Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 17,316
- Location
- Bristol
They are most definitely advertising a product... just not the normal kind.
Bus Wars - The Christians Fight Back
- Thread starter DrDee
- Start date
They are most definitely advertising a product... just not the normal kind.
Maybe because we are forced religion at every turn. There are churches, mosques, jehovas witnesses knocking on your door, christian groups knocking on your door, christian groups collecting money for this and that, even turning on the news greets you with something about muslims, or someone from USA saying "god bless America".
Lets not forget that I was more or less forced to sit through prayer in school during the morning assembly, and that in court people still take the oath on the bible.
You also have the fact that at Christmas you can barely go anywhere without listening to religious songs, despite the fact that the 25th of Dec. has NOTHING to do with Jesus.
You have religious people getting preferential/different treatment because of their religions at time.
I can keep going on.
On the other hand most Atheists keep to themselves, dont try to convert you. However when the topic of religion is brought upp we have every right to "have a go" simply because there is a limit as to how many pointless/false things you can hear/see/read in a day.
Indeed
His knowledge is fairly round imo.
He also takes the Bible at it's word (as religions should).
You cant just pick and choose which bits of bible to believe
It's called cannabis.
Rubbish. You make it out as someone knocks on your door 5 times a day to do with religion.
Ooooo not the school assembly. And no, they are not forced to.
It is a traditionally Christian country. Secondly, if songs are Christmas orientated, they typically are not religious. Give me some examples of this preferential treatment.
And what the hell are you talking about with the 25th having nothing to do with Jesus?
Please don't go on, because your examples are crap.
Again, complete rubbish. The athiests are the most outspoken of all those with faith on the forum. The only 'ramming down throats' religious members... infact, in my entire forum memory, were the recent 'God Squad' members a month or two ago in Speakers Corner.
Why?
Last edited:
No, but it is shackled by it's own insistence that scientific proof is needed - which can't be applied to an entity which exists outside of the measurable realms of science.
The same could be said for homicidal sociopaths getting inner happiness from murdering people, or theists getting inner happiness from torturing a sinner/heretic/etc, thereby doing the Good Work of their religion. Inner happiness isn't necessarily a good thing and it doesn't necessarily lead to a better society.
If you want to argue that being religious makes some people happy, then that's fine by me. Or that it makes some people nicer...I'll accept that as plausible, though I've never seen it happen. I've seen people become nicer and become religions, but that doesn't prove that the latter caused the former.
When you argue that various good things are only available through religion, or that religion causes them, then you are simply wrong.
I agree here. It's pretty odd that as atheists they've backed off from what they truly believe, and claimed that their faith is only "probably" true.
It only seems pretty odd because you are superimposing your position on them. You've created a positon, called it atheism and then find it pretty odd that there are atheists who don't conform to your position. Why should they? It's your faith, not theirs. They don't have to conform to your faith.
I'd like to know how the ASA have approved this but the atheist one needed 'probably' in it
I think the atheist ad was submitted with the word "probably" already in it, as that's what they wanted to say. Do you know for a fact that the ASA required them to add it?
Did he say this in any of his posts? He even suggested that happiness can be found elsewhere in the post you quoted.
I'm not sure if you missed the point I was making or if you're just trying to be obstinate. Allow me to repeat it. Irrespective of whether you're advertising a product, you are subject to the same rules as everyone else.
One could argue that Christian Voice (who I believe were responsible for the initial advertising campaign) are advertising a service (no pun intended). In the same way that financial services organisations advertise the services they offer - they're not tangible products. These organisations are still obliged to follow the rules and regulations, just like everyone else.
Yes I can. The advert simply says that something is "definitely" true. How can it possible be selling a product? It's even ambiguous from looking at the advert alone what religion it is for.
Yes I would agree, but most people who are not religious would not describe there spirituality as spirituality. Most people who buy into the idea of spirituality will be part of a religion or cult or some kind of philosophy prescribing some form of divinity.
We can, however, make some assessment of the probability of it existing.
If you truly follow the argument that you and others are making, you cannot say that anything is unlikely to exist unless you can absolutely prove its non-existence...and how would you do so for anything? For anything that is untestable, you must either think that there is an equal chance of its existence and its non-existence or completely dismiss any consideration about the question of its existence.
Even something I make up right now, e.g. that the supreme creator of all things and the One True God of humanity is called Bing! (note the exclamation mark - it's very important), is a 17-legged spider and currently lives on top of the door frame of my bedroom. Not that you could see Bing! even if you were here, or detect Bing! using any equipment or the senses of any animal.
You cannot prove any of those statements false, therefore you have to think of them in exactly the same way as you think of Christianity and every other religion that exists, existed in the past or will exist in the future. As well as the undetectable mastadon that lives underneath my kitchen sink, of course.
That isn't really my point. My point is that on the whole society in it's current form is much better off with religion, despite some interesting political and law making difficulties.
No you can't at all.
You would say that his knowledge is round, as you don't seem to be that familiar with it yourself, so you not really an authority by which to judge.
He takes the Bible at it's word in his own way to suit his cause though. You can still take it at it's word and not have any of the problems he brings forward about it.
Of course you can pick and choose which bits of the Bible to believe. Remember the Bible is just a compilation of older scriptures and books which were written entirely separate from each other. Therefore if you can just believe in certain books. You can even just believe in certain parts of certain books, as translation and interpretation between different languages and cultures can cause all sorts of different meanings to come across at all sorts of different levels.
A financial service is a tangible product. You might be buying time with a financial advisor and thus buying into his expertise. So if the advert said "Call 0800 666 666 to talk to a priest" I would see your point. It isn't advertising any kind of service at all. It's simply a statement.
Many people do, but it isn't required. The options are explained to you beforehand. I simply stated that I would tell the truth. In effect, I swore on my own honour. That is now allowed - it is formally known as affirming. Other people use various different religious books.
The legal system has shown some sense. Swearing an oath on a Christian bible would mean exactly the same to me as swearing it on a book selected at random from the city central library, so what would be the point of me swearing an oath on the Christian bible?
You're missed a point, though:
Despite the removal of the requirement to swear on the Christian bible, it does matter in court because of the prevailing pro-religion prejudice in society. Many people will consider you less trustworthy if you don't swear on the holy book of a generally approved religion, the religions with preferential status in our society.
But if the sensually undetectable creature you propose has no observable effect on anybody or anything then there is no good reason to pursue the belief or disbelief any further. Like it or not you are in some way effected by your belief or disbelief in God/god.
A point which you cannot prove and therefore cannot, according to your own argument, make any assessment regarding its validity. So you should ignore your own posts.
But I don't have to conform to your position, so I can ask you why you think "that on the whole society in it's current form is much better off with religion".
Unsurprisingly, I don't. I think that religion is very dangerous and far too powerful a tool to be trusted to the hands of anyone other than a tiny number of the very best of people. This society in its current form is a society in which religions have little power, which I think is a key thing.