The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Atheist Foundation launches bus advert fund

Atheist Foundation launches bus advert fund

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 23
  7. 24
  8. 25
  9. All
COMING TO A BUS NEAR YOU!
Atheist Foundation launches bus advert fund

3 November 2008

Due to the incredible response by the community and the media to the London bus slogans, the Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc has initiated a similar program in Australia.

It is envisaged that all state capitals will be involved in carrying the signs on their buses.

The message: “Atheism – Because there is no credible evidence” clearly and concisely explains the Atheist stance.

President of the Atheist Foundation of Australia, David Nicholls said: “The positive reaction to the London experience demonstrates there is an opening for Atheists to visibly express their thoughts. At this time in history, religion is attempting to wrench away the benefits of the enlightenment of only a few hundred years ago.

It is threatening human survivability.

Atheists have been looking for a constructive way to counteract the growing power and irrationality of religion and this looks like it might fit the bill.”

The AFA is calling for donations to fund the endeavour. The more money raised, the greater the exposure into the public consciousness.

For details, contact head office.

David Nicholls
President
Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc
Private Mail Bag 6
MAITLAND SA 5573

Ph: (08) 8835 2269
Email: info@atheistfoundation.org.au
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Monday, 3 November 2008 8:25:21 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GrahamY

Its a bit rich to struggle over whether to have a post on Creation when the god haters are allowed to spew their propaganda so freely.
Posted by runner, Monday, 3 November 2008 9:14:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner

There is no god to hate.
Posted by Fractelle, Monday, 3 November 2008 10:29:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear runner,

Be fair.

Look at how many religious themed threads are
currently on this Forum compared to only this one
that has just come up from a different perspective.

Graham Y. has always presented both sides of any
discussion. He's always maintained a balance.

And, rightly so.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 3 November 2008 11:06:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have a real problem with BOTH religious organizations and atheist organizations. They BOTH spew bile and bigotry against anyone who disagrees with them, and they BOTH usually deny that they do so.

Some religious bigots try to pretend that atheism is merely another religion, a religion that believes in the wrong things (this is similar to the attitude of atheists towards the various religions). Of course, atheism is NOT a religion, because a religion believes in and worships a deity, and atheists believe a deity doesn't exist. Therefore atheism CAN'T be a religion.

The main problem with "organized" atheism is that, just like religion, it can become indoctrinated by dogma and bigotry against those who hold a different viewpoint. So atheism descends from a statement of NON-PROOF, which is their core basis (there's NO PROOF of the existence of any deity) to statements of OPINION AND PHILOSOPHY. As soon as opinion and philosophy enter the fray, then logical thought goes out the window. Atheists deny that "opinion" has anything to do with atheism, but this is not so. Atheists are no less opinionated than the organized religions.

I've listened to many atheists who are just as full of dogma and prejudice as the religious people.

Zealotry, on either side, has no place in logical and informed thought. Atheism, like religious belief, is best left to the individual. As soon as anything like religion or atheism becomes an organization, well it's all downhill from there with the usual zealots, wackos, fundamentalists, the "you're wrong and I'm right" brigade given a platform to expel bile against people who don't think as they do.
Posted by rw523252, Monday, 3 November 2008 11:32:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
However "Atheism - Because there is no credible evidence" is a sign that makes perfect sense. It's a short statement of truth. Not "opinion" - TRUTH.

If the religious people don't like that, then PROVE your deity exists.

You KNOW you can't.

That's why you have FAITH.

If PROOF existed, there would be no necessity for faith.

Therefore - your belief in a deity is just that, a BELIEF - no more and no less. And you're entitled to that "BELIEF".
Posted by rw523252, Monday, 3 November 2008 11:41:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Frankly, I'm disappointed.

The objective is "for Atheists to visibly express their thoughts"?

On the back of a bus?

There are plenty of opportunities for atheists to "visibly express their thoughts", without stooping to advertising alongside soft drinks and car insurance.

And the "slogan"?

It is flabby, trite, and ultimately as meaningless as "Jesus saves".

And what exactly is the point?

Does anyone imagine for a nanosecond that it will i) convince even one religionist to abandon their faith, or ii) cause even one religionist to contemplate that hey, there may be another way of looking at life?

I doubt it. The message and the medium both say "amateur night".

Perhaps it is intended to bolster the courage of wavering atheists, tempted by irresistible, crystalline logic of the religious evangelists who accost them on every street corner?

Hey, if that's what attracts them, let 'em go.

No, I'm afraid this "campaign" is ill-conceived from first principles. I hope it doesn't get off the ground, so that the Foundation can retain some dignity.

Did I mention that I think it's a waste of time and money?
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 3 November 2008 1:01:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Very balanced rw523252. The reason that I think the atheists signage is a good thing is:

-Organised religion in the form of aggressive christianity is not harmless, we have Preznit Bush an evangelical christian starting war and demonising innocent people in a 'good vs evil' belief. Bush belives he is on a mission from god. Sarah Palin (extreme fundamentalist) has the extreme christian right salivating at the thought of one of them becoming all powerful.

Atheists as a rule, don't set out to convert the world to their belief, they accept other people's religious beliefs, but religion is more and more being forced upon us by supposedly secular institutions and governments.

Do we see atheism spruiked everywhere like we do organised religion? Do we hear the atheist viewpoint on every aspect of our lives as we hear from organised religion throughout the mainstream media and in politics?

There is a 'spiritual warfare' movement which aims to transfer the wealth from the godless to the godly, and Sarah Palin is part of that movement - why has Palin not had the media examine and expose her loony religious beliefs?
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/10/31/115724/94

It's getting worse, religious views are heard too much and are given disproportionate representation and weight in Australia, I for one am sick of it. I don't want my life ruled by other people's religious beliefs. I feel that I am under siege from religious nutters everywhere, I'm not even safe from them in my own home, minding my own business - they knock on my door on weekends and they are exempt from the 'do not call' register - why?

I think orgainsed religion should be treated as the big business that they are, no more tax exempt status for starters.
Posted by human interest, Monday, 3 November 2008 1:33:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Incidentally, I think it is worth pointing out, before anyone leaps in and suggests that the Foundation is gilding the lily, that the London campaign has not actually started yet.

>>Due to the incredible response by the community and the media to the London bus slogans<<

The "incredible response" has been to the fundraising activity, ahead of the campaign that is planned for January 2009. The response to the London bus slogans themselves remains to be seen.

I rather enjoyed these observations on the London proposals.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/27/atheism-transport

It would appear that buses already advertise something called the Alpha Course, a sort of Christianity for Dummies exercise, which at least gives the atheist effort some focus.

I particularly liked the Guardian's observation on a possible success measurement:

"London will have three distinct groups of buses. First up, at least 30 buses will be emblazoned with banner advertising rubbishing the idea of God. In all likelihood, at least 30 others will be encouraging a new generation of recruits to sign up to the Alpha course. And the rest will be their usual secular selves: in other words, a perfect control group.

"So what I propose is this: let's track the punctuality of these three groups (or as many as we can track, randomly selected from each group). We can log breakdowns and accidents too, for good measure... with a little goodwill and some help from a professional statistician, we've got a solid natural experiment. After all, if anything could do with a little divine intervention, it's our capital's transport system.

"The most likely outcome, I'd guess, would be no statistically significant difference between any of the three groups. If the Alpha buses significantly outperform the other groups, there's pause for thought (if they float heavenwards amid a chorus of angelic harpists, it'll be quite a long pause). If the buses sporting atheist adverts did significantly better, something out there perhaps has a warped sense of humour."

The campaign here is without context. And compared to the London slogan, without wit either.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 3 November 2008 1:37:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While I don't have any great problem with the slogan per se, I think that the Atheist Foundation would get more bang for its bucks if it were to address more tangible issues in its advertising, rather than the abstract ideological tack it's taken. I also think it's a bit contradictory for the Atheist Foundation to engage in what might beconstrued as a form of atheist proselytising - which will undoubtedly invite the tired old "atheism is a religion/belief" criticisms from the same old fundies.

I think it would be far more effective to emblazon buses with messages like:

"ABOLISH MISSIONARIES IN SCHOOLS"

"GET GOD OUT OF GOVERNMENT"

"END TAXPAYER FUNDING OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS"

"MAKE CHURCH BUSINESSES PAY TAXES LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE"

etc etc.

"Atheism – Because there is no credible evidence" seems like a waste of good advertising space to me.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 3 November 2008 1:50:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good People,

Placing signs on buses is a very cost effective way to put out a message. For Atheism, it is an excellent method as it evokes passions as seen in this thread. Such messages excites the media and the community as seem with the London experience which will commence in January and which has achieved its goal already of raising the consciousness of the community.

There are controls on signage on public transport and the AFA has to work within them. The Minister of Transport in SA and presumedly in each state can at whim have signs removed with no recompense to the advertiser if she/he so deems.

The armchair reaction to the intended bus slogans is understandable, expected and frankly, dismissed as irrelevant.

I would just love to see some facts and figures demonstrating that other methods are more efficient and cost effective. The very first post on this thread proves the point reasonably decisively.

No offence intended to anyone who has posted and I mean that.

For everyone’s interests, the campaign has only been going for a few hours and we now have over $12,000,000 in pledges without any mass-media help so far. Maybe, instead of knocking the concept, how about join those who have already donated. For the cost of a bar of chocolate, you would assist in showing the Atheists in our community that they are not alone. You would also let the religiosae know they have an ideological opponent in their midst.

David

David Nicholls
President
Atheist Foundation of Australian In
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Monday, 3 November 2008 2:22:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think its a great idea.

In these times of distress many people are searching for reassurance and the churches are only too willing to take advantage of the situation for their own benefit.

Perhaps this will get people to stop and think just a little more.
Posted by Ozymandias, Monday, 3 November 2008 2:41:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner

I don't hate Zeus or Ra
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 3 November 2008 3:11:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I remain unconvinced, Mr Nicholls.

>>Placing signs on buses is a very cost effective way to put out a message<<

If I were selling advertising space, this is exactly what I would tell you. But if the message is lame, how cost-effective does that make the programme as a whole?

And what about that message? Is it simply to make atheists feel somehow better about themselves, that they are "not alone"?

Oh, please.

How patronizing.

We are told that...

>>the London experience... has achieved its goal already of raising the consciousness of the community<<

Oswald Mosley raised the consciousness of a whole lot of people in the thirties. Did that make his message somehow meaningful? Or are you one of those people who believes "any publicity is good publicity"?

Anyhow, I thought that the Australian objective is "for Atheists to visibly express their thoughts"?

Flabby thinking.

Once again I have to ask, what is the point of all this, except to put money into the welcoming grasp of adland?

>>The armchair reaction to the intended bus slogans is understandable, expected and frankly, dismissed as irrelevant.<<

'Fraid you lost me, right there.

No organization that treats its intended constituency as irrelevant, and in such a condescending manner, deserves to succeed, whatever its mission.

Goodbye.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 3 November 2008 3:53:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well.. good to see CJ and PERICLES exercising some clarity of thought here.

I'm a bit bemused also.. "Atheism"....because...

huh?

What does atheism give? it seems that it takes away rather than give anything..

The whole message is destructive and negative.. offering nothing positive.

Even "Jesus Saves" is positive.. it offers salvation.

If I was going to think up a slogan to promote Atheism I think I'd go for something like "Be Liberated..choose Atheism"

OR.."Total moral freedom.. choose Atheism"

"Atheism-escape the moral prison of religion"

Not that this is true, but it seems to be an accepted atheist belief about religion.

But... 'lack of belief' being the core issue? well..can't say my foundations are shaken by this.

The slogan is also unreasonable, as it suggests that there is no credible evidence. But this is a matter of dispute and debate.. particularly concerning the resurrection of Christ.

Why not 'Agnosticism' rather than atheism, as Atheism suggest that all the possibilities have been 100% exhaustively explored ..and this is simply not true.

Let Him who died for us, rose on the 3rd day.. who is coming with the glory of His angels... be the final arbiter.
Amen and Amen.
Posted by Polycarp, Monday, 3 November 2008 4:22:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Polycarp wrote: The slogan is also unreasonable, as it suggests that there is no credible evidence. But this is a matter of dispute and debate.. particularly concerning the resurrection of Christ.

Nonsense is not a matter of dispute and debate. It remains nonsense.

From too much love of living,
From hope and fear set free,
We thank with brief thanksgiving
Whatever gods may be
That no life lives forever;
That dead men rise up never;
That even the weariest river
Winds somewhere safe to sea

Better the poetry of Swinburne then biblical fairy tales.
Posted by david f, Monday, 3 November 2008 4:43:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This leaves a REAL bad taste in my mouth.
Posted by StG, Monday, 3 November 2008 5:16:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'spose I better add...

"The armchair reaction to the intended bus slogans is understandable, expected and frankly, dismissed as irrelevant.

David Nicholls"

You're just a stirrer. I still don't get why someone who fundamental opposes a concept actually goes out and dedicates a significant part of their existence on that concept (don't try, please). Your slogan is obviously intended to create something as ugly as you.

Be an Atheist, more power to ya, but stop going 'LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME'. You're embarrassing yourself. You come across as child with a grudge.

Thankfully the ONLY place I've heard of AFoA is here, on OLO...

I'd be just as sympathetically offended for Muslims if you targeted them specifically. Funnily enough I believe you'll never actually pick a specific target, especially Islam (although, Christianity is your easy target). That's vilification, and is a crime. I'll be surprised to see a sign like that here in Qld. I'll complain myself if I do.
Posted by StG, Monday, 3 November 2008 5:42:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I read on a website today that the Holy Bible sells between 30 and 100 million copies every year.

Thats power, REAL power:)
Posted by Gibo, Monday, 3 November 2008 5:50:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
People,

Let us look at the words of the slogan. ‘Atheism – because there is no credible evidence’

This is an opinion sourced from present knowledge and is the basis of being an Atheist. Is our society so timid as to be afraid of a prompt to think about long held traditions in contradiction to that statement?

Atheists have to put with the opposite opinion on a continual basis. In Australia, from Christian prayers in parliament, to huge edifices in every suburb, to grants and tax breaks not afforded ordinary people, to laws not introduced and the threat to those already in place, to state schools with chaplains, to threats to science and groups not acceptable to religion etc.

On the world scene, we have a president of the USA convinced a god told him that war on Iraq is the way to go and an opposing president in Iran with an opposite view. Both these people are juggling the Middle East with Israel as the prize. All three nations either have or wish to have nuclear weapons as do the religious hotbeds of Pakistan and India.

An Atheist comes up and says, “Hey guys, this very real threat to people and planet could all because of overactive imaginations and religious indoctrination”.

Can you see the discrepancy here? To Atheists the problem is obvious and the compunction to say so necessary.

Look at the slogan. Is it that frightening, irrational or so far off the mark that it should be condemned outright when it contains not one word of hate or threat to use or cause violence.

I think not…No, I know not.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Monday, 3 November 2008 6:17:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Nichols! Bad move! The same reasons why other organizations are classed as fundamentalists, too become one of these groups will put a twisting correlation with the rest. Atheists are non believers in Deity etc, and I do agree we are the balanced one,s without a doubt.

No groups, just single voices. Then we cant be pointed out as a new force or be singled out and over ruled by apposing stupidities.

Let the world speak with the one drop in the ocean concept, with will, see and here what the people want and numbers will grow just by speaking the truth!

I believe in calling a spade a spade and the world is starting to grow up. When leaders start talking to gods for advice, this is a sign of sick planet and out of date practise,s. Religion causes WAR! Do make us a part of this!

We are friendly with the thoughts of the planets welfare in mind and always remember, the meek shall inherit the earth.

If you advertise you join the rest.

For the same reasons I wont put money in collection plates, I think you see my point.

EVO
Posted by EVO, Monday, 3 November 2008 8:34:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Do not make us a part of this! I ment to say. Sorry about that.

EVO
Posted by EVO, Monday, 3 November 2008 8:52:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rw523252,

I am an atheist and I do believe that creationism is emotional desperation at best and cynical nonsense at worst. But, that is where we intellectually part.
You can't logically prove a negative something categorically doesn't exist. At best all you can do is argue by inference. You can only say is that based on current lack of supporting facts god doesn't appear to exist as a supernatural entity; however given that everything is not yet known the debate is still valid.

In the absence of absolute definitive proof at either end of the spectrum logic dictates that the answer may lie somewhere in the middle. Therefore zealotic “God busting” is as unsustantiatable and as offensive as the opposite.
Neither can you sensibly argue that the absence of one guarantees the other.

Based on your reasoning in your post you have simply replaced one biased set of unprovable absolutes with another.

I have several of Dawkins books and can see his logic but he tends to confuse his version of ‘facts’ (many of which are tendentious) with a right to impose it on others.

He does have a right to disprove “creationism” aka “intelligent (sic) design” as science and a valid alternative to evolution. The tests are there. The flaw in his world view is that he assumes the whole is the sum of the parts on faith he can’t show the link between genes and thought…no one can.
Likewise is this flaw applies to human need…which to many includes a concept of order (or if you like God). Is love any less real because you can’t bottle it etc?
Experience has taught me that each to their own is the best interim stance

Might I humbly suggest you alter your stance from the absolute to cover your own beliefs?
Posted by examinator, Monday, 3 November 2008 8:52:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Examinator. Well said. The growth of human-beings will be a slow one, and so it should be.

EVO
Posted by EVO, Monday, 3 November 2008 9:05:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Athieist Foundation exists purely as an anti-religionist organisation.Can they continue to exist in the world of negativity when religion is gone?I'm agnostic,I see the positives and negatives of religion,but what positive philosophies do athieists espouse to sustain and justify their existence?

It is not a matter of what god you believe in,but what philosophy and ethical standard at which you set your moral compass.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 3 November 2008 9:35:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think it is unreasonable to request the atheists to come up with a particular ethic or philosophy. Atheists have many ethical views and philosophies.

Putting up signs on the busses is very useful. In doing so the atheists serve the same function as the little boy who pointed that the emperor had no clothes. People could clearly see the emperor had no clothes but felt constrained to say nothing until the little boy spoke.
Posted by david f, Monday, 3 November 2008 9:44:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Can I finish with this.

Its your world! How do you want it?

EVO
Posted by EVO, Monday, 3 November 2008 10:08:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The main difference between a religious person and an atheist is that an atheist believes in one less God.
Posted by wobbles, Monday, 3 November 2008 11:53:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David F said:

<<I think it is unreasonable to request the atheists to come up with a particular ethic or philosophy. Atheists have many ethical views and philosophies.>>

Re the last sentence.... I smile and add.."indeed they do David..indeed they do"

and that's the problem. Not only do they have many..... often in conflict.. none of them can claim a higher authority than the other.

Aaah... the sweet fragrance of our 'nonsense'.

I again saw under the sun that the race is not to the swift and the battle is not to the warriors, and neither is bread to the wise nor wealth to the discerning nor favor to men of ability; for time and chance overtake them all. (Ecclesiasties 9:11)

But Paul has a strong degree of certainty:

I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 8Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing. (II Tim 4:7)

I guess he looked back over his life as he penned these words..and reflected on how things changed one day on the way to Damascus.
Had he not had the vision... he would have been saying the same things some of us say.... like David F...David Nichols.. and others.

I long for all to long for His appearing.
Posted by Polycarp, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 7:26:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Polycarp,

Paul had certainty. However, certainty does not mean truth. Unfortunately you are a decent man imprisoned in a mind numbing faith.

There are many religions. Each will claim truth. They all share one characteristic. They think they have THE truth. Then they murder others who do not accept their truth. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust and the wars of the Reformation where Christians killed other Christians who had a somewhat different truth are all products of Christian certainty.

Christian certainty of truth has the smell of blood and the stink of corpses.

Have a nice day.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 7:41:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The idea seems reasonable enough. The signs and slogans of religion are as common as the golden arches. Even if we're not seduced by them, we can't help being aware of them. It seems reasonable to me that atheism has a similar right to claim public space.

The slogan's the problem for mine. It's essentially an attack ad. We're hardly in need of any more negativity in our public spaces
Posted by chainsmoker, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 9:51:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
chainsmoker,

One of the reasons for the advert is to elicit thought. It expresses why Atheists are Atheists. To call it an ‘attack ad’ is similar to saying every word in the public space related to religion is an ‘attack ad’ against Atheism. Just the proportionality here is something about which to think. How many times have you actually seen the word Atheism expressed in the public space?

That the words in this advertisement have the capacity in them to make people think is self evident and incidentally, supported by this thread.

Is the attempt at making people think intrinsically a bad thing or is it that the subject matter is so taboo as to be rejected without thought?

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 10:06:40 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
People are living in a world where there is little hope, and hope is essential to human existence. Atheism is a negative message that allows them to espouses no moral boundaries. Let us look at the personal qualities of the lives espoused by atheists.

The Atheism espoused by communism brought the greatest threat to a free society in the past hundred years yet the atheists on this tread believe it will actually liberate. There is no evidence established in history that atheism creates a better society.

The USSR established their States on atheism. Where is the USSR today? More people were murdered and imprisoned by Atheist States and put to death for their religious belief in the past hundred years. These were atheists who espoused religion as the opium of the people Atheism has no religious principles on which to function.

Religion is not a belief in a deity, it is a set of beliefs that give passionate behavioural devotion to a way of life. Buddaism is a religion without a deity. A belief in the divine nature of an absolute personality is theism or deism. Theism has however with it a call to devotion to a way of life in following the character of the divine.

Atheism makes every person the absolute conscience of their own world as it follows no set of principles for divine living. No one buys negativity and doubt. It is a no brainer
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 10:12:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
chainsmoker, you're talking to a mental vacuum here, I'm afraid.

>>Is the attempt at making people think intrinsically a bad thing or is it that the subject matter is so taboo as to be rejected without thought?<<

Unfortunately, the only thought it provokes, is that the Atheist Foundation is making the classic mistake - as many religious groups also do - that making a noise is an adequate substitute for making a point.

Here is the official response to any external input, courtesy of David Nicholls:

>>The armchair reaction to the intended bus slogans is understandable, expected and frankly, dismissed as irrelevant.<<

I am still trying to understand why an organization of any kind would treat its audience with such utter arrogance and contempt.

This - and subsequent sermons - tell us that a mind has been made up, is quite content with the decisions reached, and doesn't require any further input.

I'd hate to think what the donors are going to get for their money.

>>the campaign has only been going for a few hours and we now have over $12,000,000 in pledges<<

Twelve million, to be managed by a blinkered autocrat.

So sad.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 10:25:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is it possible to be an atheist and yet not a communist?

Actually philo, I think the message "Listen to me or you're all going to hell", is a rather negative one.

Atheism and it's emphasis on the personal gives me hope. It gives me hope that I can change the future. That I am responsible for me.

In a very literal sense, I am a child of the universe. The universe created me, but I do not for one minute think that it performs miracles for me if can just believe hard enough.
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 10:26:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

I guess I will have to own up. You have sprung the real intentions of Atheists throughout the world. Richard Dawkins, Warren Buffet, Peter Singer, Carl Sagan (Deceased) and about a billion other Atheists are planning world domination. We are going to exterminate all religions by force and take civilisation back to the New Dark Ages. At this very moment, under the guise of a mild mannered Atheist Foundation, plans are being prepared to implement mayhem onto whole populations. We are doing this, as it seems a logical way to go in not accepting that a god, the tooth fairy, Father Christmas or the Easter Bunny exists.

Oh how we look forward to the day when supernormal fantasy has been wiped from the face of the planet. Billions of people (If we allow that many to live) all dressed in drab grey following orders from the head Atheist who is macabre and cruel to the extreme.

The method employed is quite clever. Atheists will think about decisions they make and not just dogmatically follow various interpretations of ancient script. We will use our voting ability so that no group is discriminate against, whether they are female or same sex oriented. We will not introduce scientific fantasy into classrooms onto unsuspecting children. We will not indoctrinate our children with one of the thousands of religions as though it is unquestionably true. We will tell them all that is known about nature and that there are many things unknown. We will explain that many have guesses about the unknowns but they are only guesses. We will instruct them about their sexuality so they are well informed to make decision in that area of their lives and we will explain that one day they may need help in exiting life as it can become unbearable with unremitting pain brought on by a terminal illness.

It must be obvious to anyone that this devious plan will result in adults hell bent on killing and maiming all those who disagree with them.

Oh! Pericles, the comma is a typo. The figure was $12,000.000

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 10:50:50 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good to see the 'WHACK-A-RELIGIOUS' person is getting a whack from the whackers of the whacking :)

David F says:

"They think they have THE truth. Then they murder others who do not accept their truth."

That's a 2 part statement... the first part is usually true, the 2nd part is WAYYY off the mark.

PART 1 "they think they have THE truth"

PART 2 "then they murder others who do not accept their truth"

No David.. you are presupposing so much there. I had a pleasant lunch with FH and didn't even blink sideways at him...and he is a Muslim. I've had 2 enjoyable afternoons with Col Rouge and he is an atheist and a supporter of Abortion....

Look at Geneva..it was a theocracy under Calvin.. ONE person was executed. John Servetus and he was already under 2 death sentences by non protestants.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1034068/john_calvin_and_the_execution_of_michael.html?page=1&cat=37

Hmmm now the last time I know of this happening on a large scale was the Iranian revolution when the Revolutionary guards slaughtered 10,000 Marxists/socialists as soon as they got power. (in case you think that's a beat up..I found it in the SA mag)

To determine IF a group is likely to 'murder it's opponents' you need to do 2 things.

1/ Ascertain IF such ideas are present in their foundation documents.
2/ See if their founder did such things.

In Christianities case..neither are true though I've seen some colorful mental gymnastics and creative grammatical distortions trying to say it is :) sometimes by ...'you'.

BUGSY.. you wont find many slogans "believe or perish in hell" but granted...you will find some. But even those kind of slogans hold a bit of hope.

$12,000.00 hmm at $30/month that could sponsor 10x 3rd world children for 40 months. But what is it used for ? to attack/destroy beliefs (not the 'only' beliefs) which promote the help and assistance of such children.

David N ur looking very much the bad guy here.
Posted by Polycarp, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 12:27:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So many variations within some religions suggest to me that a religion divided is really no religion at all, just a collection of similarly-minded cults.
Posted by rache, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 1:34:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HEY GANG it seem that this is turning into a turf fight.
Again as an atheist (A)there is a moral aspect to either perspective which in many posts seems to be ignored.
Given that Evangelists (E) on either side has no ABSOLUTE proof therefore the issue is clearly one person’s view being imposed over another. Morally neither side has the “right” to force their views on others either overtly or by subterfuge. Proselytizing in any form is predicated on a false assumption of superiority/ dominance, moral/intellectual forced colonization.
On the emotional side EA's have no ‘right ‘to dictate another’s personal feelings. Much is the pity Megan Gale I fancy as a love slave. Besides which which amongst us doesn't know of the either argument?
E Christians have far deeper conundrum. They by actions appear to be saying that God will only give grace to those who believe one particular version of Christianity. If this were not true then conversion is only then a matter of corporeal self satisfaction not in the interest of God. Where in the bible does it say that only Pentecostal or seven days will be saved? It doesn’t.
Then the implication is that if you don’t have access to ‘God’s ‘teaching you are doomed …It’s going to be lonely up there in heaven!
In reality God will give grace.
1. to those who HE thinks are worthy
2. To the ignorant.
Therefore it’s gross arrogance to assume your version is best and to second guess god is uppity (refer Satan’s fall from grace).
Then there’s the illogicality of if some one has grace why then why should an E then jeopardize that by potentially teaching the wrong will (version) or introducing confusion, conflicts which may lead to ungodly behaviour?

For that reason I plead give to Caesar what is Caesar’s science etc. and leave humanity to their ‘free choice’ …. Respect “Each to their own”
To do otherwise is clearly morally tendentious
Posted by examinator, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 1:47:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David writes

'We will not introduce scientific fantasy into classrooms onto unsuspecting children. We will not indoctrinate our children with one of the thousands of religions as though it is unquestionably true.'

You have already done that nicely through secularism which has far more dogmas than most religion. The dishonesty of calling it science is obvious to anyone interested in truth.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 2:12:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Polycarp,

“…looking like the bad guy here”. My goodness, that is innovative as much as it is inaccurate.

Are you sure you don’t mean the money would be better spent on sending bibles to uneducated people in the developing world so as to create more strife and social divisiveness in the future. You might be surprised to know that people of no religion donate to the less fortunate as do the religious. As a rule, non religious donations do not end up indoctrinating children in support of adult fantasies. Interestingly enough, religious donations to such causes are not accountable and no one really knows how much goes where.

My assumption is you would have thought of all this before you blabbed this purposed incitement to falsity.

The AFA is a philosophical/educational organisation whose aim is to disseminate factual knowledge. Philanthropy is not our mandate but we do give spare cash to charities such as bush fire and tsunami appeals etc.

That you have to use such a superficial argument demonstrates the shallowness of your own thinking. Our advertising venture doesn’t, at least in the eyes of rational people, as you posit, reflect badly on me or the AFA, it plainly exposes you as someone desperately attempting to support a delusional mindset at any cost. I suggest you think before robotically writing such twaddle.

What the advertising campaign says about the AFA is that we see the problems caused by religion and we would like people to think about them.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 2:24:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David
As an atheist I have never felt the need to join an Atheist group. Otherwise it is just another group flogging its own dogma. What is the point other than perhaps meeting like-minded and interesting individuals?

Ultimately, atheism will evolve as societies evolve. It is not something that can be achieved via propaganda. I don't think the slogan (or any other like-slogan) will convert people away from religion.

You can see from this forum alone, that those who are truly indoctrinated into their faith will not be swayed by logic or rational thought - it is a waste of money in my view.

Better the money be spent on providing genuine humanitarian assistance to those in need (as opposed to the sort of aid I find offensive - that with an indoctrination agenda).
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 3:22:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's good to see that you corrected this as soon as you noticed it, David.

>>Oh! Pericles, the comma is a typo. The figure was $12,000.000<<

Just a hint. Most people only use two digits for the cents.

But seriously, this is becoming bizarre.

>>What the advertising campaign says about the AFA is that we see the problems caused by religion and we would like people to think about them.<<

That may be what you would like the advertising campaign to say, Mr. President.

What it actually says, in its present form, is that AFA is a shallow-thinking, expedient and fundamentally lazy organization, without a clue as to how to get a message across without fumbling it dreadfully.

Which, considering the importance of the task at hand, is extremely sad.

I sincerely hope that the members vote you out at the next opportunity, and replace you with someone less arrogant, and more willing to listen to constructive advice.

>>The armchair reaction to the intended bus slogans is understandable, expected and frankly, dismissed as irrelevant<<

It still amazes me anyone in your position would think this way.

But I find it even more staggering that you felt it was OK to put those thoughts into this forum for all to see.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 3:23:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Polycarp wrote:

Look at Geneva..it was a theocracy under Calvin.. ONE person was executed. John Servetus and he was already under 2 death sentences by non protestants.”

Dear Polycarp,

The above is an example of dishonesty. I never mentioned Calvin. It is not ok to execute an innocent person even if they are under death threats by Christians of a differing view. I note that you said non-protestants rather than Christians. However, it would have been good if a persecuted person had been given refuge rather than condemned to death. That is reminiscent of the way most Christian countries refused to take in most of the Jews fleeing the Nazis. Japan, a German ally, took in all the Jewish refugees which could get there. Perhaps that is because Japan was a non-Christian country and was not subject to Christian inspired hatred.

One dishonest way of arguing is to set up a straw man, that is something that has not been mentioned, and then argue against it as though it has been mentioned. That is what you have done when you brought in Calvin.

To quote myself:

“There are many religions. Each will claim truth. They all share one characteristic. They think they have THE truth. Then they murder others who do not accept their truth. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust and the wars of the Reformation where Christians killed other Christians who had a somewhat different truth are all products of Christian certainty.”

The murders by Christians I mentioned above involved many millions of corpses. Calvin with his tyranny added one more corpse to the stinking mound. I never mentioned Calvin.

I have no argument with the Christianity of Bishop Spong or with that of most Christians. He is secure in his belief, faces the truth of what has happened and has tried to see how other people have viewed Christianity. Foxy’s Christianity seems quite humane.

I think your kind of Christianity with its intolerance and blindness is evil.

I deeply fear your type of Christianity and take comfort that it is only followed by a small group.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 3:41:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The first thing that came to mind on reading the slogan was that the godly would *perceive* it to be an attack ad. I should have said that. It's obviously going to upset the godly. What's the point of that?

You say

"Atheists have been looking for a constructive way to counteract the growing power and irrationality of religion and this looks like it might fit the bill"

Assuming that that's a statement of the foundation's objective, there are plenty of people on this forum who'd be happy to explain how not-constructive upsetting the godly can be. A bit of fun, maybe, but constructive, no.

You also say

"What the advertising campaign says about the AFA is that we see the problems caused by religion and we would like people to think about them"

The slogan does not address the problems caused by religion or prompt people to think about them, thus it says no such thing about the AFA.

There's nothing wrong with the stated objectives IMO, but the slogan won't achieve them.
Posted by chainsmoker, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 4:16:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican,

Society changes both because of pressure groups and because of individuals with different ideas from the accepted.

Are you sure it is not the case that you are not willing to sacrifice a small part of your independent thought by combing with others of like mind, even if it is for a good cause. I’m serious about this, as it is not unusual. What is unusual is for Atheists not being able to see a benefit to society and the world at large when it is poking them in the face. And it is more unusual and disappointing that some excuse their independence by knocking those attempting to do something eliciting change.

Of course my words will not alter the ideas held by those on this forum but it is my words and your words and the words of humanists, secularists, rationalists and Atheist that eat away at society until the reason they present eventually rubs off on future generations.

Pericles,

Can you read? You appear to be having trouble by going over that which I have already explained. I am not going to repeat the mandate of the AFA.

I am open to suggestions that may be better than this campaign, which by the way, is turning into a world wide phenomena, so I have been informed by the London Humanists.

Place your better ideas up for all to see or stop making out you have them? I don’t mean different ideas but ones that will impact the areas we are trying to reach more efficiently and which are more cost effective with a predicted greater quantifiable result. Dodging around this request will only show up your empty rhetoric for what it is. That is, writing for the sake of writing and hoping it will support your view.

chainsmoker, and what slogan will?

It is not the words of the slogan, which annoys people of faith; it is that they find any alternative views confrontational. There is no way not to upset religious people except by acquiescing to their demands. Be thankful the AFA does not. .

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 6:55:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry David, I don't believe you.

>>I am open to suggestions<<

And this is the reason.

>>The armchair reaction to the intended bus slogans is understandable, expected and frankly, dismissed as irrelevant<<

I think the saddest part is that you have annoyed more atheists than godbotherers.

And that is what you are fated to continue to do, until you decide to listen to other than your own voice.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 9:04:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Although I think that the London bus slogan is a fun idea because apparently there are so many London buses with religious slogans, and the idea for the atheist slogans was rather spontanious; but I doubt that it would have the same effect in Australia.

I can't remember the last time I saw a religious slogan on a Sydney bus.
I see food chain ads, business ads etc.
Perhaps I haven't paid attention, do these ads actually exist?

I wouldn't want to waste thousands of dollars just to state a fact that everybody already knows.
Religious people know why atheists lack a believe in God, but why should they care?
I don't care if people believe in a god or the reasons for their believe if they keep it to themselves and don't try to push their views.

I like the idea CJMorgan came up with, which is to not confront the religious with their belief but to create awareness about church-state connections that should not happen.

"MAKE CHURCH BUSINESSES PAY TAXES LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE" is a good one to start with.

Or perhaps something lovely and positive, something about spirituality without theism.

PS Polycarp, Col Rouge is not an atheist, he believes in God but doesn't care for religion as far as I know.
Posted by Celivia, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 9:15:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, you say:

<< I am open to suggestions that may be better than this campaign >>

However, I made some bona fide suggestions at

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2251#49054

that you ignored.

While I'm not quite as vehement about it as Pericles is, I agree that it seems strange that you dismiss the input of those of us here at OLO who are also atheists, but who aren't dogmatic nor evangelistic about it.

I think you're shooting yourself in the foot - both with your limp slogan and with your attitude to criticism from other non-believers. At the very least, it seems a strange strategy with which to attract support to your cause.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 9:20:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good Evening David,

I personally don't see anything offensive in your
slogan. And, I believe in God.

I think we need to lighten up on this thread.
And to that end I'm going to list a few slogans
that I found on another web-site.

Here goes:

1) Oh, look, Honey Another Pro-Lifer for War.

2) Another Godless Atheist for Peace and World Harmony.

3) Too stupid to understand science? Try religion.

4) There's a reason why atheists don't fly planes into buildings.

5) Abstinence makes the church grow fondlers.

6) God + whacky tobacky = platypus.

And finally, seen outside a store in Los Angeles:

7) In God We Trust, Every one else pays cash...
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 9:33:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's very funny, Foxy!
I'd love to see slogans like that on buses, just for some humour.
Posted by Celivia, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 9:42:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excellent suggestions, Foxy.

I particularly liked this one:

<< God + whacky tobacky = platypus >>

This time a couple of weeks ago I had the very great privilege of sitting very quietly by a beautiful creek and watching a platypus going about its business. I swear on the Bible there was no "whacky tobacky" involved.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 10:11:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"...I think the saddest part is that you have annoyed more atheists than godbotherers..."

I'm an atheist, I wasn't offended at all. I completely understand that you have a very formidable enemy in the churches and a quotation on a bus is a drop in the ocean in comparison to the taxpayer aided advertising of organised religion.

David, I feel a bit sad that you are being criticised for being logical and rational minded, even arrogant, when to my mind, you have replied with pretty good grace (unless provoked).

As an atheist in a country that is becoming increasingly dominated by the strident demands and voices of the religious, any opposition is welcome, we've been silent and respectful for too long. If it helps some people to feel that they are not so alone in their rejection of organised religion, all the better.

I look forward to seeing the buses.
Posted by human interest, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 1:21:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David_F

you made a specific claim that once people believe they have 'the' truth, they then murder those who don't follow it.

I then chose an extreme example of those who believed they have THE truth.. such as_Calvin_in_Geneva... because to my knowledge that was the only Christian 'Theocracy' in history apart from ancient Israel.

Thus, it is entirely legitimate to use Calvin as an example of one who believed he had 'The' truth and then examine of your claim holds up under historic scrutiny using an example where we would expect (based on your reasoning) for the claim to be manifoldly manifest in the extreme.

Servetus was under death sentence from Spanish and French Catholics.
He was executed under Calvin not so much because he held different beliefs, but that he propogated them aggresivly and at that time, it would have undermined society in the same way that a 'witch' would undermine ancient Israel.

Servetus was not content to 'hold' beliefs.. he was insistent in propogating them far and wide and in so doing, he was attacking the state. This whole affair is testimony to why the Church and State should not be one.

His last words were "Jesus, Son of the Eternal God, have mercy on me."

He uttered blasphemy even in that. His last words contradicted the Bible which clearly shows Christ is "The eternal son of God" (note the difference) He believed Christ was a created being.. so why utter your last words to the creatED rather than the Creator?

As far as I'm concerned, banishment would have been more appropriate than execution. Some in his day did argue for this and Calvin also preferred a non capital punishment.

The bottom line is,... your simplistic 'If they differ, murder them' is very dangerous and is clear rabble_rousing..fostering anti Christian sentiment by irresponsibly overstating the situation dramatically.
It is certainly not based on the New Testament, and that makes you as dangerous as Servetus in one sense. If you published books expressing those sentiments "The Holocaust was applied Christianity" that would make you and Servetus almost brothers.
Posted by Polycarp, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 7:13:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While I have watched Pericles and David butt heads over this issue, I have been considering the Atheists foundation proposal.

There have been a number of points from various posters raised:

1. There is no separation of church and state in Australia
2. Religion gets special exemptions not only fiscally by being exempted from tax, but also in terms of fair criticism - the church is far from perfect.
3. People have as much right not to believe in a deity as those who do. And there are compelling and solid reasons for not believing in a deity.

One of the problems with orthodox religion is its complete lack of humour. Thankfully Foxy has demonstrated that one can be both religious, tolerant and still possess a keen wit.

I have, on a previous thread, criticised David for not becoming more involved with the many atheists on this forum - he only ever contributes to his own topics. Nothing has changed here. I would've appreciated his POV on many discussions. Pericles does have a point.
As Dawkins said: "organising atheists is like herding cats." We are a questioning and independent mob - we wouldn't be atheists if we didn't look critically at all sides of an issue.

Religion is handed a level of respect that other organisations have to earn. When we do dare to criticise we are told that we are immoral, materialistic and far worse.

In conclusion, therefore, I believe that it is time for religion to be held to account. Whether by a slogan on a bus, critical examination of the appropriateness of the Lords Prayer in parliament, review of tax exemptions or impact on education of our children and so on, I vote in favour of the slogan - we have to start somewhere.

Good Luck David - I really would like to hear from you some more.
Posted by Fractelle, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 8:30:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle,

I thought your post was great, sometimes we get so bogged down with side issues that we can't see the wood For the trees.

The points you raised, are to me, the issues we need to be seriously addressing. If only atheists had the funding of the churches, we could educate the public about their government and the churches/charities we are funding as taxpayers.

1. "There is no separation of church and state in Australia"

Most people in the community actually think that there is a separation of church and state in Australia and that it is enshrined in the constitution. Why are the public educators/speakers and media so silent on this issue?

2. "Religion gets special exemptions not only fiscally by being exempted from tax, but also in terms of fair criticism - the church is far from perfect."

Yet anytime someone dares to do something about it - I recall Bob Brown and his fight with a fundy cult the Exclusive Brethren - Brown was not supported by either side in parliament and the PM at the time (Howard) actually came out and publically supported this incestuous, oppressive group and the exemptions he had sneakily given them through law. There should have been a public outcry!

3. "People have as much right not to believe in a deity as those who do..."

Not according to the government who want Judeo-Christian belief recognised in citizenship.

The right to not believe, is not being represented or upheld in our democracy by the people who are elected on our behalf, which IMO is why these religion based issues should not be allowed a conscience vote by politicians eg abortion, stem cells, gay marriage etc. Pollies should be open and up front about their religious beliefs in all electioneering. We don't need the religious to mind and decide our collective morals, ethics and social behaviour, especially as their own are often found to be lacking. The catholic church won't genuinely address the compensation and victimisation of people sexually assaulted by clergy - the church is allowed to get away with it.
Posted by human interest, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 10:20:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
People,

The word hectic does not do justice to life now because of the slogan campaign. Consequently, I thought I had explained something on this forum but reading back I see I have not. In South Australia at least, signage is strictly regulated. The Minister of Transport ostensibly can at subjective whim, have public transport signs removed with no recompense to the advertiser.

See this site for a short explanation: http://ozatheist.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/atheist-bus-campaign-aussie-style/

Most of the slogans by C J Morgan if not all, for instance, even though I agree with the sentiments and the wording is very clever, would not be permitted. I did not mean to be dismissive concerning them as I thought I had explained the censorship problems. My sincere apologies.

Likewise, with the suggestions by Foxy. All very pertinent, amusing and necessary, in my opinion, but they would meet the scalpel very quickly.

By the way, the present wording is still being scrutinized by the authorities and has not yet been approved. It must be remembered that these signs are under the auspices of a Minister of transport in each state. Choosing the sign has been most difficult in trying to please 6 state Ministers and bus companies whilst representing the thoughts of Atheists as well as placing a message in the public arena to create discussion and thinking.

There are two problems with the London slogan. The ‘God’ word may not be acceptable to the authorities and the slogan does not accurately reflect the AFA stance.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 10:38:33 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The first paragraph of Australia's Constitution:

"Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:"

Our Constitution recognises God, although it doesn't define God.

This was found at:

http://australianpolitics.com/articles/constitution/preamble

I also find it intereting that this version does not recognise Western Australia, while other versions recognise New Zealand, however all versions recognise God.
Posted by Steel Mann, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 11:59:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Polycarp wrote: “I then chose an extreme example of those who believed they have THE truth.. such as_Calvin_in_Geneva... because to my knowledge that was the only Christian 'Theocracy' in history apart from ancient Israel.”

David f wrote: The above is inaccurate on two counts. Israel was not a Christian theocracy. The Vatican is a Christian theocracy.

Polycarp wrote: Servetus was under death sentence from Spanish and French Catholics. He was executed under Calvin not so much because he held different beliefs, but that he propogated them aggresivly and at that time, it would have undermined society in the same way that a 'witch' would undermine ancient Israel. Servetus was not content to 'hold' beliefs.. he was insistent in propogating them far and wide and in so doing, he was attacking the state…..

David f wrote: If propagating one’s belief aggressively is criminal when are you going to stop your life of crime? The ancient Hebrews and Calvin’s Christians were superstitious so they murdered those they thought was a threat. People have a right to propagate their beliefs.

Polycarp wrote: The bottom line is,... your simplistic 'If they differ, murder them' is very dangerous and is clear rabble_rousing..fostering anti Christian sentiment by irresponsibly overstating the situation dramatically.

David f wrote: Christians have produced great mounds of corpses. It is neither simplistic nor overstating anything to point it out.

Polycarp wrote: It is certainly not based on the New Testament, and that makes you as dangerous as Servetus in one sense. If you published books expressing those sentiments "The Holocaust was applied Christianity" that would make you and Servetus almost brothers.

David f wrote: Servetus and I are not dangerous although an intolerant Christianity which cannot abide dissent sees us so.

Servetus discovered the pulmonary circulation of the blood. Access http://www.latter-rain.com/eccles/servetus.htm, a Christian site, and read what a great man Servetus was. I would be proud to be his full brother. Only an intolerant and murderous Christianity would see either Servetus or me as a threat.

The evil, intolerant Calvin murdered the intelligent, questioning Servetus and you justify that evil deed.

continued
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 12:45:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Polycarp: You commented on the ‘beautiful’ prayer of the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary. Did you actually read it? Part of it went:

“Instead of being united in love for God, we as Christians have sinned grievously against God's covenant people. Two thousand years of Church history have left a trail of blood: contempt, hatred, hostility, persecution and wholesale slaughter.

Time and again the Jewish people have suffered at the hands of Christians. They have been humiliated, deprived of their rights, accused of murdering God and blamed for every imaginable calamity. During the Crusades, the Inquisition, the pogroms and, most horrific of all, the Holocaust, millions of Jews have suffered flagrant injustice.

At the beginning of the third millennium we can only confess this terrible guilt in deep shame before God and the Jewish people, deploring the involvement of many Christians. We seek His forgiveness for all the anguish that Israel, His chosen people, have suffered. By the grace of God we resolve to turn from these ways.

We commit ourselves to pray for His people, to oppose antisemitism in all its forms, and to ensure that respect and goodwill will mark our relations as Christians with the Jewish people in future.”

They admitted the Christian nature of the Holocaust as have other Christians of goodwill.

The Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary pointed out one kind of crime committed by Christianity. Christians with the support of the church have murdered or imprisoned scientists such as Servetus and Galileo, heretics in the Inquisition, other Christians in the Wars of the Reformation, Jews, Muslims, Orthodox Christians, Lithuanians, Albigensians, pagan Gauls, pagan Norse and many others.

It is not rabblerousing to characterize the Holocaust as applied Christianity.

Christians of good will such as the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary, Bishop Spong who you call a heretic, Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI, leaders of the Catholic Church that you are not fond of and others have recognized the bloody nature of the Christian past. With that recognition Christians and others can have a better future. With denial such as yours Christianity will repeat its murderous past.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 1:27:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If the Atheist Foundation printed t-shirts, bumber stickers, hats, stubby holders etc with Foxy's lines I'd certainly buy them, but I wouldn't contribute to this campaign.

Thanks for the explanation re state/legal restrictions.
Posted by chainsmoker, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 6:57:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Until Atheism can establish a system of positive beliefs and practises that explains the "Why of existence" that is acceptable to the whole of society it will always be a negative voice, with no answers.

All philosophical beliefs are based upon a primary premise that cannot be proved. Atheists cannot give a primary premise to prove God is not revealed. The character of God is primarily revealed in the human spirit. To remove the values of sacrifical love from the human spirit is to remove the expression of the divine in our world.
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 7:10:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For the record:
Church organisations are either Charities functioning on free will donations or "Not for Profit" organisations that merely receive funds to run a community programme.

My wife works in an "Out of School Hours Care" programme and receives wages upon which she pays taxes. All salaried and employed staff pay taxes and they submit audited financial reports to the Government. All Church Businesses that have ABN status pay taxes on their profits as do all other profit making business.

They have children from parents of every religion or no religion and they hold great status in their community because of their childhood development programmes organised by their childhood psychologist.
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 7:28:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's the memes, stupid.
Posted by kencooke, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 9:49:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Until Atheism can establish a system of positive beliefs and practises that explains the "Why of existence" that is acceptable to the whole of society it will always be a negative voice, with no answers."

It's this kind of condescending attitude that motivates atheists to become proactive. Negative voice? You claim to know the "Why of existence", thus making your view non-negative?? God creates more questions than answers, the world with its great many flaws makes much more sense when you take God out of the equation. Why does God exist? Does he have an internal conflict because he cannot resolve the purpose of his own existence?

"All philosophical beliefs are based upon a primary premise that cannot be proved. Atheists cannot give a primary premise to prove God is not revealed."
You any many other posters are confusing what it means to be an atheist. You are most certainly a unicorn atheist, not a unicorn agnostic - sitting on the fence because you're not quite sure if unicorns exist. You cannot prove with certainty unicorns don't exist, but that hardly makes you agnostic. At what point did atheists claim their views infallable, as opposed to what they are, just logical observations.

"To remove the values of sacrifical love from the human spirit is to remove the expression of the divine in our world."
I don't even know exactly what that means. If you're trying to say humans are incapable of love and morality in the absence of God, then you take a very dim view of humanity. Ever observed love in the animal kingdom, or do you think all animals are soulless beasts incapable of such expression? If so might I suggest checking out 'Christian the Lion' on youtube.

"All Church Businesses that have ABN status pay taxes on their profits as do all other profit making business. "
I think you need to check your facts. Note the following from the Sanitarium website: 'The Company pays all local, state and federal taxes that apply to Australian companies apart from company profit tax.'
Posted by potato991, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 10:19:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Nicholls,

You probably read this, but maybe other enthusiasts here have not:

http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/Theos_donates_to_atheist_bus_campaign.aspx?ArticleID=2601&PageID=14&RefPageID=14.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 11:19:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David F

When John Paul criticized any 'christian'aspect of historical violence...you may read that as a confession and admission of the actions of his OWN tradition...but not that of Christ Himself.

He is simply saying "That was how far we departed from the Lords teaching and example"

As Isaiah says "All we like sheep have gone astray"

When any member of a specific tradition which is directly linked to violent behavior, they should confess that they erred..and erred tragically from the Lord and His teaching.. thus explaining their sinful behavior.

"That" I can accept.

I cannot accept 'applied' Christianity as you put it because 'Christianity' is about following Christ..not about NOT following Him.

When I referred to ancient Israel I only mean't 'a theocracy' not a Christian one..

The theocratic aspects of the Catholic church are the very reason why there was an inquisition, and why Catholics at times can be more than a little beligerant against any protestant missionary work in what they consider 'their territory'.

You are close to understanding just how far the Catholic Church has departed from Christ in making these observations.
"Selling" forgiveness is STILL current Catholic doctrine- "Indulgences" which at one time was a huge fund raiser for the Church when they controlled what was fed to peoples minds more than they do today. This is what Luther railed against, and Calvin also, and Protest-antism emerged from this.
Posted by Polycarp, Thursday, 6 November 2008 5:59:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Human Interest

Thank you for your kind comments regarding my last post.

Philo

1. There are as many differing philosophies as there are differing religions - all of them have something to offer, none of them is the absolute truth.

2. Atheists admit they don't have all the answers - that's the point, which you continue to miss. As we expand our knowledge we may find some answers, however we also discover more questions. That is the joy of discovery and learning about this amazing universe.

3. We do have a moral foundation - it is called a conscience. You have one of those also.

4. Calling us names and denigrating us will not win you any converts. It is also very unChristian.

5. It is your actions that reveal you true worth, not your proselytising.

I'm sure your wife appreciates your admiration of her good works on this forum, however, all that proves is that your wife is a kindly person - not the existence of a deity. You have had many demonstrations of altruistic works by secular organisations before, such as Medicins sans frontieres, Care Australia. However this is not a pissing contest. It is a request that you display the love and acceptance of your neighbours as your Jesus exhorted you to do.

As for the bus slogan - the more I hear from the likes of Philo, Runner, Poly/Boaz et al, the more I am convinced that it is vital.
Posted by Fractelle, Thursday, 6 November 2008 7:36:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Having calmed down a little from the Presidential put-down, I find myself quite grateful for having been given the opportunity to reflect upon the concept of "organized atheism".

It doesn't work.

In fact, it cannot work.

To promote atheism as a form of unified belief is self-destructive. Demonstrably, it lays one open to that most insidious and mendacious accusation, that we are simply substituting one belief system for another.

God does not exist, that is clear. But a movement that promotes this as its central tenet leaves itself wide open to a display of its own contradictions.

Because atheism is a personal, conscious choice, as opposed to a mindless journey that someone else has mapped out for you, it carries with it significant challenges.

Religion is, after all, the art of not asking questions.

But promoting atheism as anti-religion in the doctrinal sense won't convince anyone to change their behaviour, since their mind has already been made up for them.

I'm sure we've all seen documentaries at some point, of religious cults whose members don't respond even to the most gentle and rational counter-arguments. In fact, they are manipulated into accepting that opposition to their beliefs is a natural consequence of their being "right" and the rest of the world "wrong", and that they should use such antipathy to strengthen their faith.

Any defence against the impact of religious beliefs on the way we are permitted to live, and the choices we are allowed to make, should be vigorous and unified. Any organization that holds this as its central objective would be one worth supporting.

But one that simply takes puerile potshots at the sincerely-held beliefs of others does no-one any favours, and actually plays into the hands of the religious control freaks.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 6 November 2008 8:14:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Polycarp,

When Jesus said that only through him could one enter the kingdom of heaven (if he said it as who knows what words were put in his mouth) he showed himself to be a bigot. It didn't matter how good a person was or what a righteous life one led one had to accept his mumbo jumbo. That is bigotry, and it has inspired Christian bigotry and atrocities.

On this string you are worried about women's clothing. If you are a teenage girl with a great body why not flaunt it with the aid of clothing that attracts attention? She is going to lose that great body soon enough. She is programmed to attract males, and males are programmed to be attracted. Males are programmed to attract females, and females are programmed to be attracted. Some people are programmed to be attracted by their own sex. Your sick religion worries about all that. I am not saying that Christianity in itself is sick because Christians have done worthwhile things inspired by their Christianity. I think your puritanical brand is sick.

You keep on about how bad the Catholics are. You slam Muslims. You excuse Calvin's cruelty. No love for those who don't accept your nonsense. You deny the record of Christian cruelty and persecution.

Outside of Christian cruelty and persecution I enjoy the contributions that Christianity has made - the beauty of the cathedrals, the music of Bach, the Russian Orthodox liturgy and the other appeals to the senses, charitable works in many areas. Christianity has brought joy, comfort and succor. Your brand worries about showing a little breast.

I think it is sick to worry about a bit of cleavage. Sometimes one of those adorables gives this old man a seat on the train, and I appreciate the cleavage along with0 the kind heart under it.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 6 November 2008 8:47:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The foregoing was posted to the wrong string.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 6 November 2008 8:51:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

This is a forum and not a scientific investigation. Language and concepts are regularly ‘loose’ in usage, enough that a pedantic response to any given phrase is quite possible.

I haven’t the time to respond to everything everyone says, taking that into account. Threads become waylaid and the original intent lost in a maze of rhetoric. Our religious friends are extremely proficient at creating this kind of scenario as a defence against not answering the basic question concerning the premise sustaining their beliefs. I am not opposed to such mental gymnastics, just cautious about entering that realm.

I maintain that everyone has the right to believe anything they like as long as it is not a product of infant coercion and does not interfere with the rights of others.

The simple fact is that the AFA it putting together an advertising campaign as per the London one. Some people would like the wording altered but others realise there will never be a consensus opinion. Others are ideologically opposed to Atheism daring to express any ideas.

You seem to misunderstand Atheism. There is no such thing as “organised Atheism”. Atheists are individual who accept there is no evidence for god etc. That is their only commonality although the reason used in reaching such a conclusion can be the same reason used to reach other conclusions. Most see a problem with religion and some wish to do something concrete about it. Some find that joining with an Atheist organisation can give them a greater say against religious imposition than as individuals.

In democracies, the rise of irrationality in religion is concomitant with the rise of Atheism. It will decline when the opposite is true. If you like, Atheists goals are the antithesis of the goals of the religious. Our aim is eventually to exist not.

Fractelle, paragraph two of this post influences that which I am prepared to be involved with, but additionally, running a national organisation does not allow for very much spare time. And, with your good self and other notables on this Forum, my input is unnecessary.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Thursday, 6 November 2008 9:48:22 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks to David for explaining the restrictions on wording for bus advertisements in Australia. On balance, I think that the proposed advertising campaign could well be part of a useful antidote to the insidious encroachment of religiosity into almost every aspect of contemporary life in Australia.

The religionists are cashed up, obsessed and increasingly aggressive. I think it's fair and reasonable that an organisation of atheists responds to them with an advertising campaign if that's what their members decide.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 6 November 2008 10:26:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
"...I'm sure we've all seen documentaries at some point, of religious cults whose members don't respond even to the most gentle and rational counter-arguments. In fact, they are manipulated into accepting that opposition to their beliefs is a natural consequence of their being "right" and the rest of the world "wrong", and that they should use such antipathy to strengthen their faith..."

Not only documentaries...you've just described Gibo in his/her recent discussion thread "Any evidence that the Bible Genesis account isnt the truth"
Posted by human interest, Thursday, 6 November 2008 11:01:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi David,
Like CJ, I’d like to say thanks for explaining the restrictions on the wording for the advertisements and pointing out some other details I was concerned about.
Because of the extra info, I gave the idea some more thought and also took in the contributions by other posters.

When looking at the overall aim of the campaign and realising that the slogan is merely an innocent statement of a fact, I don’t think I have any reasonable objections left.

So, good luck, go for it! I hope you keep us updated on the progress of this campaign.

I love the idea of the funny atheist slogans on T-shirts as well. Perhaps they will make great fundraisers as well as mugs, posters, diaries…

Funny, now that I made up my mind about this campaign, I’m getting quite excited about it.
Posted by Celivia, Thursday, 6 November 2008 1:37:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We appear to continue at cross-purposes, David Nicholls.

>>The simple fact is that the AFA it putting together an advertising campaign as per the London one<<

And you would prefer that no-one suggests this is a waste of time and money.

>>The armchair reaction to the intended bus slogans is understandable, expected and frankly, dismissed as irrelevant<<

You make sure that your position on constructive dialogue is not misunderstood:

>>Others are ideologically opposed to Atheism daring to express any ideas.<<

For example?

>>You seem to misunderstand Atheism. There is no such thing as “organised Atheism”<<

So AFA is... what? When describing it, you can play with words as much as you like, but it would be practically impossible to keep the words atheism and organization out of the same sentence.

But please, since you are raising and spending this money on behalf of AFA, which of its five Aims does this bus advert campaign support?

And exactly how does it achieve this?
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 6 November 2008 3:12:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
C J Morgan, thanks for your support.

Celivia, and so are we. I will keep the forum updated as you suggest.

Pericles, when you see Coke advertised, it is not until you actually investigate further and have a drink do you discover what it is all about.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Thursday, 6 November 2008 3:24:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi David

You said:

"Society changes both because of pressure groups and because of individuals with different ideas from the accepted. Are you sure it is not the case that you are not willing to sacrifice a small part of your independent thought by combing with others of like mind, even if it is for a good cause... Of course my words will not alter the ideas held by those on this forum but it is my words and your words and the words of humanists, secularists, rationalists and Atheist that eat away at society until the reason they present eventually rubs off on future generations."

David, while you make some good points, one concern is that if Atheists become as dogmatic as some of the nuttiest religious types we risk becoming just another mobilised mob with attitude pushing our own barrow. (I am not saying you are like this David just that the concept poses that risk). The biggest obstacle is demonstrating that religion is instrinsically bad for society. Certainly the more corrupt and extremist versions are easily proven, but for the majority of believers who are more moderate and secular in action and thought - perhaps not so.

I tend to agree with Fractelle's comments in regard to the separation of Church and State and taxation reform as being worthy of some form of lobbying action.

Sometimes, leading by example ("random acts of kindness" and all that) can be the simplest but most effective mode of influence.

Missionary zeal no matter how well intentioned can be self-defeating. It doesn't work for the more vocal evangelical groups who seem more obsessed with amassing wealth than wealth (spiritual or otherwise) for the masses.

But I will think about what you have said. I am just not sure that becoming active as such, is the right way to go. Although part of that evolution I mentioned earlier may also include influence from groups like the AFA. I will think about what you have said and mull it over a bit more.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 6 November 2008 7:22:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Nicolls,
Thank you for starting this thread. However, you cannot expect a believer, e.g. a Christian, to answer "the basic question concerning the premise sustaining (his/her) beliefs" if attempts at explaining the rationale behind his/her "beliefs" - which includes compatibility (not interchangeability) of science and religion - you (and others) call "mental gymnastics", "intellectual gymnastics", "sophistry", "condescension", etc. (I have been accused of all these things on this OLO, and I do not think I am the only one.)

Nevertheless, for a person like me, who finds more support for his faith in a world view - which, in principle, contains also a "disbelief", namely of Carl Sagan's maxim "the Cosmos is all that there is" - based on an interpretation of the findings of contemporary science, than in a verbatim understanding of the Bible (or another ancient text), it is most interesting to read what makes my atheist fellow humans tick.

So although I have learned my lesson, and do not want to get involved as an outsider any more, I appreciate your providing the vehicle for these “insights into atheist thinking".
Posted by George, Friday, 7 November 2008 3:28:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George
Your offerings on OLO are always well reasoned, erudite and interesting.

However, like Christians, atheists are a mixed group of individuals with different attitudes, even towards religion. Some atheists would want to ban religion altogether while others sit comfortably with their worldview accepting it as one among the many in our very multi-cultural world.

I used to get annoyed at some of the comments from Christians that imply atheism fails as it has no moral compass or set of rules as though somehow our own moral conscience and belief in the collective good is not enough to guide us.

But the reality is I came to realise that Christians do not have any other option. To accept that concept is to deny their own - that of a higher power in achieving the same outcome.

As I think you have said previously George, respect is all important. If we can all respect the rights inherent in freedom of religion and that collective good we are all trying to obtain is a worthy goal no matter how we reach for it.
Posted by pelican, Friday, 7 November 2008 8:19:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,

This thread concerning the AFA slogan campaign is making people think as your good self demonstrates. What should be thought about is the coercion of children to believe what you believe because of the geographical location and also the influence of religious dogma on politics affecting not just believers, but everyone. There is no intent to warp the minds of children in this process (In the main) but humanity has to face up to the undeniable fact this occurs and that it can have lasting effects. As Richard Dawkins pointed out in ‘The God Delusion’ with the example of female virgin sacrifice, would the sacrificial virgin choose that fate with a different set of information at her disposal? That is extreme but it is also valid for lesser instances.

Pelican,

To use the word dogmatic and Atheism together does not make sense. Atheists do not have a dogma to follow. Atheists may be accused of being strident but even that results from any criticism of religious belief being regarded unfavourably. This has given religions an unfair advantage. No other system has this special privileged position and Atheists are now saying it is time for it to cease. The reason we state this is that religion, as it has always, provides a platform where oppression of people and planet happens. In the technological world, the added factor is that super-powerful weaponry is in the hands of religious believers, some who think the proverbial end-times can be initiated by their use. In addition to this kind of thinking is the ‘special- creature’ status, afforded humans at the cost to the environment.

The argument that fundamentalism is at fault no longer hold true. Without the pool of mainstream religion, fundamentalism would not exist.

The vast majority of Atheists do not wish to remove forcibly religion but they do want the religious indoctrination cycle to stop or at the very least, an admission that it works.

As already stated, people can believe what they wish, but it should be a free choice made by adults with a wide view of reality.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Friday, 7 November 2008 9:12:19 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you David, I understand with regard to your commitments and the near impossibility of finding the right slogan.

Pericles is correct when he stated that nothing will change the minds of the truly indoctrinated as we can see from the posts by the extremist religious element on OLO.

However, they are a minority.

Like many Australians I was introduced to the Christian religion via school (compulsory religious education) and a sense by my parents that it was simply the 'done thing'. My natural inclination towards science and precocious questioning, soon led me to assess the many contradictions and inconsistencies in what my religious instructors were saying. While I arrived at my position of atheism quite independently, I wonder if the transition may have been quicker had I been aware of alternatives to belief in the supernatural.

Therefore, greater public awareness of atheist thinking will be of benefit to those who are beginning to wonder at the validity of a dogma which doesn't evolve with our discoveries and greater social awareness of the status of women, homosexuals, other religions, philosophies - the entire kaleidescope of the human race.

I can understand how a belief in something greater than all of us can bring a sense of comfort. It is when this belief results in oppression, distortion of facts and discrimination of others that I draw the line. Any organisation that persists in this behaviour must be held to scrutiny and accountability.

I will await with interest any developments in the Atheist Foundation campaign.

Thank you.
Posted by Fractelle, Friday, 7 November 2008 9:53:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Richard Dawkins is quoted more by the fundamentalists than the Scriptures are by Christians. Next we we be celebrating 'Richard Dawkins day'. Quite pathetic really when you look at Jesus teachings compared with such a godless twit. O well it is a free country.
Posted by runner, Friday, 7 November 2008 10:02:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Nicholls wrote: "The argument that fundamentalism is at fault no longer hold true. Without the pool of mainstream religion, fundamentalism would not exist."

Precisely!

I grow tired of hearing Agnostics and Atheists excuse the moderates and make-out like they are just as much the victims of the fundies as everyone else is - they're not. Not quite anyway.

Comedian Marcus Brigstocke said it well in one of his rants...

"...Now, I know that most relgious folk are moderate and reasonable and wear tidy jumpers and eat cheese, like real people. And on hearing this they'll mainly feel pity for me, rather than issue a death sentence. But they have to accept that they are the power base for the nutters. Without their passive support the loonies in charge of these faiths would just be loonies, safely locked away and medicated; somewhere nice with a view of some trees where they can claim they have a direct channel to god between sessions making tapestry coasters, watching Teletubbies and talking about thier days in the Hitler Youth."

At first, I was cautious about this AFA campaign, fearing that it may substantiate the foolish claim of most Theists that Atheism is a religion. But after giving it some thought, I think it's more important that religion publically get's the message that their beliefs are no longer immune to critisism or questioning, and that there is nothing virtuous about their beliefs at all.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 7 November 2008 10:22:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atheist is really an unsatisfactory term as it doesn't apply to all those who reject religion or a supernatural. Since Buddhism doesn't postulate a god or gods one can be a believer in Buddhism with its concept of a supernatural and yet be an atheist. Irreligious could apply to a religious believer who is lax in observance of religion. One may be an atheist and observe the forms and rituals of a religion, as atheism is a concept in the mind. Unbeliever is not an appropriate term since a believer in one religion might call a believer in a different religion an unbeliever.

I don’t believe in any kind of a supernatural, and atheism is a rejection of only one kind of supernatural belief. I also don’t believe in any ideology with faith in unprovable propositions such as the Marxist belief in the eventual classless society. A person may believe in Buddhism or Marxism and still be an atheist. Such a person is both a believer and an atheist. Yet I would not like to be called faithless since I don’t cheat on my wife. Skeptic and/or doubter are not quite right either.

Guess we’ll have to go with atheist and a belief that faith is a sin.
Posted by david f, Friday, 7 November 2008 10:54:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle,

There is nothing for me to disagree with there. That was a very well worded post.

runner,

Dawkins leads people to thought. Jesus can bypasses that process and lead people away from it.

A J Philips,

As with Fractelle, what can I add.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Friday, 7 November 2008 11:28:52 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Davidf's post illustrates my personal hesitation about a) labelling myself and b) allying myself with a group that has a label.

No, I don't believe in a god or gods. But as soon as one accepts the label of Atheist the very nuances and understood concepts that the word was formed to express, are heaped onto one's persona. While, to me, the very concept - like "Christian" - throws up more questions than it answers.

As people have pointed out, there are many different beliefs under the mantle of Atheist and once one has joined a group thus labelled, one is somehow accounted as being partisan to every one of those beliefs.

I answer questions about religion by saying "Non-Christian" Outside of first world countries all Westerners are thought of as Christians anyway, so this answer often leads to discussion - but not on a personal level. While, in countries where Christianity is mainstream people invariably never question it, but assume another affiliation I guess. Anyway, it seems to deflect questions with which I'm not comfortable. My personal beliefs and coda are so much a part of who I am that I feel as though I'm exposing myself if asked to display them.

After reading the discussion here I guess the bus slogan reminds people there are different kinds of belief, which I consider a good thing. Would that it would teach them not to be smug about their own!
Posted by Romany, Friday, 7 November 2008 12:37:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suggestion number 1,656,332: "Atheism - Think for yourself"

As for Atheism not having a moral foundation, if it hasn't been already, why not adopt John Stewart Mill's "Harm Principle" i.e., that people are free to do as they chose, so long as no-one else is harmed in the process (and that's real harm not just perceived harm), as the one and only universal moral imperative.

PS Knocking on my door on the weekends and trying to sell me your indoctrinated beliefs, causes me harm. For that matter, indoctrination itself is extremely harmful.
Posted by Matt72, Friday, 7 November 2008 1:38:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner,

Where would i find these teachings of Jesus you talk about, do you mean the Dead Sea Scrolls? Because, aren't all the writings in that book referred to as the New Testament by other dudes? My understanding is that one of Jesus' beliefs was that there should not be organised religion. I think youd find Mr. Christ would have alot more respect for Mr. Dawkins than he would for any of the nutters that call themselves his followers. Were he alive today that is.
Posted by Matt72, Friday, 7 November 2008 2:52:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Having spent most of the afternoon wading through this entire discussion, like some others I've travelled the full loop from potential donor to wanting to pull out and then back to supporting the idea of the ads. I also think there will be more value in the publicity raised by the planning than there will be in the ads themselves.

I loved the idea of the humorous ads, and I also would buy a t-shirt with "One more godless atheist for world peace and harmony".

All things considered though I think the best idea was to use the same wording as the UK "There's probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life" - i.e. to get a global thing happening. I've looked at the "regulations" info that David sent to Ozatheist and I can't see that there is are a real problem.

Regarding
a) discriminates against or vilifies a person or section of the community on account of …, religion…;
I can't see that the UK words discriminate against or vilify anybody.

Regarding
(h) depicts …, religious or other subject matter which is contentious,…
I can't see that saying "There's probably no god" is very contentious as there are a lot of people who already believe it and I think the UK crowd have been clever using the word "probably".

If the aim is to get people talking and thinking about this topic then having the ads pulled off the buses by the Minister(and then maybe a court challenge to that decision) would probably be the best thing that could happen. After all nothing sells a book like having it banned.
Posted by Another Dreamer, Friday, 7 November 2008 4:49:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Nicholls,
I can just imagine the reaction I would get here if i claimed that my contribution to this OLO “made you (or other atheists) think”, and I would probably deserve it.

I do not know who and when “made you think“, i.e. how old you are, but, as the saying goes, there are no old jokes only old enough people who can remember them. Perhaps something similar is true about the old arguments you (and others) present here, and the equally old counter-arguments (some of them recalled by myself a couple of times on this OLO). They should make us both, atheists and Christians (or those of a different religion), more tolerant and more humble about our own world-views.

“Without the pool of mainstream religion, fundamentalism would not exist."
Yes, and without sex neither impotent men nor rapists would exist. As I already mentioned a couple of times, I believe there are two intimacies that drive us: the horizontal (sex), and the vertical (religion in the most general sense of seeking a purpose for ones existence). Both can be fulfilling and both can be misused, and as powerful as they are, so can be their misuse if combined with an appropriate mental disposition or social conditioning. (Sorry, I already promised not to get involved any more.)

pelican,
Neither are all atheists immoral, nor are all Christians irrational: immoral are those Christians who make these sweeping statements about atheists, and irrational are those atheists who make these sweeping statements (explicitly or implicitly) about Christians.

Neither morals, nor reason can be in the sole possession of one world-view orientation. Both reside partly in our genes, that we are born with, and partly in our memes, that we acquire during our lives. Only the latter decides whether one is “religious“ or “irreligious”. At least this is what we all thought, until some recent findings of neuroscience, which again should make us both - believers as well as unbelievers - even more humble about what we believe or do not believe in.
Posted by George, Saturday, 8 November 2008 1:42:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Davidf

I share your ambivalence to the word "atheist". I don't like its implicit negativity - as it suggests anti-god rather than no belief.

For a time I contributed to the 'Brights' who felt that atheism could be represented by a more appropriate word (they referred to religious people as 'supers' as in superstitious). In the end I resigned from their network, predominately male, I found much of the same prejudices as anywhere else - except for not being religious. I concluded that atheists are highly unlikely to form cults - it is not in our nature.

I find interaction with a variety of people irrespective of their culture, sex or ideology far more interesting and enlightening. Until a better word is discovered I'll continue to describe myself as atheist, but I (like Romany) have my private philosophies formed over a lifetime of learning and questioning. All that really matters is that we are good to one another.

George, I accept that extremists would form irrespective of religion, something about being human beings. However I would remind of the following:

We are all born atheists.
Posted by Fractelle, Saturday, 8 November 2008 8:31:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips,
“I think it's more important that religion publicly get's the message that their beliefs are no longer immune to criticism or questioning...”
And that’s why blasphemy laws should be dumped, wherever they still exist.

“Atheist is really an unsatisfactory term as it doesn't apply to all those who reject religion or a supernatural.”
Agree.
I have, for a while, considered identifying as a “Bright”, but that term doesn’t work for me either.

I’d like to avoid the term ‘atheist’ wherever possible, but sometimes you need a convenient label in discussions. I prefer to argue against specific assertions the religious make when these interfere with other people’s freedom on issues such as homosexuality, abortion, sex education, and euthanasia, without having to mention atheism, faith, religion, or God.
I don't always manage it, but I try.

I have no problem with people who are moderately religious and who live and let live.
I do agree with you that religious faith is irrational, but that doesn’t mean that being irrational is necessarily bad or wrong.
Love is not a rational feeling either, and is still one of the most valuable feelings we can experience.

I don't want to attack the feeling of faith that religious people experience, because that would be like judging their personal feelings, but instead I’d like to argue with or poke fun out of them when they play the moral high ground or are intolerant toward others. I don’t feel I have to show respect to those who don't respect or tolerate the freedoms of others.

On these fora, there are only very few (probably two) Christians who bother to argue against Christian zealots.
It’s a shame that not the majority of moderate Christians stand up against fanatic fundies.

Could atheists and moderate Christians cooperate? Christians can possibly be more convincing in arguing against fundamentalists than atheist because fundamentalists are more likely to listen to them than to atheists.
Posted by Celivia, Saturday, 8 November 2008 8:34:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,

“David Nicholls, Thank you for starting this thread.” - “it is most interesting to read what makes my atheist fellow humans tick.” – “I appreciate your providing the vehicle for these “insights into atheist thinking".”

I said: “This thread concerning the AFA slogan campaign is making people think as your good self demonstrates.”

Now George, I said ‘this thread’ (As do many others) has made people think. The quotes I have included from you show support for that statement. No big deal. The John Perkins thread has made me think. Also, no big deal. I am unsure of what is your point.

I am also uncertain if you are saying that the innate properties of our genes, introduced memes and neuroscience findings are greater than our reasoning ability. If so, I disagree strongly.

We cannot stand back and use genes, memes and neuroscience findings as a cause for inaction.

How much people are automatic in behaviour is questionable. It is recognising the root causes for the programmed and programmable nature of our species, which can allow for ameliorating the adverse affects, as it supplies the impetus to do something about it.

Denying we can and or that we have to change our perspective is amongst humanities greatest failing and one we have to wake up to if we are really serious about human rights and environment security. If we do not or if we refuse to recognise that reasoning ability is our only possible saviour, it is just giving lip-service to high ideals as we melt into oblivion.

If, on the other hand, I have misunderstood your post, please accept my apologies.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Saturday, 8 November 2008 8:43:41 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What about an Athiest movement that got the same tax free benefits.

Perhaps schools that exclude others like the Catholics do.
Posted by Democritus, Saturday, 8 November 2008 9:31:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'What about an Athiest movement that got the same tax free benefits.'

You will probably find that the tax payer funds your abortion (baby killing) clinics and your godless education system. Unfortunately even with all your extra educational funding you can't seem to get the results. Parents would prefer to sacrifice their own money to get kids some godly values. People vote with their money and feet!
Posted by runner, Saturday, 8 November 2008 9:53:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I noticed this Australian community group (a community of non-believers) as I was wandering around the web.

Atheist Nexus
http://www.atheistnexus.org/

A Community For Atheists, Agnostics, Brights, Freethinkers, Humanists & Skeptics

Within the community, a working group has been established to take submissions for a HREOC Discussion Paper.

"...NEW! READ THE DRAFT INTRODUCTION TO THE SUBMISSION HERE AND ADD YOUR COMMENTS.

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) has invited submissions on a Discussion Paper entitled: Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century...

...To ensure that the atheistic/secularist viewpoint is well represented , funkQ, The Irreverent Mr Black and I are inviting interested Australians to participate in a working group to prepare a submission.

Closing date for submissions is 31 January 2009.

We believe that it is vital that atheists should have a say in this discussion. Although the discussion paper says that the report will be prepared in consultation with ‘spiritual and religious communities and civil society organisations’ there are some worrying omissions regarding atheism/secularism. For example:

• In discussing the factors which have led to the prevalence of religion and faith as subjects for public debate, the growth of atheism/secularism in Australia is not mentioned.

• Amongst the eight supplementary papers commissioned for the report, atheism/secularism is not included.

We were, however, pleased to find that the previous, 1998, discussion on religious freedom (which this submission is designed to update) included submissions from: The Humanist Society of Vic, The Humanist Society of WA, The Council of Australian Humanist Societies, the Rationalist Soceity of Australia, the Atheist Club of Sydney, the Atheist Foundation of Australia, and the Victorian Secular Society. This time, we hope to add another atheist 'voice' to the mix, both reflecting and signaling the growth of atheism and atheist activism in this country. We would, of course, welcome input from any of the above organizations or their members..."

Australian "Freedom of Religion" Submission Working Group
http://atheistnexus.ning.com/group/australianfreedomofreligionsubmissionworkinggroup
Posted by human interest, Saturday, 8 November 2008 2:17:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Correction:

On looking further, I believe the community group is American with two Australian groups within it. One of the two is the Australian "Freedom of Religion" Submission Working Group, the other is The Skeptic Zone.

http://www.atheistnexus.org/groups/group/listByLocation?location=Australia
Posted by human interest, Saturday, 8 November 2008 2:44:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Nicholls,
If this time I understand you properly, you did not mean to include my “good self” personally (perhaps only atheists and agnostics?), when you said that your thread on bus adverts made people think. In that case I apologise for insinuating that you did. By the way, also Theos (a British “public theology think tank” - see my earlier post) claims that the bus initiative in London will make atheists think, therefore they contributed £50 to the fund. The same as slogans like “Jesus loves you”, etc. might make some superficial Christians think (though I doubt it) but certainly would not lead to an atheist’s conversion.

As for the rest, I can only repeat that I do not think reasoning leads necessarily to atheist or theist conclusions, the same as I do not think only Christians can have ethical ideals (which they might or might not be able to live up to). I can assure you that e.g. whether a mathematician is a “theist“ or an “atheist“ is completely irrelevant to his/her ability to do the job, which depends heavily on his/her ability to reason.

Yes, there are “intellectually handicapped” Christians as well as “intellectually handicapped” atheists, part of their handicap being an urge to attack those they disagree with or cannot understand. Some contributors here have been exposed to (RE) teachers of the first kind, I myself have learned my lessons from those of the second kind (who introduced me to the “scientific world-view“ of Marx, Lenin and Stalin). This is what I meant by the memes that make you “religious” or “Irreligious”. The ability to reason properly comes on top of it, and - I repeat - I do not think it is the privilege of only one world-view orientation.

Fractelle,
I agree that “we are all born atheists“ the same as we are all born a-scientists, a-philosophers, a-mathematicians etc. I just raised the possibility that in case of religion it might not be completely so, but not being a neuroscientist I cannot defend it. If you wish, you can “google“ yourself to the appropriate references.
Posted by George, Saturday, 8 November 2008 8:54:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David F

<<When Jesus said that only through him could one enter the kingdom of heaven (if he said it as who knows what words were put in his mouth) he showed himself to be a bigot.>>

No dear David..he showed Himself to be the Messiah :)

<<24The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."

25Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish>>

Now.. that also may appear to be 'bigotry' but the KEY to it being Messianic is this:

"The miracles I do speak for me"

They were the only thing which separated the Lord from all others in terms of credibility.

A.J. PHILLIPS.. contribute more please.. I saw you had a little fling on another thread about me doing a dissappearing act...but you had not said much toward the topic..

PERICLES.. I'm quite amused here at your 'whack-an-atheist' dialogue there.. it does give me cause for hope for you.
At least you are even handed here :)

All we need do now is sort out your fuzzy thinking on few spiritual things and your talents will be better used on behalf of the Kingdom. Although human skill is not always a qualification for the work of the Kingdom.. Gideon started with 30,000 men, and God said "Tooooo many.. get rid of most"
He finished with just 300 or so.. against a huge army. God did not want them to claim human glory for the victory.
Posted by Polycarp, Saturday, 8 November 2008 10:35:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Porky: << "The miracles I do speak for me"

They were the only thing which separated the Lord from all others in terms of credibility. >>

Somehow the AFA slogan "Because there is no credible evidence" seems particularly apposite. Roll on the campaign.

And Porky feigns injury when described as an 'insufferable godbotherer' - sweet Heaven forfend!
Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 8 November 2008 10:51:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner,

Yes, people do vote with their feet.

How is church attendance nowdays? <10%?

Karl Marx said religion was the opiate of the masses. Well it looks like most of them have kicked the habit.
Posted by Democritus, Sunday, 9 November 2008 4:58:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,

You may have misunderstood me. I was not promoting the idea that having a faith in a religion will ‘necessarily’ affect the reasoning involved in scientific disciplines.

Allow me to make it crystal clear so there is no confusion.

I am saying that the influence of genes and influences on memes produce the ideological positions humans take. It is therefore wise to use reason in establishing if those influences deliver good or bad results and are justified and reasonable. If they are not, then we must alter the influences.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Sunday, 9 November 2008 8:16:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear CJ... thank you for the continual reminders :)

Even though you poo poo the evidence for our Lords miraculous works, even you.. would find it difficult I feel to deny that the Church could not have emerged with the values it held without something rather miraculous occurring.. if ur fair minded that is.

I mean... as John said

<<Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.>>

The Gospel of John was compiled in the first century.. while eye witnesses were living (of which he was one) Papyrus P52 is the oldest Biblical fragment (early 2nd century) containing segments of John's gospel. (thus pointing to it being copied and distributed.. P52 was found in Egypt. Now an anthropologist should see quite a bit in that.. specially about what it says about widespread availability of the Gospels in written form very very early..and also on the matter of textual reliablity it speaks volumes..separated geographically yet.. the same as others.)

http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/greek/johnpap.html

There.. you can see it yourself :)

But.. what does evidence mean to those who prefer not to change their minds.. something I've heard a bit in Ludwigs anniversary thread.

God bless.. I'm off to fellowship/worship now.
Posted by Polycarp, Sunday, 9 November 2008 8:28:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George:

"I agree that “we are all born atheists“ the same as we are all born a-scientists, a-philosophers, a-mathematicians etc."

You are comparing vocations, which have a basis in fact, with religious belief?

I agree perhaps that philosophy is comparing like with like, but your point overall is nothing less than pure sophistry. Even philosophy is dynamic and can evolve as we understand more about the human condition, whereas religion remains static - while there are those like Shelby Spong who can combine contemporary knowledge with religion, most remain steadfast in their beliefs. Unable to look at the (frightening) possibility that their particular religion (out of the thousands) may not be true. Such a fragile foundation for an entire system of belief, I understand why religious defend it against all the evidence to the contrary, for your entire sense of self must fully integrated with these ancient beliefs.
Posted by Fractelle, Sunday, 9 November 2008 8:42:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,
>> the influence of genes and influences on memes produce the ideological positions humans take. It is therefore wise to use reason in establishing if those influences deliver good or bad results and are justified and reasonable. If they are not, then we must alter the influences. <<

I agree (to a point, see below). That is an attitude a reasonable theist or atheist should take. Depending on how you define/interpret "ideological positions", "influences" and other terms contained in the statement, it could be used as an argument one way or the other: by an atheist defending his/her position as well as by a "theist" defending his/hers.

There still remains the question of "truth" (not easy to define) that not only philosophers (and theologians) but also scientists must ask. Steven Weinberg, a physicist and atheist, was in my opinion one of the best defenders of a scientist‘s need to pursue something he/she intuitively feels as truth (about the physical world) during the "science wars" controversies with post-modern "social constructivists" in the nineties. Much of his argument (of course, not all) could be applied also to what a “theist” intuitively feels as truth about the “metaphysical world”. That, however, touches upon rather complicated philosophy of science and philosophy of religion questions.

Fractelle,
I was just comparing different insights, information, skills etc that we lack when we are born.

As mentioned in a couple of posts ago, I already know that for some (fortunately not all) atheists my "point overall is nothing less than pure sophistry" (others call it mental gymnastics or condescension). You are obviously happy with your ideas about religion and religious, and I certainly do not want to interfere with your beliefs about the anything but simple phenomenon of religion.

Yes, I should have kept my original intention, namely that as an "outsider to atheism" I should just restrict myself to watching and learning from the interesting atheist-to-atheist discussions that David launched. So my apologies for not having kept my word.
Posted by George, Sunday, 9 November 2008 10:18:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Poly,

Would he please complete the outstanding thread on suicide. You have not have addressed Hosea 6:6, nor have you addressed the matter of the Last Supper suggesting that Jesus was aware of "death by cop". Herein, recall Hosea states that Yewah wants Mercy/love (trans.) not sacrifice. And Jesus committing suicide is against Jewish faith and deliberately having body degraded is blasphamy. Crucifixation by the
Son of Man goes against the grain of the OT and the teaching that Man is made in God's image and therefore must not be descrated. {Sells left these matters unaddress too.]
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 9 November 2008 11:47:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Philo,

The contruct of the Holy Spirit is a tricky one. Early notions of God of the First Cause, of which, Genesis, is an example, wherein in humanity can know the energies (enereiai) or powers (dynamaeis) of God, but not It's essence (ousia). Though, later, churches did try (the Trinity, borrowed from the Eygptians). Using this model, one cannot know intimately know god.

Your OLO namesake, Philo, saw eminations from God, but the true essence was outside of human reach.

Such a high reality was beyond human comprehension. Plato and Aristole saw the cosmos emanating from an eternal abstract First Cause, based on Perfect Forms in the case of Plato.

To a religionist, God's plan is logos, yet one's contemplation (theoria) means one cannot know the true existence of God, because God, in Its essence, transends human comprehension.

The Christian can only regress the dynamaeis of the prophets towards the source of said knowledge, and assume, without support, the exist of an alledged supernatural essence.

Regards.
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 9 November 2008 1:05:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[...I agree that “we are all born atheists“ the same as we are all born a-scientists, a-philosophers, a-mathematicians etc. I just raised the possibility that in case of religion it might not be completely so, but not being a neuroscientist I cannot defend it. If you wish, you can “google“ yourself to the appropriate references...]
Posted by George, Saturday, 8 November 2008 8:54:06 PM

Scientists, philosophers, mathematicians etc. choose their vocations, of their own free will, after their growth and development and early schooling is complete.

We are all born atheists, but religious indoctrination is forced upon the toddler/child before they have the cognitive and developmental skills to critically examine what they are being 'taught'. It's no accident that most children follow the religions of their parents, it is brainwashing, pure and simple.

I believe religion should be introduced at the same time as sex education, when the teens have developed the ability to think independently of their parents. But, that's what the religious are afraid of isn't it? That's why they indoctrinate a child who can barely walk or talk
Posted by human interest, Monday, 10 November 2008 2:32:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Human Interest

Thank you for picking up where I left off. After George's attempt to extricate himself from his ludicrous comments I couldn't be bothered delineating the difference between vocation and indoctrination to any further extent. Another attempt to deflect the topic I suspect.

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

- Siddartha Gautama, the Buddha

Written 500 years before Jesus, Mohamed and the rest. And demonstrates why religion needs to be taught as a general topic, rather than through cultural indoctrination.
Posted by Fractelle, Monday, 10 November 2008 8:11:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,

“…it could be used as an argument one way or the other: by an atheist defending his/her position as well as by a "theist" defending his/hers.”

Yes, the argument can be used both way, but not with legitimacy. This is because of the unequalness involved. Genes allow us to know of our eventual demise and genes supply the imagination to invent a safety net. Memes resulting from indoctrination, support the genes in their quest for survival.

We all possess the knowledge of our deaths and reasoned thinking cannot conclude, because we have a wish for it to do so, that it is true that there is a convenient escape clause. We also know that geographic location is the determiner of our beliefs and that the intensity of mememic input a considerable factor in their retention.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Monday, 10 November 2008 8:16:01 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz, I am in constant awe of your ability to write stuff like this with a straight face.

>>But.. what does evidence mean to those who prefer not to change their minds<<

Or are you in fact rolling around on the floor, fully aware of the ridiculousness of you, a dyed-in-the-wool Christian evangelist, pointing the finger at people who "prefer not to change their mind".

Such a mind-boggling lack of self-awareness should be bottled.

>>The Gospel of John was compiled in the first century.. while eye witnesses were living (of which he was one)<<

That is known in the trade as a working hypothesis, Boaz.

It has its adherents, as do other theories and hypotheses.

"Who wrote John’s Gospel? James Charlesworth says, “The apostle Thomas.” Ben Witherington believes it was Lazarus. And Esther de Boer contends the author of John’s Gospel was Mary Magdalene. Many others believe the author was in fact a committee of unknown authors, editors, and redactors—the Johannine community" [Dr Andreas Kostenberger.]

No room for doubt, Boaz?

As for this staggering nugget of logic...

>>even you.. would find it difficult I feel to deny that the Church could not have emerged with the values it held without something rather miraculous occurring.. if ur fair minded that is.<<

That is totally circular.

I write about it, you act upon it, therefore what I write about must be factual.

Even you have to accept the futility of that sequence, Boaz, "if ur fair minded that is."

You will not be persuaded, will you, that there is the slightest skerrick of a possibility that you might be wrong? Or that further evidence unearthed in the future might cast doubt on your position?

That is what makes your statement so hilarious, and worth repeating.

>>But.. what does evidence mean to those who prefer not to change their minds<<

Have a doubt-free day.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 10 November 2008 9:22:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here we go again: “religious indoctrination is forced upon the toddler/child before they have the cognitive and developmental skills to critically examine what they are being 'taught'."

Though I have promised not to interfere any more, I cannot resist the temptation to repeat my earlier confession, namely that I myself am a victim of such indoctrination into, among other things, mathematics, having been "forced" as a toddler/child to count apples and bunnies before I had the “cognitive and developmental skills to critically examine“ what mathematics, science etc. are all about.

Fractelle,
Thanks for reminding us of the beautiful quote from Hermann Hesse's famous novel. It expresses a wisdom that everybody - including Christians as well as atheists - can only benefit from.

David,
Thank you for your views on what religion is all about, which - I can assure you - I would never call a result of indoctrination, illegitimate, or some other denigrating term, but will try to understand. As I mentioned in my previous reply to Fractelle, fortunately not all atheists are as intolerant as some, which, of course is true of Christians (and other mainstream denominations) as well.

That should also be our hope for coexistence in a civilised society: not that the "religious" will prevail over the "irreligious", or vice versa, but that tolerant and polite people will prevail on both sides.
Posted by George, Monday, 10 November 2008 9:51:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,

Let me assure you about Atheists. We are not intent on ‘prevailing’, we are suggesting (Some think strongly) that an even playing field is the way to go. As I have explained, this does not exist at the moment.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Monday, 10 November 2008 10:05:41 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George

If you wanted to get a rise out of me - congratulations. While Herman Hesse has extensive knowledge of eastern religions, and used this in his wonderous Siddhartha, crediting the 20th century writer with the original words from Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) is very cheap indeed and does no-one a service.

"Words do not express thoughts very well. They always become a little different immediately after they are expressed, a little distorted, a little foolish."
- Hermann Hesse (German-Swiss novelist and poet, 1877 - 1962): Siddhartha
Posted by Fractelle, Monday, 10 November 2008 10:49:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"...Here we go again...
Though I have promised not to interfere any more, I cannot resist the temptation to repeat my earlier confession, namely that I myself am a victim of such indoctrination into, among other things, mathematics, having been "forced" as a toddler/child to count apples and bunnies before I had the “cognitive and developmental skills to critically examine“ what mathematics, science etc. are all about..."

But wasn't your schooling in maths a legal requirement? Parents are legally obliged to send their kids to school. Your school education is demanded by all of society so as not to disadvantage you against others and cause you to suffer from inequality.

If your parents indoctrinated you into maths before your school years commenced, they were doing it for themselves, not for you, same for religious indoctrination.
Posted by human interest, Monday, 10 November 2008 12:02:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle, I think you were very gentle with George, I suspect I would have been quite rude.

Such a snotty little attempt at a put-down, was it not?

>>Thanks for reminding us of the beautiful quote from Hermann Hesse's famous novel<<

George, that rated a seven on the Boaz mendacity scale.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 10 November 2008 3:22:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,
"an even playing field is the way to go". I completely agree. Atheist organisations have the same right to lobby politicians or canvass for supporters as do others, especially if they think they are at a disadvantage. I was more concerned about the way debates about religion or “irreligion” - e.g. on this OLO - were conducted.

human interest,
I agree that maths, English etc are, and should be, compulsory subjects, whereas some foreign languages, RE etc. are not, and some must even be taken care of outside the school by the parents themselves. Nevertheless, I am grateful for the extra insights and skills I gained from being exposed also to subjects that were not prescribed by the state. I certainly do not know of many parents who educate their children having their own, and not the child's, benefit - rightly or wrongly - in mind. Or do you think parents should be given state guidelines on the background of what world-view they should or should not educate their children?

Fractelle,
apologies, I read Hermann Hesse's novel some 40-50 years ago. Apparently too superficially since i did not realise that this was a verbatim translation of Buddha's original Kalama Sutra, not Hesse's own words, though it was Hesse - and not e.g. D. T. Suzuki - who brought buddhism to Central Europe where I grew up. So if I cannot thank you for bringing it up, allow me at least to say that I am glad you did. A wisdom acceptable to Buddhists as well as Christians or atheists (and others) is a wisdom that can unite, irrespective of who first uttered the words.

In addition to my apologies I can only repeat my words from the previous post, that I hope that tolerant and polite people - who try to understand the other side rather than denigrate the insights they lack - will prevail on both (all) sides of the world-view debate, actually any debate.
Posted by George, Monday, 10 November 2008 8:49:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"...I certainly do not know of many parents who educate their children having their own, and not the child's, benefit - rightly or wrongly - in mind..."

To whose benefit is it to have a child who is a little clone of themselves, one who mirrors the same ideology or worldview?

Rightly or wrongly? So as long as they can justify to themselves that what they do is for the child's benefit, it doesn't matter if they are doing more harm than good to the child!

"...Or do you think parents should be given state guidelines on the background of what world-view they should or should not educate their children?..."

Actually yes, we might end up with less troubled or mixed up kids in our society. Might end up with less troubled people altogether.
Posted by human interest, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 12:39:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,

I was not only referring to political even-handedness. I was also referring to fairness in the way children are educated, as they are future adult members of society and if indoctrinated to think certain unproven propositions are beyond questioning (There exists a particular god, life after death – heaven and hell – young age of earth – same sex orientation is wrong – women are inferior) can use their voting power to the disadvantage of others supported only by dogma. Thus we end up with unfairness all round.

Why worry how the debate regarding religion and Atheism is conducted on OLO? I see no problem, just various opinions.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 6:57:57 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Geprge wrote: "...Or do you think parents should be given state guidelines on the background of what world-view they should or should not educate their children?..."

human interest wrote: Actually yes, we might end up with less troubled or mixed up kids in our society. Might end up with less troubled people altogether.

The state has too much power already. It can take us and put us in uniform to kill people we have nothing personally against. Giving the state the power to prescribe state guidelines on the background of what world-view people should or should not educate their children extends the power of the state. The logical consequence of such an idea is concentration camps or re-education centres for those who do not have ideas conforming to state approved guidelines.

We might end up with less troubled people. I doubt that bees or ants are troubled with the ethos of the hive. To me it is essential for humans to be educated with the idea that any guidelines laid down by the state, the church, the parents, the community or any other authority should be open to question.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 7:35:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Nicolls,
I think neither Christians nor anti-Chistians should have a monopoly on what is “fairness in the way children are educated“. You obviously have a very narrow idea of what a Christian education in a family (e.g. of 21st century academics) is all about. I would not call Christian education indoctrination any more than I would call an education based on values acceptable to atheists moral corruption or something like that, because - if for no other reasons - in both cases one should avoid such sweeping statements. So please let us leave it at that, and just agree to disagree on these matters.

human interest,
I take it that your answer to my question is a “yes”, and I could not comment on it better than david f, except that for a person like me - who went through a Stalinist (and post-Stalinist) system - the idea of the state setting guidelines on what parents can and cannot teach their children brings back some very unpleasant memories, to say the least.

david f,
I agree with everything you wrote except that only students, but not small children, should be educated that guidelines laid down by the teacher or parent are open to question. To give a trivial example, students of mathematics, but not small children, should be taught that commutativity of multiplication is “open to question“.
Posted by George, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 9:07:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
george and david f.

Oh yes, I didn't really think that one through to it's logical consequence!

Who protects the children from the parents whose worldview is distorted and causes emotional and physical harm to the child then?
Posted by human interest, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 9:44:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George wrote:

"I agree with everything you wrote except that only students, but not small children, should be educated that guidelines laid down by the teacher or parent are open to question. To give a trivial example, students of mathematics, but not small children, should be taught that commutativity of multiplication is “open to question“."

I agree with your exceptions. Mathematical advances have been made by questioning postulates. Your example is not trivial. Multiplication is not commutative in certain mathematical areas. Advances in mathematics have been made in questioning postulates. Questioning of Euclid's parallel postulate has led to spherical geometry which we use in navigation over a surface such as the earth and hyperbolic geometry which is the geometry of Einstein's relativistic universe.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 9:52:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
human interest wrote: Who protects the children from the parents whose worldview is distorted and causes emotional and physical harm to the child then?

Dear human interest,

If you trust the state to set guidelines then you assume the state has the right to decide what worldview is distorted and causes emotional and physical harm to the child.

I don't trust any state to set such guidelines even a democratic state. In a real democracy the view of the state is the view of the majority of its people. A majority can be wrong. A real democracy must not only express the view of the majority but must also grant the right to dissent from that majority.

In order to achieve that we must not present official world views but educate students with the ideals of critical thinking and questioning.

George has lived under a state with an official world view. I haven't, but I think he is right in what he speaks of. I had an uncle who was imprisoned as a Bolshevik by the czarist police. In 1921 he was most happy to leave the USSR and come to the US.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 10:07:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Davidf wrote: "but educate students with the ideals of critical thinking and questioning."

Exactly.

And this can only be achieved in an inclusive worldly system of education; one that embraces all thought.

We have a wealth of philosophy accumulated over many centuries, that one ideology should preside over all others is as limiting as it is simply prejudiced. I note George's sniping at the suggestion that his religion is not the original font of all wisdom, that, in fact there have been and will continue to be people whose clarity of thought and wisdom will continue to guide us as we (hopefully) evolve towards an enlightened and open society.
Posted by Fractelle, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 10:51:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f:

The education curiculum in Australian states is not based on 'whatever the majority view is' becuase Australia is a democracy. It is developed by experts in education, whos views (I hope) may be very different to the majority of the population. Things that are taught in an education system should have a factual basis - objective evidence should be in support. The teaching of superstitious beliefs and fantasy stories is not education (unless it is being portrayed as such), it is indoctrination. And any goverment doing its job should be doing everything possible to protect its children from such abuse.

Indoctrination is like a virus which is extremely difficult to treat, we should quarantine those already affected to make sure they don't infect anyone else
Posted by Matt72, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 3:29:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f,
Of course I agree but I did not have “mathematical advances” in mind but rather a child‘s ability to understand abstract concepts. You would confuse a child just learning his/her multiplication tables with the notion of non-commutative groups, (the same as you would confuse students in your introductory course on calculus if you started to talk about distributions and the Dirac function).

I think this applies to all abstract concepts of philosophy and science: the child has to start at some uncritical, naive, level where it cannot tell the difference between physics and chemistry or between critical philosophy and the world-view rooted in his/her parents‘ religion or “irreligion”. You have to be at least a teenager to understand the meaning of “timeo hominem unius libri”.

Rolf Nevanlinna once mentioned the following anecdote that you might appreciate. The famous mathematician was invited to an American family at the times when “new maths” was being introduced in the schools. The eight year old daughter boasted that she also was learning mathematics. So Nevanlinna asked:
“What did you learn about today?”
“Empty sets.”
“And what is an empty set?”
“It is a green cow.”
This is apparently the way most eight years old brains can handle the statement “the set of green cows is empty“.

P.S.: I know from another thread that you turned/are going to turn 83 this month. So sincere Happy Birthday congratulations even if they might be belated.
Posted by George, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 6:34:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,

Your terminology leaves a lot to be desired. “Christian nor anti-Christian” May I remind you that Atheists are not specifically anti-Christian, if anything, we are anti specific religious indoctrination. Christianity just fits into that description amongst the 20,000 others we reject.

Atheist indoctrination is just a figment of the imagination of many religious folk. Unless it is considered an indoctrination process to teach children every thing known about religious observance and none and then allowing them as mature adults to choose a world view on all the available information.

What is the content of this imagined Atheist indoctrination program, George? I would be very interested to know, as I have never heard of such an animal.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 7:32:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Nicolls,

I never mentioned any “Atheist indoctrination program“ which only proves that we are talking past each other, except that I never described your - or anybody else’s - world-view in disparaging words, only asked for mutual tolerance, respect and politeness. Anyhow, there are many respectable world-views compatible with atheism, the same as there are many compatible with the basic (symbolic) tenets of Christianity or some other religion. I cannot know which one is yours (only what you are against), neither can you know which one is mine. So, I repeat, please let us just leave it at that and let us each enjoy the view of this amazing world we share from our own “observation points” that we apparently do not share.
Posted by George, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 8:49:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,

Throw away lines such as this need challenging.

“I would not call Christian education indoctrination any more than I would call an education based on values acceptable to atheists moral corruption or something like that, because - if for no other reasons - in both cases one should avoid such sweeping statements.”

This is a poor attempt at confusing indoctrination with education. Education is how to think about the known evidence presented and indoctrination concerns itself with what to think without any evidence.

There is a galaxy of difference between the two. Asking that we acknowledge our differences does not resolve it.

Maybe you should do as self suggested and just observe.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 9:05:54 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I read on a website today that the Holy Bible sells between 30 and 100 million copies every year.

Thats power, REAL power:)
Posted by Gibo, Monday, 3 November 2008 5:50:15 PM"

That's not power - that's *mindlessness* - and a small example of why it is so important that religious irrationality needs to be countered.

Other reasons lie with the undue influence of religion on the state, of tax exempt status for religious activities, of the myth that holds church-going and belief in god as synonymous with goodness, and of the perversion that is indoctrination of children in crass stupidity and mindlessness - at an age when they are unable to recognise such brainwashing for what it is, and unable to protect themselves from it.

Congratulations to the Foundation for an excellent initiative to combat a major curse on humanity - religion in all its forms.
Posted by mikisdad, Thursday, 13 November 2008 8:44:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good People,

The AFA bus slogan campaign has hit a problem.

Metro buses in Tasmania have refused any sign from us no matter how mild.

We may have to use an electronic billboard in Hobart. This is being investigated.

Australian mainland public transport is also being somewhat troublesome and the advertisers have refused the wording ‘- Atheism - because there is no credible evidence.’ How they arrived at that conclusion is not known as of yet.

I have sent an alternative message to be displayed for evaluation. ‘Atheism – Celebrate reason!’ I have run this one past a number of people and the response has been good. It is inoffensive, positive, short and therefore remember-able

The intention is to speak to the highest authority involved in the decision making (No, not a god) and draw to their attention the discriminatory nature of the verdict.

Meanwhile, other venues will be investigated for suitability.

London is running a bus slogan campaign, as is Washington in the USA. I believe other locations are also showing interest. Australia is demonstrating to the rest of the world, a parochial attitude not conducive to the ethos of freedom of expression.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Thursday, 13 November 2008 11:01:36 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,

One problem with this stream is the plethora of Davids. Which should be eliminated besides me. The preceding is ambiguous. My comment is intended for the David of the Atheist Foundation. I wrote a letter to the newspaper objecting to the characterisation of religion as good. In the letter I cited both good aspects and bad aspects of religion. That was a mistake as the letter was printed and the parts critical of religion were edited out.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 13 November 2008 12:03:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Nicholls: << How they arrived at that conclusion is not known as of yet. >>

Fascinating. Given the crap that I read on the side of many buses when I visit Australian cities, I'd be interested to hear about the reasons for the rejection of the very mild proposed AFA slogan. As for the Tasmanian rejection of any advertising from AFA, surely that contravenes Trade Practices laws of that state?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 13 November 2008 12:14:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f,

Editors have the traditional right to alter letters for reasons of being too long, grammatical errors etc. They have no right to alter the content against the intentions of the writer. That is plainly mischievous and in your case, the perpetuation of one point of view using your words as a vehicle. It is probably too late now, but such editing should be brought to the attention of the newspaper by another route.

Funny about the, ‘too many David’s on the Forum’. I’ve always wanted to change my Biblical name to one more universally acceptable. Then I always come down to the fact that it was a David who sorted Goliath out, wasn’t it? :)

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Thursday, 13 November 2008 3:42:04 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David (Nicholls)

While I am not one arguing for an atheist movement as such it would seem discriminatory to refuse the slogan.

Did the Tasmanian Government use the Anti-discrimination Act (ADA) to deny the right to use your advert? Perhaps any slogan deemed to be anti-religious contravenes the ADA as "villification".

Could it be argued that the refusal itself is discriminatory? I am not sure as I am not a lawyer and I am sure you would be pursuing that angle.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 13 November 2008 3:54:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Atheist David wrote: I’ve always wanted to change my Biblical name to one more universally acceptable.

Dear David,

Having a biblical name does not indicate a belief in the Bible. It does recognise the Bible as part of our heritage. Greek Orthodox Christians give their children names such as Socrates, Aristotle and Helen. It does not indicate belief in the pagan pantheon but a recognition of their heritage. David is my middle name. It means 'beloved', and I prefer it to my more pedestrian first name of Anglo-Saxon origin.

The legends in the Bible, the wittiness of the proverbs and the sensuality of the Song of Solomon are literature as worthy as the Odyssey.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 13 November 2008 4:00:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pelican,

There is nothing in any Act in Australia covering this type of discrimination. If a company does not wish to advertise, they do not even have to give reasons. The laws and regulation that do exist are more to do with discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity, gender and religious vilification.

As ‘human interest’ has pointed out there is an investigation into ‘Freedom of belief and religion in the 21st Century in Australia’. http://www.hreoc.gov.au/frb/index.html Nowhere in the accompanying literature is it mentioned about ‘freedom from religion’ or the rights of those with no beliefs.

The AFA has sent a submission encompassing those thoughts, as have others. The call for submissions is for anyone and I would urge those interested to send, even a small letter, pointing out this serious ‘oversight’. The commission has four people of religious persuasion in place but there is no representation from the secular side of society.

It would appear that religion has so blinded the population that even people of faith are accepting this situation as being OK. It is not. It is a demonstration of the power of religion. It can lull its adherents into accepting the unacceptable.

If we had a decent Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Act, giving religion no special favours and privileges, the AFA advertisement would encounter no problems. The British have one and that is why they are not encumbered by the same trouble we have in Australia.

david f,

I do realise that this is all tongue in cheek stuff. ;)

David the beloved
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Thursday, 13 November 2008 4:24:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"‘Atheism – Celebrate reason!’"
I like that! This short slogan would look great on car bumper stickers, too.

On my way to the train station this morning, there was a car in front of me displaying an Catch the Fire bumper sticker, reading:
"Australia for Jesus"

I think car stickers are a great idea and I'll look out for an atheist one.
I found a few stickers on a US site. I'll have another look if something like these are available in Australia, otherwise perhaps with this bus campaign, the AFA could have some stickers made if funding allows it, and sell them from your website. I'd buy one!
I don't think they cost that much to have them made especially when you buy bulk.

A few sticker slogans I took from US sites:
Can I teach evolution in your church?
Dare to think for yourself.
Darwin Day- February 12.
Don't believe everything you think.
Don't pray in our school and I won't think in your church.
Evolution: From hunter-gatherer to browser-purchaser.
Faith is believing what you know ain't so.
Born Again Atheist.
Born OK the first time.
What schools need is a moment of science.
Atheism is: Myth Understood.
Atheism cures religious terrorism.
When religion ruled the world they called it The Dark Ages.

"I would urge those interested to send, even a small letter, pointing out this serious ‘oversight’."
Great suggestion, I've just send them an email.
Posted by Celivia, Friday, 14 November 2008 8:23:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good idea Celivia.

I wouldn't put one on my car in the US, you would probably find your car defaced pretty quickly at best and at worst shot at. :)
Posted by pelican, Friday, 14 November 2008 8:28:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I wouldn't put one on my car in the US, you would probably find your car defaced pretty quickly at best and at worst shot at. :)"

... Yes, I had my car defaced in Roma, as a result of displaying criticism of the election of the Howard government - religious zealots are likely to react even more dramatically than those of the self-centred right ... yet, isn't that the very reason that we have to become increasingly public? Someone has to do something to combat the normalised acceptance of irrationality as a basis for our social institutions, law, and culture.
Posted by mikisdad, Friday, 14 November 2008 8:40:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican wrote:

"I wouldn't put one on my car in the US, you would probably find your car defaced pretty quickly at best and at worst shot at. :)"

Dear Pelican,

Look at a map of the US with the counties coloured according to their votes in the recent election. The counties coloured the reddest are those voting most heavily for McCain. The red is a scar in the southeastern United States. It is there where your car is in most danger if it has an atheist bumper sticker. A New York Times story reported an inhabitant of that area stating that it was not Christian to have a black man in the White House. In many areas of the US your car would be quite safe. The US is a large and diverse country where the religious right was repudiated in this month's election.
Posted by david f, Friday, 14 November 2008 8:42:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I wouldn't put one on my car in the US, you would probably find your car defaced pretty quickly at best and at worst shot at. :)"

LOL, Pelican.
But I have a solution.
Right next to the atheist sticker, stick a second sticker that reads:

"GOD IS WATCHING YOU!"
Posted by Celivia, Friday, 14 November 2008 11:07:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia

You are toooo funnny!

I love the idea of car stickers. And would be happy to buy one to stick on my old car.

David Nicholls are you reading this?

I do rather like the "Atheism - Celebrate Reason" for the bus slogan and a choice of different and fun slogans for the car. I'm rather partial to:

"Religion or Reality"

Cheers
Posted by Fractelle, Friday, 14 November 2008 3:14:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle,

Yes, I am reading this. We have a member in the AFA who sells various stickers, badges and things to stick on Bibles. The web editor will contact him and he may place information on this thread. Café Press also has a huge range as well as EvolveFish. Both in the USA but cheap.

It is only and idea at the moment but we have extended our slogan to read: Atheism – Celebrate reason! And sleep in on Sunday mornings (Big smile)

Any thoughts?

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Saturday, 15 November 2008 8:57:15 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 23
  7. 24
  8. 25
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy