Atheist Bus Campaign

[Captain_Shinzo]

[neon.zombie]

Captain_Shinzo

Distorted_Image

But it's illogical.

The only way we can agree is say, you have this and I have that and we can tolerate it. The "=" is incredibly off-putting to me, as it is illogical to assume there's a God without any sort of evidence. Then again, my idea clashes because I think no one can no and it's silly to lie about it. So I don't see the point in believing in crap like that, especially since "God" is a human concept.

Sorry, I just don't like sugar-coating. I'll admit the message for the Atheist Bus Campaign will make some people cry, but everything is controversial if you allow it. It can't be "offensive" though, and it's not saying "******** you". "Probably" doesn't lead to arrogance.

>W< Illogical? You just said everything in an illogical manner. D:
I stated that because religious wars and prejudism are caused the idea in superior belief, the idea of excepting ones OWN belief and not caring for others is needed.
I'm not saying to be an Atheist, agnostic, or religious believer.
I'm stating that what you believe is cool, so go somewhere instead of preaching to me. >O>

Think, I see signs that say " Trust God " everywhere.
But would it be better making signs saying " ******** God. "?

The point is trying to get things equal and meld everyone together, love others because of difference. Not hate them

=W=

I don't give a s**t about censor-ships. Actually, I hate them.
But the idea isn't to sugar coat it.
No belief superiority is the idea. :

To a certain extent, I agree with Distorted_Image. Honestly, there is nothing more frustrating to me than when I am trying to having an intellectual, thoughtful discussion with somebody religious and they say "Look, just let me have my beliefs and I'll let you have yours, what's wrong with letting us believe what we want if we're not starting wars?". I'm sorry, but if reason is always to be sacrificed in favour of everybody feeling warm and fuzzy inside, then I'd rather have conflict with at least some possibility of a positive end. I don't believe that atheism = religion, I'm fairly certain that no religious person really believes that atheism = religion, and so long as moderate religion is allowed to be the foundation for more extremist actions, why not let moderate atheism be the foundation for extremist reason? razz

In other words, I don't think this campaign is genuinely offensive or extreme. It's just because it's a perspective that the public hasn't really encountered before, that we're quick to assume offence. C'mon, the religious nuts could do with a good reality check.

The idea isn't for stopping debates, though, which is what you two are saying. >w<
It is saying that talking s**t about other's beliefs aren't needed.
A debate is alright and such, but all-out war isn't needed.
That is what I was trying to explain.
I think the idea of the Atheist campaign is bad because it is advertising Atheism. Atheism wasn't created for that. >W<
Why not just get Billy Mayes to do a commercial for Atheism? >:

The point I am reaching is conflict can't be solved by more advertisement, but to end advertisement. This is something that would work. >W>

If we can't have the campaign as I stated as before,
I rather have the Christianity advertising instead of Atheism.  

[[neon.zombie]]

Captain_Shinzo

[neon.zombie]

Captain_Shinzo

Distorted_Image

But it's illogical.

The only way we can agree is say, you have this and I have that and we can tolerate it. The "=" is incredibly off-putting to me, as it is illogical to assume there's a God without any sort of evidence. Then again, my idea clashes because I think no one can no and it's silly to lie about it. So I don't see the point in believing in crap like that, especially since "God" is a human concept.

Sorry, I just don't like sugar-coating. I'll admit the message for the Atheist Bus Campaign will make some people cry, but everything is controversial if you allow it. It can't be "offensive" though, and it's not saying "******** you". "Probably" doesn't lead to arrogance.

>W< Illogical? You just said everything in an illogical manner. D:
I stated that because religious wars and prejudism are caused the idea in superior belief, the idea of excepting ones OWN belief and not caring for others is needed.
I'm not saying to be an Atheist, agnostic, or religious believer.
I'm stating that what you believe is cool, so go somewhere instead of preaching to me. >O>

Think, I see signs that say " Trust God " everywhere.
But would it be better making signs saying " ******** God. "?

The point is trying to get things equal and meld everyone together, love others because of difference. Not hate them

=W=

I don't give a s**t about censor-ships. Actually, I hate them.
But the idea isn't to sugar coat it.
No belief superiority is the idea. :

To a certain extent, I agree with Distorted_Image. Honestly, there is nothing more frustrating to me than when I am trying to having an intellectual, thoughtful discussion with somebody religious and they say "Look, just let me have my beliefs and I'll let you have yours, what's wrong with letting us believe what we want if we're not starting wars?". I'm sorry, but if reason is always to be sacrificed in favour of everybody feeling warm and fuzzy inside, then I'd rather have conflict with at least some possibility of a positive end. I don't believe that atheism = religion, I'm fairly certain that no religious person really believes that atheism = religion, and so long as moderate religion is allowed to be the foundation for more extremist actions, why not let moderate atheism be the foundation for extremist reason? razz

In other words, I don't think this campaign is genuinely offensive or extreme. It's just because it's a perspective that the public hasn't really encountered before, that we're quick to assume offence. C'mon, the religious nuts could do with a good reality check.

The idea isn't for stopping debates, though, which is what you two are saying. >w<
It is saying that talking s**t about other's beliefs aren't needed.
A debate is alright and such, but all-out war isn't needed.
That is what I was trying to explain.
I think the idea of the Atheist campaign is bad because it is advertising Atheism. Atheism wasn't created for that. >W<
Why not just get Billy Mayes to do a commercial for Atheism? >:

The point I am reaching is conflict can't be solved by more advertisement, but to end advertisement. This is something that would work. >W>

If we can't have the campaign as I stated as before,
I rather have the Christianity advertising instead of Atheism.

I don't think that the campaign talks s**t about anybody's beliefs...? I don't quite understand what you mean by this. Definitely, a lack of respect for others' beliefs will not get us anywhere. And advertisement is a pain in the a**, regardless of what it is advertising. But this isn't so much an advertisement as a public statement - there is no monetary aspect of the campaign (aside from the donations taken to fund it); it could be seen as a more organised way of just going up to people and saying "You don't have to believe in God to be happy". Much the same as going up to people and saying "Jesus loves you". Sure, we don't always want to hear it and would rather that everybody just shuts up, but freedom of speech and all that.

The point I am reaching is that you're right, conflicts can't be solved by more advertisement (or public statements), but if the kind of 'conflict' that comes about is a widespread questioning of belief and superstition from all sides, then I don't really see what's so wrong with that.  

[Captain_Shinzo]

[neon.zombie]

Captain_Shinzo

[neon.zombie]

Captain_Shinzo

Distorted_Image

But it's illogical.

The only way we can agree is say, you have this and I have that and we can tolerate it. The "=" is incredibly off-putting to me, as it is illogical to assume there's a God without any sort of evidence. Then again, my idea clashes because I think no one can no and it's silly to lie about it. So I don't see the point in believing in crap like that, especially since "God" is a human concept.

Sorry, I just don't like sugar-coating. I'll admit the message for the Atheist Bus Campaign will make some people cry, but everything is controversial if you allow it. It can't be "offensive" though, and it's not saying "******** you". "Probably" doesn't lead to arrogance.

>W< Illogical? You just said everything in an illogical manner. D:
I stated that because religious wars and prejudism are caused the idea in superior belief, the idea of excepting ones OWN belief and not caring for others is needed.
I'm not saying to be an Atheist, agnostic, or religious believer.
I'm stating that what you believe is cool, so go somewhere instead of preaching to me. >O>

Think, I see signs that say " Trust God " everywhere.
But would it be better making signs saying " ******** God. "?

The point is trying to get things equal and meld everyone together, love others because of difference. Not hate them

=W=

I don't give a s**t about censor-ships. Actually, I hate them.
But the idea isn't to sugar coat it.
No belief superiority is the idea. :

To a certain extent, I agree with Distorted_Image. Honestly, there is nothing more frustrating to me than when I am trying to having an intellectual, thoughtful discussion with somebody religious and they say "Look, just let me have my beliefs and I'll let you have yours, what's wrong with letting us believe what we want if we're not starting wars?". I'm sorry, but if reason is always to be sacrificed in favour of everybody feeling warm and fuzzy inside, then I'd rather have conflict with at least some possibility of a positive end. I don't believe that atheism = religion, I'm fairly certain that no religious person really believes that atheism = religion, and so long as moderate religion is allowed to be the foundation for more extremist actions, why not let moderate atheism be the foundation for extremist reason? razz

In other words, I don't think this campaign is genuinely offensive or extreme. It's just because it's a perspective that the public hasn't really encountered before, that we're quick to assume offence. C'mon, the religious nuts could do with a good reality check.

The idea isn't for stopping debates, though, which is what you two are saying. >w<
It is saying that talking s**t about other's beliefs aren't needed.
A debate is alright and such, but all-out war isn't needed.
That is what I was trying to explain.
I think the idea of the Atheist campaign is bad because it is advertising Atheism. Atheism wasn't created for that. >W<
Why not just get Billy Mayes to do a commercial for Atheism? >:

The point I am reaching is conflict can't be solved by more advertisement, but to end advertisement. This is something that would work. >W>

If we can't have the campaign as I stated as before,
I rather have the Christianity advertising instead of Atheism.

I don't think that the campaign talks s**t about anybody's beliefs...? I don't quite understand what you mean by this. Definitely, a lack of respect for others' beliefs will not get us anywhere. And advertisement is a pain in the a**, regardless of what it is advertising. But this isn't so much an advertisement as a public statement - there is no monetary aspect of the campaign (aside from the donations taken to fund it); it could be seen as a more organised way of just going up to people and saying "You don't have to believe in God to be happy". Much the same as going up to people and saying "Jesus loves you". Sure, we don't always want to hear it and would rather that everybody just shuts up, but freedom of speech and all that.

The point I am reaching is that you're right, conflicts can't be solved by more advertisement (or public statements), but if the kind of 'conflict' that comes about is a widespread questioning of belief and superstition from all sides, then I don't really see what's so wrong with that.

Well, I never said this campaign talks shiz of anyone's beliefs. I was saying that people, in any way shape or form, shouldn't flaunt around their beliefs. If it needs to be that simple, then yes.
As said, though, the message may be slightly vague but the idea is that people shouldn't flaunt around their beliefs.  

[[neon.zombie]]

Captain_Shinzo

Well, I never said this campaign talks shiz of anyone's beliefs. I was saying that people, in any way shape or form, shouldn't flaunt around their beliefs. If it needs to be that simple, then yes.
As said, though, the message may be slightly vague but the idea is that people shouldn't flaunt around their beliefs.

Hmm. I would -like- it if beliefs weren't flaunted, I suppose. But I'm not sure how possible that idea is.  

[Anavis]

Captain_Shinzo

Religion = Atheism: Correct!!!
No one is sure, not even agnostics. Just go with it

Isn't atheism the absence of religion, though? That's like saying "bald" is a hair colour.  

[Labtech Soosh]

Anavis

Captain_Shinzo

Religion = Atheism: Correct!!!
No one is sure, not even agnostics. Just go with it

Isn't atheism the absence of religion, though? That's like saying "bald" is a hair colour.

Atheism was legally classified as a religon, since it's the belief that there is no god.

I believe Nihilism is the absence of religon, though I'm not entirely sure.

 

[Captain_Shinzo]

Anavis

Captain_Shinzo

Religion = Atheism: Correct!!!
No one is sure, not even agnostics. Just go with it

Isn't atheism the absence of religion, though? That's like saying "bald" is a hair colour.

>: | You didn't get the idea, did you.


gonk Did you not read the OTHER posts after that EXPLAINING how it wasn't showing them being equal through dictionary terms, but value of belief? gonk

Please, if your going to make such a harsh judgment, read every detail to understand.




( P.S. Saying Atheism is a religion is like saying bald is a hairstyle was made by someone. >: Use the CORRECT meaning of it.
This was used to describe saying Atheism IS considered a religion, which is not what I was portraying above.
Furthermore, I can refute this part of your debate as well.

In internet dictionary terms, Atheism is not a religion.
However, In LEGAL terms, Atheism is considered a religion.
Why? Because UNIVERSALLY, religion is considered the belief of what happens after death.
So Atheism isn't the absence of religion, it is the absence of spiritual belief. )
 

[Captain_Shinzo]

Pirate Captain Sushi

Anavis

Captain_Shinzo

Religion = Atheism: Correct!!!
No one is sure, not even agnostics. Just go with it

Isn't atheism the absence of religion, though? That's like saying "bald" is a hair colour.

Atheism was legally classified as a religon, since it's the belief that there is no god.

I believe Nihilism is the absence of religon, though I'm not entirely sure.

It is hard to say because there is no universal dictionary.
You know, like how there is the Universal System of Measurements.
We need a dictionary with universal terms for a higher understanding or we will all have to suffer a world under Urban Dictionary.  

[G4NTZ]

There's probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.

That's pretty tame and has a good theme(I usually put up flyers around my school with a similar theme which have sadly never been up for more than a day crying ).

I think that it speaks to those who are having religious troubles, rather than making non-believers feel more connected or making the comfortably religious question their spiritual views.

I really don't see a reason for contraversy. I'm sure most atheists, agnostics , physical entity worshipers (Frank zappa is the birth child of pure creative force. LOVE HIM. lol, jk) or other diety worshipers wouldn't be offended by something like "God loves you, so stop worrying and enjoy your life".  

[Lotus_Lakshmi]

I think that it is important that people know that if you dont believe in a higher power/deity than you are not the only person out there. That it is okay to think for yourself. I live in a small town in Florida that has several very huge billboards that say things like "Jesus Saves" and "God Loves You". The courthouse during Christmas has mangers and the ten commandments and all kinds of other Christian signage. I find it refreshing that people have an alternative viewpoint presented to them.  

[Captain_Shinzo]

If the idea is to show that Atheism isn't something that needs to be in the closet then I think a title " Atheism: Your not alone " would be better.  

[Edible Jennann]

I think it's good from the standpoint that it forces people to confront their own ignorance. - Atheists don't go around starting wars and slaughtering people or thumping on doors, desperate to convert the religious contingent over to our beliefs.

What we are is a group of rational thinkers with freedom of speech and as much right to our convictions (or the lack thereof, depending on how you look at it) as any one else out there.

Also, as I have a rather twisted sense of humor, I think that it's horribly funny that something as small as a sign on the side of a bus is interpreted as such a threat by a group that believes in an omnipresent, omnipowerful being that has the whole world working according to a divine plan which they are a part of. wink  

[Captain_Shinzo]

Edible Jennann

I think it's good from the standpoint that it forces people to confront their own ignorance. - Atheists don't go around starting wars and slaughtering people or thumping on doors, desperate to convert the religious contingent over to our beliefs.

What we are is a group of rational thinkers with freedom of speech and as much right to our convictions (or the lack thereof, depending on how you look at it) as any one else out there.

Also, as I have a rather twisted sense of humor, I think that it's horribly funny that something as small as a sign on the side of a bus is interpreted as such a threat by a group that believes in an omnipresent, omnipowerful being that has the whole world working according to a divine plan which they are a part of. wink

You said we don't go door to door trying to spread our beliefs, correct? >W>
That sign is a start of such. Sure, we don't go door to door, but it is still technically spreading Atheism, or atleast highly promoting it.
Think, if every bus in New York had this sign, and they travel everywhere, think how much advertising would show. Not to mention the action would spread to other states.

I want Atheism to stay as a non-advertising belief.
The idea is that maybe religion has caused more deaths in humanity's life, but I don't want Atheism going down the religious road too.  

[Edible Jennann]

Captain_Shinzo

Edible Jennann

I think it's good from the standpoint that it forces people to confront their own ignorance. - Atheists don't go around starting wars and slaughtering people or thumping on doors, desperate to convert the religious contingent over to our beliefs.

What we are is a group of rational thinkers with freedom of speech and as much right to our convictions (or the lack thereof, depending on how you look at it) as any one else out there.

Also, as I have a rather twisted sense of humor, I think that it's horribly funny that something as small as a sign on the side of a bus is interpreted as such a threat by a group that believes in an omnipresent, omnipowerful being that has the whole world working according to a divine plan which they are a part of. wink

You said we don't go door to door trying to spread our beliefs, correct? >W>
That sign is a start of such. Sure, we don't go door to door, but it is still technically spreading Atheism, or atleast highly promoting it.
Think, if every bus in New York had this sign, and they travel everywhere, think how much advertising would show. Not to mention the action would spread to other states.

I want Atheism to stay as a non-advertising belief.
The idea is that maybe religion has caused more deaths in humanity's life, but I don't want Atheism going down the religious road too.

Well. I definitely understand your concern there. Atheism is a standpoint, not a crusade or cult/religion. I suppose there could be some danger in turning it into one though.  

[Le Pere Duchesne]

Shizu, I've got to ask, what is with this view that 'people shouldn't flaunt their beliefs'?

Such a view tells me two things about the person who holds such a belief:
1: It is purely defencive, in that it merely seeks to disarm the opponent, but not to take advantage of that weakness.

2: This defenciveness, this rejection of the ideological offencive implies a lack of commitment to the ideology or fence-sitting, i.e., 'negative' agnosticism in the sense that 'we cannot know' and a denial of 'positive' materialism that has 'already proved.'

Quote:

Why not just get Billy Mayes to do a commercial for Atheism? >:

Because then you'd whinge about atheists wanting to start a war, like you're doing now.

Quote:

I stated that because religious wars and prejudism are caused the idea in superior belief, the idea of excepting ones OWN belief and not caring for others is needed.

Not all views are equal. Some are correct, some are not. Understanding materialism to be superior to idealism by virtue of one being real and the other being false is going to put me at odds with an agnostic such as yourself, who either cannot commit to a given view, or does not want to.

In fact, by arguing for a default position of 'no belief' you are showing conviction that your view that there should be no publically promoted belief is superior to the view that people should publicise their beliefs. Hypocrisy much?

Quote:

That sign is a start of such. Sure, we don't go door to door, but it is still technically spreading Atheism, or atleast highly promoting it.

And once again you say that 'we shouldn't' do something, without saying why.

Quote:

I want Atheism to stay as a non-advertising belief.

Calling for materialist beliefs to not advertise and spread in a world where idealist beliefs are advertising and spreading is... to call for the extinction of the belief.