The Advertisement: ''God Doesn't Exist Enjoy Yourself !'' Shouldn't...

» Home » Music & Entertainment

The Advertisement: ''God Doesn't Exist Enjoy Yourself !'' Shouldn't Be Plastered On The Side Of London Buses!

I think some advertisers could possibly be pushing the boat out too far!

joe9

07 Jan 2009 17:49

(What's this?)

Add to Firefox

RSS

I agree with the right of free speech and freedom of religion. So, they do have the right to do it.

Your statement begs the question "is it right to express that right?" I say no.

While staying in a third world country that has no laws against heroin, I would have the right to use heroin....should i use it? No. Its dangerous and possibly could kill me. Just the same, should our society (or the individual) try to teach the Nietzschean mantra of "God is dead"? And top it off with, "and its a good thing!" (which even Nietzsche disagreed with for the most part). No. If for no other reason than it is implying a false supposition.

created

08 Jan 2009 01:58

Add a Comment

Pro-Active Athletes who recently appealed for enough funds to run an advert telling people that ''God doesn't exist, go out and enjoy yourself','' on a single central London bus route, have now raised enough money to cover 800 buses across the UK, and the tube network, too. I think this is extreme to say the least!

joe9

07 Jan 2009 18:19

23 Comments

fund raising for a cause is considered extreme??

You think it is extreme merely because of the message, not the means to pay for it.

openurmind

11 Jan 2009 19:22

Comment

Ok let's skip the Spanish Inquisition for a moment, and start with my introduction of Hermes Trismegistus. There is a famous Egyptian Masterpiece depicting the ''Judgement of the dead.'' Horus sits in judgement, with twelve judges, while Anubis the jackle headed God of the necropolis weighs the heart of the deceased, the heart is counterbalanced against a feather, (representing Maat, symbol of the Goddess of justice, and of divine order). The deceased has only passed the test when the heart is as light as the feather. Hermes Trismegistus, the inventer of writing, known to the Egyptians as the God of writing takes notes on the earthly bhaviour of the deceased. This behaviour is then measured against the ideal heavenly justice. Only a very small number of people would have been a match for such a test. Everyone was afraid of it, as next to the scales sat the ''Great Swallower,'' a monster made up of a crocodile, big cat and hippopotamus, ready to devour those whose hearts proved to be too heavy. That would be the worst of all imaginable punishments, total annilation, the final second death with no hope of rebirth. This rule of thumb gave birth to morality, and set the standard. Thus followed a 'Golden Age,'' Although religion has been tampered with throughout the ages, God, and the morality propounded by God, still sets this high standard.

Ferdinand and his queen, Isabella, were the monarchs who united the Spanish kingdoms into one nation, ended the Moorish dominion in Europe, and, through the activities of Christopher Columbus, their protégé, annexed the New World to Spain, which during the ensuing century threatend, on many occassions, to dominate the states of Christendom.

I am au fait with the: ''History and Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,'' by W.H. Prescott.

Comment

There was no Moorish dominion in Europe. You mean the region we now know of as Spain. You mean that region which was the center of exchange in arts and sciences. Where the Islamic rulers allowed Jews and Christians. Where it went well for a few hundred years until some of the Jews and Christians became wealthier than the masses of Islamic people (which is behind most of the falls of the "great societies"  - the masses don't like it when outsiders have more wealth in their land than they do).
You're talking about the strife weakening the Islamic union and leaving it open to invasion by the beautiful christians. You're talking about the burning of all the books and collaborations attained over a few centuries in the arts and sciences. You're talking about the deal struck with Islams and Jews that if they converted to christianity they could stay (obviously a diabolical offering) in the land where they had lived in many cases for hundreds of years. You're talking about the genius of proving their conversion through the use of torture and often burning at the stake. If they didn't feel pain of burn it proved they were christian.

Yep...that's what you're talking about. Don't feel bad. The roman catholic church had been using terror for centuries and continued after the Spanish Inquisition.

Comment

I like it.

Balance_92

11 Jan 2009 19:36

12 Comments

What's new Balance. Kirsty gave you a very good summation. What do you like, and why? You are being extremely cagey....;-)

joe9

11 Jan 2009 19:46

Comment

Freedom of speech is allowing people with different ideas to openly express themselves. If you are against the sign on the side of the bus then you are against free speech and should register with the Central Authority.

openurmind

11 Jan 2009 19:20

23 Comments

I think it extreme because it may cause offence and possibly an affray!

joe9

11 Jan 2009 19:29

Comment

I don't find it wrong, extreme, or pushing it too far but I do think it is a little childish. If the religious push the message of, more than just, god's existence then anyone is within their rights to pay and dispay their alternate message, however I fail to see the need to do it. It is basically mild provocation. Athiesm to me is mostly saying "sorry but I don't go in for theism at all but if others want to go for it". If I see a bus or a poster relating to religion it doesn't fill me with a need to protest. As long as religion doesn't cross the line to law making and education there is no problem. In the UK we are ok and religion (as daft as it all is in any capacity, in my opinion) doesn't really cross this line.

That said the religious have no right or cause to be upset by it and if they are then that probably explains why the advert was displayed in the first place.

StBalders

10 Jan 2009 19:38

2 Comments

Since posting this debate last week, the church has now complained about the aforementioned advertisements claiming that they are offensive...;-(

joe9

10 Jan 2009 21:11

Comment

Well some advertisements are used to convert people into religion, so why can't others say that God doesn't exist at all? At least it's optimistic with the "Enjoy yourself!" part =)

MaYbCaKe

08 Jan 2009 13:09

Add a Comment

It's advertising space. They paid for it, they get it. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Ambrose

08 Jan 2009 12:40

15 Comments

Ok Ambrose, I agree with what you are saying. They have indeed paid for the advertising space. And, I don't hate the players. I do however, hate the game of insignificant little people trying to ridicule God.

joe9

08 Jan 2009 12:52

Comment

Yes.

lol...no.

We're probably using different definiitons for "atheist". I think "atheist" is one who insists there is no god/gods. I think variations of the definition are antiproductive. I think people who aren't sure about the issue are agnostic. I think people who believe in god/gods are theists.

Therefore, i think anyone who is a true atheist is being narrow-minded. Balders..almost all of them demand empirical evidence for proof of a God...to eliminate all possibility they would need the same proof. By their definition they are being unreasonable and narrow minded.

It doesn't mean I think they live their lives with a narrow view of everything. In other areas, they may have broad views.

The reason you think I'm directing at virtually everyone is because that's what I debate. lol Narrow mindedness.

There's alot of people I don't debate. They're not being narrow minded.

Your comparison of the far right to Islamic extremists is a tad bit narrow...I think it would be far, far right.

Also, I'm saying here in America, there are very large numbers of religious people who do not press anything on anyone. They are normal, hard working people. The pushy ones are a very small minority.

Anyway...I don't think they should have had God on the buses to begin with.

Comment

I think we mostly agree.

I notice you use the word "insist" for athiests yet you use the softer, more flexible word "believe" when referring to thiests.  In my mind you put a subtle spin on your definition.  What if I were to swap it round.   " I think "atheist" is one who believes there is no god/gods.... I think people who insist in god/gods [existence] are theists."  Only a subtle change but reasonable and it puts a whole different slant on it.

I understand the definitions and a bit of me is prepared to concede that there may well be a god of some description, I may be wrong, which means I am agnostic.  However really we should all be agnostic about pretty much everything.  I don't know for certain that Africa exists. It could all be one trueman show style ruse at my expense but I am not agnostic about Africa existing.  Maybe not a great example but I am sure you follow my meaning. Agnostic doesn't describe in anyway where I sit on the whole god debate, it is too broad a spectrum.  We would need to spilt it into more categories to make it work as a term that has any descriptive merit and that would be a pointless waste of time.   I have never heard or seen or thought of reasonable evidence that suggests there is a god so I don't believe in one so I am an athiest.  I am open minded because I am prepared to change my mind if presented with a reason to do so and concede that I could be wrong.   This is the stance that every single Athiest I have ever spoken to has, the bus advert even used the word "probably", (a word I don't often hear from the religious).  Can you explain why you would have a problem with that.

Which of the three would you fall under.  Let me say what I think first, I would say you are a theist.  If so do you consider yourself close minded by my twist on your own definitions.

Those fair minded Theists are in the majority the world over and I do not have a problem with them at all.  My Gran and Mum come under that catagory.  Neither would be offended by the bus advert.

Comment

I'm glad you took the time to touch on the subject and consider it an excellent entry.

I'll respond with how the process works for me and let you decide how this all fits together.

I was raised in the Bible. I was raised in a missionary family, in a country other than my birth, with one of the most primitive tribes in the world (some were still cave dwellers). We lived with no electricity, no running water, no doctors...you get the picture.

I'm telling you this so you can get a feel of where I may be coming from when speaking of religion. The organized religion was negligable compared to the relations struck with the people and the day to day efforts of survival. I know life on this earth. I've also been very close to primitive "belief" structures which were unaffected by outside influence.

Upon reaching the age of leaving my family to attend Seminary, I was immersed in organized religion and could not condone it's teachings. I had believed all my life. I was born into it. But when faced with teachings which made no sense and which defied the reasoning behind my families mission I was faced with a decision. I quit. I quit the life that was laid out for me. Believing was not good enough. I had to have proof. I had to know.

I would say belief is not good enough for you. What is belief? Is it that something that may or may not be true but we'll decide to go this way based on this or that? We can use words like belief, faith, agnostic, atheist and theist. They can mean many things.

I had to know the answers to the questions. The questions regarding God. The questions regarding the Bible, religion, belief, faith and wisdom. When I say i had to know, I'm saying I had to know if I was going to act on them. What I just said is very important.

I couldn't get away from the fact that I had a personal relationship with God. Trust me, I understand that could be attributed to me being raised to believe. Same as Santa.

Given my life, where I was raised and the wonderful experience it was, believing because I was raised in it was and is good enough for ME. I couldn't get rid of it if I wanted to. It's not irrational. It is as much a part of me as anything else about myself.

But it's not good enough for me to project to others. Oh, it is through my sharing life with others (as you do). But it's not good enough for me to project on others. Notice my difference between share and project.

I came to know. Now we run into our problem. My claim of knowing (for no reason other than to understand or know one another) automatically is unaccaptable to your thought process. I have said it many times on here. If anyone can present me with anything better than what I know, I will drop what I know and take up that which is better. This highly distresses christians on here. It's true. I believe and know a fantasy. When I say I know, it's because I have taken the fantasy all the way. It's criteria is perfect. There is no religion, no science, no philosophy or reality that can transend mine.

It is important that you realize that is just about me and I hope you can see parallels with the open mindedness thing. I will drop what I know in an instant provided there is something better.

How do I see you? I see you as a person. Your thoughts on God and how they apply to you? Fine with me. Sounds reasonable to me. Ambrose? How Ambrose applies the thoughts to Ambrose? Fine with me. Created and how created applies his thoughts on abortion to himself? Fine with me. Cephus? The same. Stranger and homosexuals? The same.

It's the way everyone applies the thoughts to others. That's what I'm debating. It's when they say it's a lie to be an atheist. It's irrational to believe in God. It's an abomination to be a homosexual. It's murder to abort a fetus (they never put it that way but...).

I don't care what we call ourselves. It's what we say and do towards others.

Fact is, many theists and atheists are using their "beliefs" in a political struggle. I attribute most of those struggles as being caused by the theist side. I can only speak regarding the "christian" side and I know "christians" should have nothing to do with projecting "chrisitanity" onto society.

Finally, you're not knowing what I know does not affect the way I see you. I see us as the same. I would like you to know what I know but I would only share that with you. I have no desire to project it on you. I don't see you as needing to know or being in some sort of diminished state. If we knew one another we would share life.

Hope this clarifies some things.

Comment

Balders, here's my reply to you from the God Does Not Exist thread: (you may never see it over there : ))

I have not met my match. There isn't a match. Ambrose is making the argument that the belief in God is irrational. Ambrose is basing that statement with total disregard of ANY reason which is truly attributed by those who believe. Much like your explanation of atheists you know....I have never known a believer to attribute their reasons for belief to ANY of Ambroses proposed reasons.

Ambrose is also using scientific proof as the criteria for argument which nullifies the entire argument before it starts. When I make the comments about death and insignificance being Ambroses reality, I am saying it based on the criteria that Ambrose is using...not mine.

I think Ambrose is eternal. I think Ambrose is greater than a million universes, all time, all dimensions, and all possibilities. Ambrose would say I am being irrational. lol....You gotta admit...there's alot of irony here.

Insisting millions of people throughout time, throughout all of history, throughout practically every culture are being irrational in their deepest beliefs and basis for life is a tad bit more offensive than saying the person who is doing the insisting is being an idiot, a moron, narrow-minded, and whatever petty poke I choose to make.

It is not conclusively irrational until there is proof that there is the smallest, teeniest, microscopic piece of an answer to the contrary. Any proven thing that offers some sort of reason for our existence.

I'm not saying there are any including God. I'm simply saying it is not irrational to believe in an answer.

I have to admit I think it's irrational to not believe in an answer but I am not going to project that on anyone because they haven't realized my reason for thinking it's irrational. lol

I know....it is confusing.

Comment

Hi JSM, sorry I didn't read this last post until...well right now.  You were right though I would never have read it on the other page.

I understand where you are coming from now and am pleased that my prediction - that you had a mind worth understanding - has proved correct.

I really wanted to provoke you into writing what you did a few posts up, to explain your angle to me as I was genuinely intrigued.  I am pleased you did and from that point on I look forward to your posts and reading them has been rewarding.

I should stay out of god debates mostly because I am bored of them.  No doubt sometime soon that will change.  It was unfair of me to judge either of you a winner because you had been discussing the topic over various posts and I was not in a position to judge, because I was not fully on top of the full conversation.

I have never had a problem or argument with the likes of yourself who, despite having different beliefs, are smart enough to think for themselves, not take the bible at its word or use it to make an opinion, and do not push their religion onto others.  Yourself, Innomen, Charlie and Mackenzie (none of whom are on here much anymore) and my Dear Gran ( who, incidentaly, met up with her old friend Desmond Tutu recently, I have the video footage on my computer as of yesterday) are all theists and intelligent folk who thought for themselves and moved past the "it is true because it's in the bible" stage of thinking.  To me believing in God is fair, believing in the exact word of the bible is pure madness.  I will debate the latter all day long.

I hope I am consistent and don't try to push my lack of belief in god on anyone else, I try just to encourage people to think for themselves and have conviction in what they think right and wrong is on matters that don't concern religion.  ie most things..   That and take the mickey out of really simple folk, but noones perfect, let me have some fun, it's my vice.

As for where I stand, taking a part of what you just said into consideration.  I don't think believing in an answer is irrational, I have had a few myself over the years but understood always that they were only personal thoughts without basis.  I am sure there is an answer to it all but until I know of one I am more than happy to say "Idon't know".  In my opinion the God answer is purely saying "i don't know" but really not being comfortable saying that so filling it with God.  That is fine with me as long as you have gone through the thought processes to get there.  Which you clearly have.

This world needs to advertise atheistic faith, demolish all churches, abolish Christian teaching and construct more prisons. Then all problems will be solved so stop worrying and enjoy your life

v00v

08 Jan 2009 00:10

4 Comments

that's a big claim. can you prove it?

created

08 Jan 2009 01:58

Comment

Although I agree the ad is in bad taste I also agree with Quincel that if religious groups can advertise then the non-religious have to be allowed to also. If that ad had said "God is watching you so behave" people would think that is normal and allowable, so why isn't the opposite message allowable?

Grenache

07 Jan 2009 21:07

Add a Comment

If religious groups can advertise (and they do) then why not atheists?

Quincel

07 Jan 2009 18:32

3 Comments

I know what you are saying Quin, but I can see a few shoes being thrown at passing buses, if you get my drift?

joe9

07 Jan 2009 18:35

Comment

Just for clarity what it actually says is "There's probably no god, now stop worrying and enjoy your life", and it was done as a direct response to religious advertisements that are running concurrently on buses and to encourage people to question and to think for themselves.
Now before you jump on me joe9, I would just like to add that I don't really see any benefit from either as I would expect people to be able to reason for themselves and come to their own conclusions without the aid of a slogan on a bus. But then if it helps somebody, where's the harm?

Evileye

07 Jan 2009 18:24

10 Comments

I'm not going to jump on you Evileye, that's not the type of Guy I am...;-) Thanks for your concise input and for being so accurate!

joe9

07 Jan 2009 18:30

Comment

I don't think it should be, it's a bit to preachy for my liking. Leave everybody to their own beliefs, yes we should question religious dogma, of course. However this religious-bashing is completely unnecessary in a time when religion has less influence than ever before. I think these New Age Atheists have a problem with the religious simply because they have no ideal vision of the world, whereas religious people do and they are fully committed to it.

Kirsty08

07 Jan 2009 17:56

7 Comments

wrong side, sorry joe9

Kirsty08

07 Jan 2009 17:57

Comment

Sign In

Sign Up?

Login and Debate!
Username:
Password:
Forgot your Password?

For and Against Recent Activity

Latest Responses

Latest Comments

4 hours ago

PIE IS SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO MUCH BETTER AND I MUCH PREFER TO HAVE PIE OVER CAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!... read more...

4 hours ago

We should never ban it because I think that if it is banned the black market will take it up resulting in dangerous cosmetic... read more...

5 hours ago

I agree. I was a porn addict and I lost a relationship because of it. May I remind you that it is corrupt. Not only do... read more...

6 hours ago

In my state, It is against the Law to smoke in your car if you have children in your vehicle under 16. I grew up in a home... read more...

6 hours ago

Kids or anyone shouldn't get abortions. I have done alot of research on Planned Parenthood, I have found evidence of civil... read more...

Related Debates

	More Whites Watch BET Than Blacks
	Kurt Cobain Is One Of The BEST Musicians Ever!
	There Is 301 People So The Film Couldn't Call It 300
	3D Film And TV Is Overrated
	Lost Was Good Until Series 4, Then It Got Confusing.
	Chucky Sheen Is An American Hero
	It Was WRONG Of "So You Think You Can Dance" To Dismiss The Woman With The Spinal Deformity In The First...
	Too Many Bands Are Trying To Be Like Other Popular Bands
	The Simpsons Still Reigns Supreme As The Best Cartoon TV Show Out There.
	Batman Would Win In A Fight With Luke Skywalker

New Debates

	Biblical Views Regarding Women Are Utterly Outdated And Should Be Ignored.
	Planned Parenthood Is A Bad Thought
	The Single Most Effective Action America Could Take To Reduce The Problem With Illegal Immigration Would...
	Grey Is The Best Fashion-Color:
	You Always Have A Choice
	Cocks Are Better Than Hens!
	America Will Not Have The Grandeur That Rome Once Had.
	An Oral B Electric Toothbrush Is Better Than An Ordinary Hand Powered Model.
	We Can't Allow Texas To Rewrite History.
	The Most Famous Religious Texts In Human History Were Not Written Directly By God