Atheist Bus Campaign

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes, undoubtedly one should not be offended, although this seems to have been the original premise why the adds were started, however consider this, when we see a christian slogan (actually they really annoy me for they seem so ill conceived and without explanation) for example, 'god loved the world so much that he gave his only begotten son.....ever ...[text shortened]... however well meaning they are, that Christianity is so fond of putting outside their churches!

Of course it can be said. Atheism also presents an alternative.

Besides, the Christian message is also in complete contradiction with my own atheistic beliefs. You believe the statement of atheistic stance is offensive to Christians, but see no offence done to an atheist by stating the Christian stance.

It is this asymmetry that leads me to conclude that some theists do not believe freedom of religion includes atheism.

Originally posted by Palynka
Of course it can be said. Atheism also presents an alternative.

Besides, the Christian message is also in complete contradiction with my own atheistic beliefs. You believe the statement of atheistic stance is offensive to Christians, but see no offence done to an atheist by stating the Christian stance.

It is this asymmetry that leads me to conclude that some theists do not believe freedom of religion includes atheism.

…do not believe freedom of religion includes atheism.…(my emphasis)

Shouldn’t that be:

“…do not believe freedom of belief/disbelief includes atheism.…”

?

Atheism is not a religion and it isn’t even quite a “belief”-more of a “disbelief”.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…do not believe freedom of religion includes atheism.…(my emphasis)

Shouldn’t that be:

“…do not believe freedom of belief/disbelief includes atheism.…”

?

Atheism is not a religion and it isn’t even quite a “belief”-more of a “disbelief”.[/b]

Do you believe that there is no god?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…do not believe freedom of religion includes atheism.…(my emphasis)

Shouldn’t that be:

“…do not believe freedom of belief/disbelief includes atheism.…”

?

Atheism is not a religion and it isn’t even quite a “belief”-more of a “disbelief”.[/b]

The freedom of religion is much more than freedom of belief. It includes freedom to teach, practice,etc. So it includes the freedom to certain acts associated with one's religious beliefs.

(Article 18 of the UDHR)

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…do not believe freedom of religion includes atheism.…(my emphasis)

Shouldn’t that be:

“…do not believe freedom of belief/disbelief includes atheism.…”

?

Atheism is not a religion and it isn’t even quite a “belief”-more of a “disbelief”.[/b]

Besides, I believe that there is no god, so I can't use that argument (which I personally find to be a certain cop-out)

Originally posted by Palynka
The freedom of religion is much more than freedom of belief. It includes freedom to teach, practice,etc. So it includes the freedom to certain acts associated with one's religious beliefs.

(Article 18 of the UDHR)

Oh, I seeee! So when you said “freedom of religion”, you was just referring to a legal law that just happens to be called “freedom of religion” and not “freedom of religion” in the literal sense -my apologies to Palynka (again) 🙂

Originally posted by Palynka
Of course it can be said. Atheism also presents an alternative.

Besides, the Christian message is also in complete contradiction with my own atheistic beliefs. You believe the statement of atheistic stance is offensive to Christians, but see no offence done to an atheist by stating the Christian stance.

It is this asymmetry that leads me to conclude that some theists do not believe freedom of religion includes atheism.

no, please its not the case whether atheism is an alternative, nor whether it is offensive nor whether atheists have a right to express their beliefs, it is in the nature or purpose, the intent of the propaganda if you like, for when you read the Christian messages on the bus or tube do you think to yourself, this is a direct contradiction of my belief system and its motive and intent is to directly oppose and subvert my atheism ?, hardly, yes you may reason that its a direct contradiction of your beliefs, but that's not its direct intent, is it? can the same be said of this atheistic campaign? this is what i am seeking to establish.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
for when you read the Christian messages on the bus or tube do you think to yourself, this is a direct contradiction of my belief system and its motive and intent is to directly oppose and subvert my atheism ?, hardly

Actually, that's exactly what I think.

In fact, the 'intent' if you will, is to convince non-Christians to give up on their previous beliefs and accept Christianity. So it's doing exactly what you are saying.

Personally, I don't find it offensive to be challenged in my beliefs. But I find it a complete double-standard to defend one and accuse the other.

Originally posted by Swlabr
Do you believe that there is no god?

no -therefore, it is both true that:

(1) “I believe there is no god”

And

(2) “I disbelieve there is a god”

But to me it makes more sense to state this tautology as (2) as (1) makes it sound like that I have a whole set of beleifs and rituals associated with (1) which, of course, I don’t.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
no -therefore, it is both true that:

(1) “I believe there is no god”

And

(2) “I disbelieve there is a god”

But to me it makes more sense to state this tautology as (2) as (1) makes it sound like that I have a whole set of beleifs and rituals associated with (1) which, of course, I don’t.

Sorry - I am confused.

Do you perhaps mean "Yes, therefore it is both true that..." or "No, therefore it is both false that..."?

You reply "no" to Q1, then claim that it is true. This is confusing...

Originally posted by Palynka
Actually, that's exactly what I think.

In fact, the 'intent' if you will, is to convince non-Christians to give up on their previous beliefs and accept Christianity. So it's doing exactly what you are saying.

Personally, I don't find it offensive to be challenged in my beliefs. But I find it a complete double-standard to defend one and accuse the other.

oh Palynka, my learned friend, there is no mention of atheism in these messages, for example we do not read, 'for god loved the world so much, that he gave his only begotten son the even atheists...shall inherit everlasting life', the closest one that i can think of, and probably the most offensive is, 'the fool has said in his heart, there is no God', now that may be offensive, but its hardly going to make you think to yourself, i am foolish, there must be a god, i better rethink and evaluate my belief system, my goodness they Christians have been right all along! if so, then i must read them myself for they carry more weight than i had initially envisioned. are you therefore saying that the present atheistic campaign is of the same ilk and seeks to subvert?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh Palynka, my learned friend, there is no mention of atheism in these messages, for example we do not read, 'for god loved the world so much, that he gave his only begotten son the even atheists...shall inherit everlasting life', the closest one that i can think of, and probably the most offensive is, 'the fool has said in his heart, there is no God ...[text shortened]... herefore saying that the present atheistic campaign is of the same ilk and seeks to subvert?

Is that why the website quoted on these same ads told me that I would be tormented in hell for eternity?

http://www.jesussaid.org/gods-wrath-against-sin.php

Originally posted by Palynka
Is that why the website quoted on these same ads told me that I would be tormented in hell for eternity?

http://www.jesussaid.org/gods-wrath-against-sin.php

my dear sir, i make no excuse for these purveyors of lies and ignorance, i too have battled against such misinformation, once again the Christ stands misrepresented, for there is no such things as eternal torment nor hell, this is not only true but can be established biblically, it is as offensive to me as a Christian as it is to you as an atheist!

Originally posted by Swlabr
Sorry - I am confused.

Do you perhaps mean "Yes, therefore it is both true that..." or "No, therefore it is both false that..."?

You reply "no" to Q1, then claim that it is true. This is confusing...

Sorry -misprint; You are, of course, right; the “no” should have been a “yes” to question (1) 🙂

Originally posted by dystoniac
Then we all lose, you just as much as I; however I'll stake my claim on the free gift of eternal life through Jesus Christ. In doing this, I cannot go wrong, no?

What if you live your entire life in God-fearing honesty and truthfullness,
only to find yourself dead with a for certain afterlife, and in front of you
hovers the eternal and ever wise being you refer to as God, only it would
have preferred you hadn't bought into all the unsubstantial and
positively confusing rubbish you found in the bible, but the much less
popular book: "From logic comes wisdom", and that this whole concept
of life he puts us through is merely an attempt to sift out the truly
logical from the make-believers and the sceptics; the agnostics from the
theists and atheists?

That would positively suck, wouldn't it? 😕

Personally, I'll stick with agnostic. Can't fail then. Surely God the
forgiving will forgive me for not taking the word of a simple book!? If
there's no God, then this is a no problem. And if he's a big fan of logic, I
should do... well, so-so. In any case, I can probably say that all the
good "un-christian" fun I had while living was enough to sustain me half
an eternity next to a pristine*, divine essence keeping tabs on me from
that death on.

* I love it how that word means both primitive and impeccable.
There's an interesting truth hiding there, somewhere.