I figured either you were upset/offended by my viewpoint and trying to change my mind, or you don't understand it.
Oh - and I started off because I was interested in your reasons, and wanted to see why you believed the things you did.
When I see people I know who have radically different opinions to me on things I tend to talk to them about it, because I want to understand them better.
As regards Fliss - she hasn't said anything other than she sees you have some good points (but doesn't say what they are) - and that double standards are bad.
I'm already against double standards, so that's fine by me.
"I had just fallen so easily into 'atheist bus campaign GOOD' camp that I and all my philsoc friends naturally occupy, that I had not given much thought to the rightness of it.
I felt that people had fallen into a societal area where of course they agreed with the campaign and hadn't actually stopped to carefully consider it. So, amid the celebrations of it, I thought it was important to address the other side. I was trying to make people examine their inherited beliefs - much like this campaign is trying to do. I agree with making people examine their beliefs. I don't agree with this slogan.
But you didn't say that people should carefully consider that there might be problem X, Y or Z, you said that you were "insulted or morally outraged" (grabbing that dictionary again) by people being in favour of it.
Seemed rather strong to me.
I do, entirely, agree with the slogan. I think that it's as close to factually correct as can be easily reached.
I deleted your first comment just because it was a replica.
Of course you agree with the slogan! I know. Fair enough. Celebrate away. I would defend your right to do so.
I don't agree with it. If we 're really going into dictionary definitions: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/offensive), I find the tone of the slogan to be unpleasant and disagreeable.
I didn't say that I was offended by people being in favour of it, that's an entirely different point, and I'm not.
I suspect we're just reading different things into the tone in that case - as I clearly don't find it unpleasant. It does disagree with things that some people believe, but that's fine by me.
Which means it comes down to the two things you originally mentioned - whether it's fundamental atheism (which we clearly disagree over) and whether it will do anything good (which we clearly also disagree over).
At least we've now found our points of disagreement :->
I had assumed that if you found something offensive then you'd find people's support of it equally offensive. Sorry about that.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 01:26 pm (UTC)The creation/evolution example was a radical one. My point is that atheists are not persecuted or discriminated against so I don't see why such a drastic backlash against persecutions is needed.
(this point was made in reply to a point which to me implied that atheists were being in some way persecuted or discriminated against)
You seem to be taking a lot of my examples and analogies and dissecting the minutae of them, which is why I keep asking the bigger questions, 'do you disagree with this fundamental point?'
My point was that 'atheism is the standard expectation' which I will now revise slightly in view of some of the above comments to 'an atheistic viewpoint, as described above (no presumption of belief in god(s)), is the standard approach.'
Do you disagree with this point or just my way of phrasing it?
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 01:32 pm (UTC)By whom? There are people out there influencing people's beliefs, morals and actions based on beliefs. There are lobbying groups run by religious people who are trying to change laws so that they are based on religious beliefs. This, in my view, can certainly justify an advert stating that the Humanist Association believes that God probably doesn't exist.
'an atheistic viewpoint, as described above (no presumption of belief in god(s)), is the standard approach.'
I disagree. If it was we'd have Gay Marriage, not civil partnership, we'd not have a head of state who is also the Defender Of The Faith, we wouldn't have the government encouraging faith schools and we wouldn't have people in the House of Lords purely because they're ranking members of the Anglican Church.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 02:03 pm (UTC)Quite right, absolutely agree with you. But my point is that this advert doesn't say that. It says 'There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy life.' That is what I find to be offensive and patronising.
Some comments on this thread seem to be implying that atheists are being burnt at the stake or something, and I think this is a bit radical. However you are quite right that there are people influencing things based on their beliefs and I therefore fully support atheists to do the same (the belief being, as stated on the buses 'There's probably no God'). I would fully support the Humanist Association, probably above any other, to:
* lobby parliament
* hold discussion meetings and give talks
* attend Alpha courses (or similar) to put forward the Atheist viewpoint (the people I have known in Alpha groups were actively wanting someone of a non-Christian viewpoint to come along and debate with them)
* Try for more media coverage
* Be able to legally perform civil partnerships (at the moment that can legally perform weddings but not CPs)
* Hand out leaflets on the street
* Hold conferences
* Proclaim on buses that some people don't believe in God and that's fine, or that we should all respect and care for one another regardless of religion.
etc etc.
I have got bogged down on sidepoints on this thread because I don't really believe that atheists are as underrepresented as has been claimed. Only if they really are would such a violent campaign be, possibly, maybe, necessary and worthwhile.
'There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy life.' I find to be an offensive slogan. I think there are much better ways of the Humanist Association spending £141,000.
I also find it offensive that the 'cool viewpoint' is to support this campaign and presume that there is something substandard about a differing viewpoint. There are people who have emailed me about this campaign, for example asking for donations, who actively mock those with religious convictions and I feel that the slogan used furthers that mockery.
People have been quite defensive but I really wouldn't count anyone on this thread as belonging to the above category. (I am becoming somewhat irritated at the amount of times people have explained the point of the campaign. I get it. I'm not stupid. I understand the point and moreover agree with the point, but disagree that this is an effective way of making that point. So to me that can come across as 'doubting my intelligence', but I can see that may be my own sensitivities.) I do think some people are perhaps unwittingly perpetuating the mockery, however, which is why I disagree with the campaign.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 02:10 pm (UTC)I still don't understand _why_ it's either of those things.
Some comments on this thread seem to be implying that atheists are being burnt at the stake
Really? Which ones are you thinking of? I've not seen any which implied that.
I also find it offensive that the 'cool viewpoint' is to support this campaign and presume that there is something substandard about a differing viewpoint.
"Cool"? If you mean that your largely atheist friends think that it's great that they finally get their own bus slogans rather than Alpha course ones, then I'm afraid that I'm with them. And as I strongly agree that every argument I've ever seen for a religious point of view has been substandard. If you have links to some of a decent quality then I'd be happy to read them.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 03:01 pm (UTC)You're presuming to know a lot about my friends, the majority of which you have never met. But ok, this is an LJ thread partially borne out of LJ links. A quick scan of my friends list shows that where I know or strongly suspect belief; 13 are atheist, 4 agnostic and 13 believe in god(s) in some form (mix of Christians, Pagans and Jews). A further 15 are people where I wouldn't be able to hazard a guess.
Is this a reaction to the Alpha campaign? The Alpha slogan I saw this morning was 'Why believe in God? If there was a God, what would you ask him?'. I consider that to be quite measured. I also know the point of the Alpha campaign was to make people examine their faith and question it - to give a chance to people who has been going to church all their life as part of a cultural obligation to scrutinise the faith they belong to. The humanist campaign dictates and claims to 'know better', rather than asking and encouraging people to examine their own belief system. That's what I find patronising.
I'm afraid that I'm with them.
You agree that I should be victimised for defending my viewpoint and putting across another side of the argument?
Have you read Fliss's comment below? Becasue it nicely summarises my point when it comes to this part of my argument.
And as I strongly agree that every argument I've ever seen for a religious point of view has been substandard
The last point of that sentence appears to be missing. As you agree that, what? Am trying not to make any assumptions as to what the last part of that sentence is.
What's decent quality? As faith is a personal and subjective issue then surely any one argument is of equal quality to any other. Unless it uses statistical information - is that what you would mean?
Also, do you really believe that people should be converted from their genuinely-held beliefs, to atheism? Because whilst I don't believe that is the point of the campaign,your other comment suggested that you did and this completely baffles me and I'd like to know why.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 03:20 pm (UTC)I said: I'm afraid that I'm with them.
You said: You agree that I should be victimised for defending my viewpoint and putting across another side of the argument?
I don't see how I said anything like that. I said "If you mean that your largely atheist friends think that it's great that they finally get their own bus slogans rather than Alpha course ones, then I'm afraid that I'm with them." - i.e. with them that they get their own bus slogans. I don't see how you've been victimised at all, anywhere. Can you show me where you were?
The last point of that sentence appears to be missing. As you agree that, what
Nope - it's all there - I agree that every argument I've ever seen for a religious point of view has been substandard. I don't see how that's an incomplete sentence.
As faith is a personal and subjective issue
I don't care about faith. I care about descriptions of the world. Either something is a decent description of the world or it isn't. Faith seems, to me, to be someone saying "I don't have a good reason for believing that my description of the world is right, but I'm going to hold it anyway." If they had observations of the world that matched up with their beliefs then they wouldn't need faith, after all.
Also, do you really believe that people should be converted from their genuinely-held beliefs, to atheism?
Converted forcibly? No. Do I believe that people talking about the world and encouraging each other to attempt to reach better understandings of it? Yes. If people don't want to engage in those discussions I'm certainly not going to sit them down and make them do so.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 03:47 pm (UTC)That's my point!!! It's BADLY PHRASED. I think I might just copy and paste this:
I do not disagree with the point behind the campaign. I disagree with the slogan used.
Can you show me where you were?
The 'I'm afraid I'm with them' you posted was in response to my mentioning the presumption that there is something substandard about a differing viewpoint. When you said you were with them I understood this to mean you were with them in believing that my viewpoint is substandard. (not my viewpoint of whether or not I believe in God/s but my viewpoint that I find the slogan offensive) I, also, am 'with them' in getting a bus campaign if that's what they really want to do.
I do not disagree with the point behind the campaign. I disagree with the slogan used.
Nope - it's all there - I agree that every argument I've ever seen for a religious point of view has been substandard. I don't see how that's an incomplete sentence.
There was an 'as' at the beginning of that sentence: And as I strongly agree.... I thought it was a precursor to a further point. Looks like it was just a misplaced 'as'.
I don't care about faith.
By faith in this sense I mean belief, I mean your view of the world.
So you believe that holding religious beliefs is a substandard viewpoint but don't see how anyone would find that patronising?
I believe that people talking about the world and encouraging each other to attempt to reach better understandings of it
You believe that 'a better understanding' is more likely to be an atheist viewpoint? I respect your right to believe that. Were someone to believe the exact same thing but that the better understanding were a religious viewpoint, they would be considered evangelical.
Anyway, as I've said, I don't think the point of the campaign is to do this. I think it's to encourage discussion and highlight that some people are atheist and that's fine.
I do not disagree with the point behind the campaign. I disagree with the slogan used.
DO you find it offensive that I disagree with the slogan, or do you genuinely not see why anyone could be offended by it?
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith)
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 03:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 04:01 pm (UTC)I don't look down on the people who hold views that aren't easily backed up. I reserve the right to hold those views to be substandard. I can attack a viewpoint and not the person.
You believe that 'a better understanding' is more likely to be an atheist viewpoint?
If I didn't, why on earth would I have that viewpoint?
Were someone to believe the exact same thing but that the better understanding were a religious viewpoint, they would be considered evangelical.
Nope - evangelising is "to spread the word", not to believe that ones viewpoint is correct. And of course religious people believe that their viewpoint is more correct than mine - otherwise they'd hold my viewpoint and not theirs!
Why would I find it offensive that you disagree with the slogan? I'm not offended by it - I've just checked a dictionary to make sure I have the right definition "the state of being insulted or morally outraged" - I'm not insulted or morally outraged by people believing things different to myself, or stating those opinions clearly.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 04:15 pm (UTC)I don't know either. I've stated my viewpoint several times. I am aware that people disagree with me. I was aware of this before I even posted. I have given further explanation where people have asked for it. You still seem to be arguing a point and I'm not sure what point you are arguing - logically I figured either you were upset/offended by my viewpoint and trying to change my mind, or you don't understand it.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 04:21 pm (UTC)I then disagreed that the advert was fundamentalist atheism, when it seemed like middle-of-the-road agnosticism to me.
After that we tangentised in 15 different directions.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 04:47 pm (UTC)When I see people I know who have radically different opinions to me on things I tend to talk to them about it, because I want to understand them better.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 03:22 pm (UTC)I'm already against double standards, so that's fine by me.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 03:57 pm (UTC)"I had just fallen so easily into 'atheist bus campaign GOOD' camp that I and all my philsoc friends naturally occupy, that I had not given much thought to the rightness of it.
I felt that people had fallen into a societal area where of course they agreed with the campaign and hadn't actually stopped to carefully consider it. So, amid the celebrations of it, I thought it was important to address the other side. I was trying to make people examine their inherited beliefs - much like this campaign is trying to do. I agree with making people examine their beliefs. I don't agree with this slogan.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 04:05 pm (UTC)Seemed rather strong to me.
I do, entirely, agree with the slogan. I think that it's as close to factually correct as can be easily reached.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 04:31 pm (UTC)Of course you agree with the slogan! I know. Fair enough. Celebrate away. I would defend your right to do so.
I don't agree with it. If we 're really going into dictionary definitions: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/offensive), I find the tone of the slogan to be unpleasant and disagreeable.
I didn't say that I was offended by people being in favour of it, that's an entirely different point, and I'm not.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 04:41 pm (UTC)Which means it comes down to the two things you originally mentioned - whether it's fundamental atheism (which we clearly disagree over) and whether it will do anything good (which we clearly also disagree over).
At least we've now found our points of disagreement :->
I had assumed that if you found something offensive then you'd find people's support of it equally offensive. Sorry about that.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 05:08 pm (UTC)Ah ok that's good to know because it goes some way to explaining why people were quite so upset.