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

[rocketman]

The more I think about this, the less I care what gets advertised on the sides of a buss these days. Here in Colorado Springs, many a buss has a religious message on it. Who cares that it does?

Right. Who reads ads anyway?

 

[Sunstone]

Right. Who reads ads anyway?

Who cares whether people read them? I don't. I read all the Jesus ads on the buses here. As long as the ads don't say some person or group is bad, I don't have a problem with them. Why should I then have a problem with an atheist ad?

 

[rocketman]

Who cares whether people read them? I don't.

Same here.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think if Dawkins was alittle less militant, more people could probably take him more seriously.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think if Dawkins was alittle less militant, more people could probably take him more seriously.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I resent your use of the word "militant" here--not a lot, but just a little. People toss the word "militant" around more often than is fair, i.m.o., when talking about atheist intellectuals who are absolutely peaceful and civil and who are in no way advocating oppressive political action against religion. Yet the standard for being a "militant" changes when we go outside atheists: when I think of a "militant" Christian or Muslim, I think of someone setting off explosives packed with ball bearings. Yet all the "militant" atheist Dawkins did was write a book.

And the things Dawkins says in his book are far less provocative than things I have seen religious figures in the U.S. say....truly despicable things....Pat Robertson advocated assassinating a foreign head of state, Jerry Falwell claimed 9/11 was God's wrath against homosexuality feminism and the ACLU and so on....and I never heard anyone call them "militant Christians". This is a HUGE bias that religion has managed to place in our thinking: we rush to call one peaceful critic of the sacred a "militant", yet the countless prominent fire-and-brimstone preachers and mullahs and rabbis are not called such. You're only a "militant" if you actually advocate or commit violence.....or if you're an atheist.

 

[Storm]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I resent your use of the word "militant" here--not a lot, but just a little. People toss the word "militant" around more often than is fair, i.m.o., when talking about atheist intellectuals who are absolutely peaceful and civil and who are in no way advocating oppressive political action against religion. Yet the standard for being a "militant" changes when we go outside atheists: when I think of a "militant" Christian or Muslim, I think of someone setting off explosives packed with ball bearings. Yet all the "militant" atheist Dawkins did was write a book.

And the things Dawkins says in his book are far less provocative than things I have seen religious figures in the U.S. say....truly despicable things....Pat Robertson advocated assassinating a foreign head of state, Jerry Falwell claimed 9/11 was God's wrath against homosexuality feminism and the ACLU and so on....and I never heard anyone call them "militant Christians". This is a HUGE bias that religion has managed to place in our thinking: we rush to call one peaceful critic of the sacred a "militant", yet the countless prominent fire-and-brimstone preachers and mullahs and rabbis are not called such.

I use "militant" to describe anyone who tries to force their views on others. The theists you described are downright rabid, and yes, militant.

Dawkins may not use or promote physical violence, but he does use ridicule. Is it as bad? Of course not. But it is bad.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I use "militant" to describe anyone who tries to force their views on others. The theists you described are downright rabid, and yes, militant.

But Dawkins doesn't try to force his view on others.

Dawkins may not use or promote physical violence, but he does use ridicule. Is it as bad? Of course not. But it is bad.

Well, let's take a look at the playing field for a moment: while not every religious believer is a 6,000-year-old-Earth creationist who thinks Hurricane Katrina was God's wrath against gays, that is an element Dawkins is responding to, and sometimes ridicule is the only feasible response. Secondly, religious beliefs often set themselves up so that it is impossible to level candid disagreement with them without being accused of ridicule. When Obama and McCain attack each other on their tax policies, we don't consider it "ridicule"; yet if religious beliefs are debated with equal vigor, it ruffles peoples' feathers disproportionately.

My overall impression is that, aside from fundamentalists, most people who object to Dawkins' tactics (beyond mere disagreement with his opinions) can rarely point to anything specific. The fact that some of his critics raise the objection at all lead me to believe they haven't actually read anything he's written or heard him speak. Or, I suspect his critics are applying a standard of politeness and civility to religious debates which sacrifices candor, a standard which they would find restrictive in any other debate outside religion.

Dawkins makes this precise point very well starting at 1:30 in this clip: YouTube - Richard Dawkins - BBC HARDtalk Part1

Here's a case in point: in this short clip, Dawkins' answer to a question is called "cruel" (see clip title). Judge for yourself: YouTube - Richard Dawkins cruely answers audience question
Was that really a "cruel" answer to that particular question?

I'm curious to know if any of Dawkins' critics on this thread have actually read anything Dawkins has written, or heard him speak, and if they can point to anything specifically that bothered them.

If you watch all of these clips, I think you'll find that Dawkins has an opinion and he argues for it vigorously, but he is perfectly civil and willing to concede a point. I invite anyone to watch any one of these clips and then tell me where his tactics or manners went over the line (beyond merely being wrong or off base on the issues):
YouTube - CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins (Full - Highest Quality)
YouTube - Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?"
YouTube - Richard Dawkins on the strangeness of science: TEDTalks
YouTube - Dawkins talks atheism
YouTube - Bill O'Reilly SCARED by Richard Dawkins
YouTube - Richard Dawkins habla con un musulmán

 

[Storm]

I'll get back to you when I've watched the clips, which I probably won't get to tonight.

 

[texan1]

Mr. Sprinkles - I tried to frubal you for your last post but the site wouldn't let me. I do agree that there is a double standard. Religion should be scrutinized the same way politics and anything else can be. But there is that sense among most people that it is above questioning. To question it at all, you are simply being a jerk. I don't neccessarily agree with the way Dawkins has drawn all of his conclusions, and I had a hard time getting through and even understanding some of "The God Delusion". But I think he has tried to get his opinion out in a respectable, peaceful way. If the people listed here on this site can get publicity (on NPR for example) to spread their hateful message, Dawkins can surely get a few bus signs without being called militant:

Why do dominionists hate NOLA?

BTW - I don't mean this post to be in argument towards you Storm, but against the general mindset.

 

[logician]

I think if Dawkins was alittle less militant, more people could probably take him more seriously.

Ever watched a Sunday TV show evangelist do his work?

Now that's militant.

 

[gnomon]

And Dawkins really has nothing to do with the bus. It wasn't his idea. He's mentioned because he is well known and contributed to the bus campaign.

If you can't disparage the bus without mentioning Dawkins then you are just talking out of your porpoise.
Quite frankly it's the liberal religious response to the ad and the arrogant, dismissive attitude towards it that makes the ad necessary. It's much like the idea of an audio feedback to comments posted on youtube. So that one can hear how ridiculous one sounds.

This thread is riot of double standards cast down from the highest of towers.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I resent your use of the word "militant" here--not a lot, but just a little. People toss the word "militant" around more often than is fair, i.m.o., when talking about atheist intellectuals who are absolutely peaceful and civil and who are in no way advocating oppressive political action against religion.

Ever watched a Sunday TV show evangelist do his work?

Now that's militant.

Then perhaps replacing "militant" with "verbally aggressive" would suffice?

 

[DallasApple]

There probably is a God...

So you better watch out..!!!

Love

Dalllas

 

[texan1]

Then perhaps replacing "militant" with "verbally aggressive" would suffice?

That's better than militant, but still a double standard in my opinion. I don't see how Dawkins is verbally aggressive. Not nearly as aggressive as some of the fire & brimstone gay hating religious preachers.

 

[texan1]

If you can't disparage the bus without mentioning Dawkins then you are just talking out of your porpoise.

Sorry to have spoken out of my porpoise. To be honest, I didn't even know I had a porpoise until now.

 

[stacey bo bacey]

Sorry to have spoken out of my porpoise. To be honest, I didn't even know I had a porpoise until now.

Hhahahah, that was awesome.

 

[darkendless]

But Dawkins doesn't try to force his view on others.

Well, let's take a look at the playing field for a moment: while not every religious believer is a 6,000-year-old-Earth creationist who thinks Hurricane Katrina was God's wrath against gays, that is an element Dawkins is responding to, and sometimes ridicule is the only feasible response. Secondly, religious beliefs often set themselves up so that it is impossible to level candid disagreement with them without being accused of ridicule. When Obama and McCain attack each other on their tax policies, we don't consider it "ridicule"; yet if religious beliefs are debated with equal vigor, it ruffles peoples' feathers disproportionately.

My overall impression is that, aside from fundamentalists, most people who object to Dawkins' tactics (beyond mere disagreement with his opinions) can rarely point to anything specific. The fact that some of his critics raise the objection at all lead me to believe they haven't actually read anything he's written or heard him speak. Or, I suspect his critics are applying a standard of politeness and civility to religious debates which sacrifices candor, a standard which they would find restrictive in any other debate outside religion.

Dawkins makes this precise point very well starting at 1:30 in this clip: YouTube - Richard Dawkins - BBC HARDtalk Part1

Here's a case in point: in this short clip, Dawkins' answer to a question is called "cruel" (see clip title). Judge for yourself: YouTube - Richard Dawkins cruely answers audience question
Was that really a "cruel" answer to that particular question?

I'm curious to know if any of Dawkins' critics on this thread have actually read anything Dawkins has written, or heard him speak, and if they can point to anything specifically that bothered them.

If you watch all of these clips, I think you'll find that Dawkins has an opinion and he argues for it vigorously, but he is perfectly civil and willing to concede a point. I invite anyone to watch any one of these clips and then tell me where his tactics or manners went over the line (beyond merely being wrong or off base on the issues):
YouTube - CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins (Full - Highest Quality)
YouTube - Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?"
YouTube - Richard Dawkins on the strangeness of science: TEDTalks
YouTube - Dawkins talks atheism
YouTube - Bill O'Reilly SCARED by Richard Dawkins
YouTube - Richard Dawkins habla con un musulmán

I always find it amusing. Religious spokespeople can say what ever they damn well please whilst whenever someone speaks out against what they have to say its distasteful and socially unacceptable.

I think the commotion over this is sad, religious people have to right to post "Jesus is the answer" and things of that nature everywhere so in our democratic countries with freedom of speech (apparently) shouldn't it be fair to allow these ads?

 

[rojse]

Somehow i get the impression that atheists think people who are religious and to be more precise, Jewish, Christian and Muslim, are delusional and paranoid.

I love how you use such broad generalisations without any substantiation or factual data to support your conclusions. I know that there are many theist's opinions on here that I respect, and I would not consider them delusional and paranoid.

It's just as bad as atheists you rail against making broad generalisations of theists without support or factual data to support their claims.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

I love how you use such broad generalisations without any substantiation or factual data to support your conclusions.

Sorry, it's just an observation of mine and I do apologies for my generalization of atheist. It wasn't my intention to offend.

 

[crystalonyx]

I always find it amusing. Religious spokespeople can say what ever they damn well please whilst whenever someone speaks out against what they have to say its distasteful and socially unacceptable.

I think the commotion over this is sad, religious people have to right to post "Jesus is the answer" and things of that nature everywhere so in our democratic countries with freedom of speech (apparently) shouldn't it be fair to allow these ads?

I agree totally, the double standard here is annoyingly obvious. Religious "folks" can be as obnoxious as they want to in pushing their religion, and that's par for the course, but let someone forcefully put forth an argument against the existence of god and they're being "militant".

Sad comment on the state of things really.