# "Probably No God" ads coming to the TTC



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Sorry, I've been away for so long, but I thought I'd jump back into things here.

A spinoff of this thread: http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/73210-christian-bus-driver-refuses-drive-atheist-bus.html

CityNews.ca - Toronto's News: 'No God' Ads, Soon To Appear On TTC Vehicles, Spark Heated Debate


> "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."
> 
> It's certainly not everyone's opinion, and it may or may not be yours - but if you're a transit user in this city you'll soon be seeing that message frequently.
> 
> It's part of a controversial ad campaign by the Toronto-based Freethought Association of Canada that has been approved by the TTC to appear on buses and inside subway cars.


Coming in February to a bus near you!


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

You've been gone so long.. and you still haven't found your pants?  Good to see ya! 

On topic, interesting.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

guytoronto said:


> Sorry, I've been away for so long, but I thought I'd jump back into things here.
> 
> A spinoff of this thread: http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/73210-christian-bus-driver-refuses-drive-atheist-bus.html
> 
> ...


I'm going to start a campaign on buses targeting dyslexic atheist.... "There just might be a dog. Bepent and relieve"


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

:lmao:


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

I just watched Lou Dobbs on CNN say that climate change is a giant hox. 

This couldn't come any sooner.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Hope this comes to Vancouver and the bible belt Abbotsford too!



Vexel said:


> You've been gone so long.. and you still haven't found your pants?  Good to see ya!


YOU've been gone so long! Well I grew pants... I'm married now. lol.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

dona83 said:


> YOU've been gone so long! Well I grew pants... I'm married now. lol.


Are you sure you are wearing them?


----------



## MHopper (Aug 14, 2008)

I don't see why these ads are put up, they just upset people.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MHopper said:


> I don't see why these ads are put up, they just upset people.


There could be many reasons:

1) Don't like the push that religion is making to include "Intelligent Design" in science classrooms.

2) Don't like the constant "so help you God" and "thank God" that is repeated over and over again by politicians (Obama's inauguration was polluted with it).

3) Giving people with doubt about their faith an olive branch (to leave it all together).

4) Giving assurance to those that do not have faith that their voice can be just a loud as those of faith.

There is a church at the corner of Bloor and Dufferin here in Toronto (Dovercourt Baptist Church), that has one of those church signs out front. They regular change their message. It's always faith based. If they can promote their message, what is the problem with this TTC / No God campaign?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Adrian. said:


> I just watched Lou Dobbs on CNN say that climate change is a giant hox.


I've seen miniature hox's are they were frightening enough...


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> There is a church at the corner of Bloor and Dufferin here in Toronto (Dovercourt Baptist Church), that has one of those church signs out front. They regular change their message. It's always faith based. If they can promote their message, what is the problem with this TTC / No God campaign?


Its called freedom of expression and I have no problem with it. True freedom of expression includes expression you may not agree with. If it were derogatory or hateful I'd have a problem with it but its clearly not. To protest it would be as wrong headed as the weenies that complain about the use of the word Christmas at Christmas time or the clown that ban the singing of Oh Canada in his school.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

MHopper said:


> I don't see why these ads are put up, they just upset people.


I don't see why churches need to advertise, either god wants them there or he doesn't.

Besides, you don't think the constant bombardment of pro-christ propaganda bothers/upsets/annoys, let's say, Jews?

Did you see what the Pope did the other day?

If you'll take down all the Christian propaganda, I'll gladly tell the atheists their (very mild) ad is no longer needed.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Adrian. said:


> I just watched Lou Dobbs on CNN say that climate change is a giant hox.


Please, won't you contribute to the EhMac Fund to Stop Hilarious Misspellings?


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

MacGuiver said:


> Its called freedom of expression and I have no problem with it. True freedom of expression includes expression _you may not agree with_. I*f it were derogatory or hateful I'd have a problem with it but its clearly not*.


Just wanted to emphasise McGuiver's point. The "upsetting" message the atheists want to put out there (brace yourselves) is, in full:

"There's probably no god, so relax and enjoy your life."

WHERE is there anything in the above that could upset any rational person?? Seriously, if your faith is so fragile that the above sentence threatens it ...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The way I see it:

When churches advertise, they're trying to convert you to Christianity.

When atheists advertise, they're trying to convert you to nothing.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

chas_m said:


> I don't see why churches need to advertise, either god wants them there or he doesn't.
> 
> Besides, you don't think the constant bombardment of pro-christ propaganda bothers/upsets/annoys, let's say, Jews?
> 
> ...


There's the three months pro christian ad binge we have just come through (ie: xmas). And now all the *saint* valentine's day dreck is in the stores cheek by jowl with all the easter crap already in the stores.... That'll be about 6 months straight when all in. Talk about saturation bombing....


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

SINC said:


> The way I see it:
> 
> When churches advertise, they're trying to convert you to Christianity.
> 
> When atheists advertise, they're trying to convert you to nothing.


With respect, they're trying to convert you to _rationality_.

A society rooted in the belief of an imaginary friend is a bit like banks basing their system on imaginary value. 

There's nothing wrong with _faith_ -- we all have it in one way or another, even the atheists. Individual beliefs are not the problem, the problem is when society _as a whole_ substitutes superstition for substance. It's destructive to _everyone_ when faith subjugates fact, when belief undermines reality, when objective truth is replaced with subjective truth.

That said, I wouldn't worry about the effectiveness of the atheist ad -- until atheists have holidays, they won't get very far.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

Looking forward to seeing the add's and celebrating Darwin's birthday.

I think on Darwin's birthday I will have a big steaming bowl of pasta. Gotta get them noodles in me.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

chas_m said:


> Just wanted to emphasise McGuiver's point. The "upsetting" message the atheists want to put out there (brace yourselves) is, in full:
> 
> "There's probably no god, so relax and enjoy your life."
> 
> WHERE is there anything in the above that could upset any rational person?? Seriously, if your faith is so fragile that the above sentence threatens it ...


It's a complete non-threatening message and I have no problem with it. It's actually quite respectful. I value my freedom of belief and expression and so that should obviously extend to everyone, as long as it isn't hateful. I have see bad, condescending messages on church signs. 

Rather than stifling anyone's voices, I long for a day that where there is mutual respect for everyone.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

rgray said:


> There's the three months pro christian ad binge we have just come through (ie: xmas). And now all the *saint* valentine's day dreck is in the stores cheek by jowl with all the easter crap already in the stores.... That'll be about 6 months straight when all in. Talk about saturation bombing....


To be fair, these bombardments are coming from commercial enterprises trying to sell their wares, not from anyone trying to send out a pro christian message. I think the bombardment is pretty much annoying to everyone.


----------



## BikerRob (Sep 19, 2007)

As an ordained minister, I'm not all that concerned about the ads. What bothers me is that the TTC will allow these ads (arguing freedom of speech), but if a religious group tries to put up and ad expressing their faith, it will not be allowed. 
It's a much different thing to have a church use it's sign on it's own property to promote faith, than it is for an ad on a public-owned vehicle. 
I'm not against Atheists promoting their "faith", I just wish they were held to the same standard as those of any other faith.


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

rgray said:


> There's the three months pro christian ad binge we have just come through (ie: xmas). And now all the *saint* valentine's day dreck is in the stores cheek by jowl with all the easter crap already in the stores.... That'll be about 6 months straight when all in. Talk about saturation bombing....


Because we all know that Christmas, Valentine's Day and Easter are all about religion these days (from an advertising perspective).


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

chas_m said:


> A society rooted in the belief of an imaginary friend is a bit like banks basing their system on imaginary value.


Ah, but banks lend money on imaginary reserves. That's what got them into the trouble we're in. 


> That said, I wouldn't worry about the effectiveness of the atheist ad -- until atheists have holidays, they won't get very far.


LOL, good point. Although there are plenty of non-religious holidays, we need more. Any day off work is a good day.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

ehMax said:


> To be fair, these bombardments are coming from commercial enterprises trying to sell their wares, not from anyone trying to send out a pro christian message. I think the bombardment is pretty much annoying to everyone.


Yeah Valentines day isn't even on the radar in the christian calendar. Its greatest promoters are florists, lingerie manufactures, candy and card companies. The 3 months of Christmas bombardment Rgray complains of is also the product of retail sales pitches. Mostly from companies that are as averse to using the word Christmas as a vampire to sunshine so its clearly not Christendom you can blame for that.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

I think I see the real problem here!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

chas_m said:


> With respect, they're trying to convert you to _rationality_.


As a Christian I don't see atheism being all that rational. When I look at the complexity of life and extraordinary balance in nature to maintain life on this planet I think its irrational to think it happened by happy accidents from nothing. That line of thinking requires greater faith than I have. The perfect order of things points me to a higher power, as it has for the majority of mankind since the dawn of time. Even Evangelical Atheist Richard Dawkins doesn't rule out intelligent design. He's just determined a god isn't behind it but possibly aliens. 
I also think its irrational to put on the blinders to the many accounts of the supernatural. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bgw said:


> I think I see the real problem here!


LOL!!:lmao: That was too funny. That poster would have went over well in Ottawa during the transit strike.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

BikerRob said:


> As an ordained minister, I'm not all that concerned about the ads. What bothers me is that the TTC will allow these ads (arguing freedom of speech), but if a religious group tries to put up and ad expressing their faith, it will not be allowed.


The probability of no God is based on scientific fact. You have to ask yourself why we would suppress scientific fact for the sake of not offending those with superstitious beliefs.



> I'm not against Atheists promoting their "faith", I just wish they were held to the same standard as those of any other faith.


Faith is belief not based on proof. Belief in God is faith. There is no proof.
Atheism is the belief there is no God. Since it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something, it cannot be consider the same as a belief in the existence of God.


----------



## Gazoo (Dec 6, 2007)

BikerRob said:


> As an ordained minister, I'm not all that concerned about the ads. What bothers me is that the TTC will allow these ads (arguing freedom of speech), but if a religious group tries to put up and ad expressing their faith, it will not be allowed.
> It's a much different thing to have a church use it's sign on it's own property to promote faith, than it is for an ad on a public-owned vehicle.
> I'm not against Atheists promoting their "faith", I just wish they were held to the same standard as those of any other faith.


I call BS -- I'm sure the TTC would advertise for any religious group/church as long as the bill was paid.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

guytoronto said:


> The probability of no God is based on scientific fact. You have to ask yourself why we would suppress scientific fact for the sake of not offending those with superstitious beliefs.
> 
> 
> Faith is belief not based on proof. Belief in God is faith. There is no proof.
> Atheism is the belief there is no God. Since it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something, it cannot be consider the same as a belief in the existence of God.


I couldn't agree more GuyToronto.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Gazoo said:


> I call BS -- I'm sure the TTC would advertise for any religious group/church as long as the bill was paid.


I can't speak for the TTC but it seems to be a problem with other media. A Pro Life group wanted to air this add during the Superbowl and were turned down by NBC after it was initially accepted.

YouTube - Imagine Spot 1 - Super Bowl Ad NBC Rejected

NBC rejected the pro-life ad for the Super Bowl, citing its policy not to run ads involving "political advocacy or issues." NBC appears to be inconsistent in applying its "no advocacy ads" policy. The network also rejected an ad produced by PETA only siting its suggestive sexual content and not for the fact they're a political advocacy group.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

I'm guessing the TTC would easily allow a similar religious ad.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

There's a full page advert in todays Globe and Mail with two sentences (and a box for a checkmark beside each).

There probably is no God. Stop worrying and enjoy your life.

There probably is a God. Stop worrying and enjoy your life.

It is paid for by a religious organization and I thought rather a good response.

It's called free speech and this is a great example of how a religious organization has embraced the discussion. Regardless of your beliefs, if you feel so delicate that such an innocuous message threatens you, I'd posit you are so unquestioning of your faith that it is meaningless because faith means nothing unless it holds up to challenge. Science simply differs in that it requires proof. Science does not address concepts that are unprovable but neither does it deny them. Many scientists are deeply religious. Many believers trust in science.

I'm a scientist and my beliefs (if they exist) are not the business of others. Neither do I question the beliefs of others (except in conversation as it makes for interesting debates). If they are scientists, I do trust them not to let their beliefs interfere with their science since that would make them poorer scientists. What I do find intolerable is the horror that is perpetuated in the name of religion (including complicity by so-called religious leaders). But it is people who make this justification and use this tool. It is not religion per se that kills.

We are supposed to be a tolerant society and it allows free will. As long as these two principles are maintained, all will be well, no matter where you stand.


----------



## BikerRob (Sep 19, 2007)

Great comments, guys and an interesting topic. 

Perhaps I am wrong about the TTC allowing religious ads - I admit I'm making an assuption based on the reaction of media, etc. at other times.

Personally, an athiest organization wishing to advertize doesn't threaten me or my faith whatsoever. I welcome such dialogue and feel it can only benefit either side of the discussion. 

used_to_be_jwoodget: great points! I fully agree.

Rob


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

bgw said:


> I think I see the real problem here!


Was this in Ottawa by any chance?


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

Bus ban is the answer to atheists? prayers


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

BikerRob said:


> As an ordained minister, I'm not all that concerned about the ads. What bothers me is that the TTC will allow these ads (arguing freedom of speech), but if a religious group tries to put up and ad expressing their faith, it will not be allowed.


Please provide any reasonable proof that the TTC would not allow religious ads expressing their faith.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

MacGuiver said:


> As a Christian I don't see atheism being all that rational. When I look at the complexity of life and extraordinary balance in nature to maintain life on this planet I think its irrational to think it happened by happy accidents from nothing. That line of thinking requires greater faith than I have. The perfect order of things points me to a higher power, as it has for the majority of mankind since the dawn of time. Even Evangelical Atheist Richard Dawkins doesn't rule out intelligent design. He's just determined a god isn't behind it but possibly aliens.
> I also think its irrational to put on the blinders to the many accounts of the supernatural.


But if there is a God, then who created God? And who created the creator of the creator? etc. etc. 

I personally believe humans simply don't have the context or understanding capacity to resolve such issues (at least not right now). And I'm certainly not going to follow arbitrary rules by a group that thinks they have figured it all out, yet can offer no reasonable explanation why.

The ads (and atheists) are trying to say stop stressing out trying to follow arbitrary religious rules and live your life to the fullest. I see nothing wrong with this message, whether you believe in a creator or not.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

hayesk said:


> Please provide any reasonable proof that the TTC would not allow religious ads expressing their faith.


There is no prohibition; a religious leader is at the moment attempting to convene with leaders from other denominations in an attempt to craft an appropriate response, to be posted likewise on public transit.



hayesk said:


> The ads (and atheists) are trying to say stop stressing out trying to follow arbitrary religious rules and live your life to the fullest. I see nothing wrong with this message, whether you believe in a creator or not.


The ads are meant to provoke, nothing more. A non-organized, non-religion would reap nothing through proselytization.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

chasMac said:


> There is no prohibition; a religious leader is at the moment attempting to convene with leaders from other denominations in an attempt to craft an appropriate response, to be posted likewise on public transit.


I've heard rumor of a response ad that goes like this:

"There is a God. So stop worrying and enjoy your life."

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

MacGuiver said:


> I've heard rumor of a response ad that goes like this:
> 
> "There is a God. So stop worrying and enjoy your life."
> 
> ...


Living with the daily prospect of eternal damnation - don't know how that ad would fly. Although it might work for a Calvinist ...


----------



## The G3 Man (Oct 7, 2008)

MHopper said:


> I don't see why these ads are put up, they just upset people.


really? I thought they were awesome.

Morgan


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

hayesk said:


> But if there is a God, then who created God? And who created the creator of the creator? etc. etc.
> 
> I personally believe humans simply don't have the context or understanding capacity to resolve such issues (at least not right now). And I'm certainly not going to follow arbitrary rules by a group that thinks they have figured it all out, yet can offer no reasonable explanation why.
> 
> The ads (and atheists) are trying to say stop stressing out trying to follow arbitrary religious rules and live your life to the fullest. I see nothing wrong with this message, whether you believe in a creator or not.


Or another favorite: if God is truly omnipotent, could He create an object so heavy that even He could not lift it?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> When churches advertise, they're trying to convert you to Christianity.
> 
> When atheists advertise, they're trying to convert you to nothing.


Yeah, just like those anti-drug campaigns. How do you feel about those?

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

chas_m said:


> There's nothing wrong with _faith_ -- we all have it in one way or another, even the atheists.


Speak for yourself. Unless you're using a different meaning of the word faith, I have none.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

BikerRob said:


> I'm not against Atheists promoting their "faith", I just wish they were held to the same standard as those of any other faith.


Read that Ottawa Citzen article posted earlier. Atheism is clearly held to completely different standards. 

More ironically, if the claims of any religion were held to the same standards rational people require of any other sorts of stories, no one would believe any of it.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> When I look at the complexity of life and extraordinary balance in nature to maintain life on this planet I think its irrational to think it happened by happy accidents from nothing.


See the other discussion on evolution. If you understand the part about selection, the 'happy accident' part goes away.



> Even Evangelical Atheist Richard Dawkins doesn't rule out intelligent design. He's just determined a god isn't behind it but possibly aliens.


Got a link for that? 'Cause I've never heard of Dawkins giving ID anything but an unequivocal "FAIL" and he's no proponent of panspermia (which, has nothing to do with ID) either.

Cheers


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

bryanc said:


> See the other discussion on evolution. If you understand the part about selection, the 'happy accident' part goes away.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Possibly confusing him with von Daniken?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> See the other discussion on evolution. If you understand the part about selection, the 'happy accident' part goes away.
> Got a link for that? 'Cause I've never heard of Dawkins giving ID anything but an unequivocal "FAIL" and he's no proponent of panspermia (which, has nothing to do with ID) either.
> 
> Cheers


No this is definitely your boy Richard. I wouldn't have believed it myself if I hadn't heard it straight from the horses mouth. 
YouTube - Expelled: Stein's Interview with Dawkins

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> No this is definitely your boy Richard. I wouldn't have believed it myself if I hadn't heard it straight from the horses mouth.
> YouTube - Expelled: Stein's Interview with Dawkins


Listen to what he says... even with Stein's hostile editing, Dawkins clearly says that panspermia is a possibility, and that one might conceivably find evidence for it, not that he believes it or thinks any such evidence exists.

The only support for Intelligent Design as an idea comes from Stein's voice over, which Dawkins, after having seen "Expelled" objected to most strenuously, as he never said anything of the sort.

Of course, if you've been getting your ideas of what people think from Ben Stein, it's no wonder you're confused.

If you want to know what Dawkins actually thinks, why don't you try reading Dawkins' book? He makes a number of very compelling arguments, and I'd like to hear your refutations (as I can't think of any). If you don't want to buy it or borrow it from the library, PM me with your snail-mail address and I'll send you my copy.

Cheers


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Speak for yourself. Unless you're using a different meaning of the word faith, I have none.
> 
> Cheers


Do you have faith in yourself? Your friends? Family? The intrinsic good/evil nature of mankind? Unless my dictionary is mistaken, there is nothing exclusively religious about the word "faith."


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

fjnmusic said:


> Do you have faith in yourself? Your friends? Family? The intrinsic good/evil nature of mankind?


Nope. But I don't have time to be really skeptical about everything, so I accept a lot of basic stuff (the existence of an objective reality, the laws of physics, most of what I know about chemistry, etc.) as 'working models.'

With increasing evidence I gain confidence, but I rarely achieve certainty, and about most things I am without enough evidence to even formulate ideas that could begin to be considered as 'beliefs.'

Even things about which I am very confident, and would therefore describe as my beliefs, I'm open to considering new evidence and changing my beliefs.

I still find it very difficult to imagine what appears to be the 'normal' human condition, in which people form beliefs and become certain of things on the basis of the flimsiest of evidence. 

Cheers


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> Listen to what he says... even with Stein's hostile editing, Dawkins clearly says that panspermia is a possibility, and that one might conceivably find evidence for it, not that he believes it or thinks any such evidence exists.
> 
> The only support for Intelligent Design as an idea comes from Stein's voice over, which Dawkins, after having seen "Expelled" objected to most strenuously, as he never said anything of the sort.
> 
> ...


He basically hypothesized that life could have been designed by a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. He even suggested finding a signature of a designer studying molecular biology. 
He never mentions the word panspermia which you stated earlier he's no proponent of though you say he was describing here. To the best of my knowledge, panspermia does not attribute itself to an intelligent designer which Richard describes in this video.

If his book doesn't agree with this interview I guess we can hypothesize his character was replicated by Industrial Light and Magic and made to say these things or they slipped something in his drink.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Nope. But I don't have time to be really skeptical about everything, so I accept a lot of basic stuff (the existence of an objective reality, the laws of physics, most of what I know about chemistry, etc.) as 'working models.'
> 
> With increasing evidence I gain confidence, but I rarely achieve certainty, and about most things I am without enough evidence to even formulate ideas that could begin to be considered as 'beliefs.'
> 
> ...


Given all that, it follows that neither can you experience love for your son or his mother. After all, love is having faith in your partner or child and nothing more.

Love can no more be proven to exist than your very own "Sky Daddy".

My sympathies.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Well, take the law of gravity that you made reference to, for example. Though Einsteinian physics would probably look at gravity as some kind of bending of the space-time continuum, especially insofar as planetary motion is concerned, Newton's theories work just fine for the rest of us most of the time. There is nothing about "faith" that states that your beliefs can not also change, especially when presented with new evidence. Thus, I have faith that I can tie my own shoes and will probably be able to do so tomorrow as well, unless some physical ailment such as a stroke between now and then precludes that possibility.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

Amazing how exercised people get over something they believe doesn't exist. If I thought God didn't exist, I'd just cross religion off my mental checklist and get on with my life. All the passionate denials I see in threads like this give me the idea that some folks are really not as certain as they like to think, and have to keep repeating their reasons to convince themselves.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I read some books by Neale Donald Walsch a while back. In them he equates God to Life. He uses the terms God and Life interchangeably. Can we prove Life exists? Does it matter whether or not you believe Life exists? Would you still be alive even if you doubted the existence of Life? Does Life require your unwavering devotion to promoting its existence? Or does life survive just fine with or without you? What if "God" and "Life" really turn out to be two ways of saying the same thing? I thought it put a refreshing perspective on the old debate.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Most get past the tooth fairy around grade 2

Too many don't get much beyond it with their fav sky daddy......

Some few that do don't get past the need to proselytize it ..a pox on them all.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

SINC said:


> Given all that, it follows that neither can you experience love for your son or his mother. After all, love is having faith in your partner or child and nothing more.
> 
> Love can no more be proven to exist than your very own "Sky Daddy".
> 
> My sympathies.


You would have a point if your definition of love was correct. If it was, there would be no need for the word love. Luckily for the rest of us, your definition is not even remotely correct.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> He basically hypothesized that life could have been designed by a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. He even suggested finding a signature of a designer studying molecular biology.
> He never mentions the word panspermia which you stated earlier he's no proponent of though you say he was describing here. To the best of my knowledge, panspermia does not attribute itself to an intelligent designer which Richard describes in this video.


You're confusing several things here. Firstly, in the clip you referenced, Dawkins is discussing what the idea of panspermia is, not wether or not he supports it (he doesn't). Secondly, wether life on earth was 'seeded' by intelligent aliens or arose independently, are hypotheses Dawkins argues might be distinguished empirically, but neither of these ideas are what is proposed by "Intelligent Design".



> If his book doesn't agree with this interview I guess we can hypothesize his character was replicated by Industrial Light and Magic and made to say these things or they slipped something in his drink.


A far simpler explanation is that Stein edited his interview with Dawkins so as to make these points as difficult to understand as possible (something which Dawkins publicly accused Stein of shortly after the film was released), and that you didn't listen very carefully to what Dawkins actually says.

I realize that you've probably been told by your church authorities that Dawkins is an Evil Atheist and a dangerous man, but he's really a very gentle, intelligent and reasonable person. If you really want to have a fair idea of what he thinks, you should read what Dawkins has written, not what Stein and other Christian apologists have written about Dawkins.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Given all that, it follows that neither can you experience love for your son or his mother.


I don't need to know the reasons for things I can directly experience to have evidence for their existence. I may not know *why* these things happen (and will therefore not form beliefs about those reasons), but I will know they happen.

And, as for such obvious and immediately accessible things as my own emotions, I have plenty of data upon which to build fairly well-supported ideas about why they happen as well.

No faith required.



> After all, love is having faith in your partner or child and nothing more.


What a peculiar definition of love.



> Love can no more be proven to exist than your very own "Sky Daddy".


You seem to be confused. Who's trying to prove that love exists? I've already got an existence proof of that.

I thought we were talking about gods? And I'm certainly not looking for proofs (although existence proofs are easy, if the thing exists), I'm just asking for some sort of evidence.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

fjnmusic said:


> There is nothing about "faith" that states that your beliefs can not also change, especially when presented with new evidence.


Perhaps you should more clearly define what you mean by faith. I'm taking faith to mean "belief without evidence, or in spite of evidence to the contrary."

When you say that you have faith you can tie your shoes, that obviously isn't a belief you have come to without evidence, so faith doesn't apply. If you believe you can fly (unassisted), that would be a belief held on faith.

One of the things I find most damaging about religion is that it elevates faith to a virtue, when in fact it is one of the most serious mental vices.

The world would be a lot better off without faith.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

fjnmusic said:


> I read some books by Neale Donald Walsch a while back. In them he equates God to Life. He uses the terms God and Life interchangeably.


Well, that's not a very useful contribution to the language.

If I say dragons exist, and then define dragons as staplers, it's pretty easy to prove that dragons exist, but has accomplished nothing but degrading our ability to communicate through language.



> Can we prove Life exists?


Yes. We can observe it, measure it, and characterize the mechanisms that define it.

Can we do that with gods (or spirits, or space-pixies, or ESP, or telekinesis, etc.)? Only if you do something silly like defining them as something that really exists, but which we normally describe as 'personality', 'hallucinations', 'intuition' or 'slight-of-hand.'

Playing such silly semantic games is, in my opinion, counter productive.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Occam is indeed useful....


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Well, that's not a very useful contribution to the language.
> 
> If I say dragons exist, and then define dragons as staplers, it's pretty easy to prove that dragons exist, but has accomplished nothing but degrading our ability to communicate through language.
> 
> ...


Who's playing games? There may be more to this universe than what you can observe, measure, or characterize the mechanisms of or define. I have faith that there is a whole lot more. Einstein, one of my favorite scientists, contended that imagination is more important than knowledge. Imagination requires faith moreso than evidence.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

fjnmusic said:


> There may be more to this universe than what you can observe, measure, or characterize the mechanisms of or define.


This is obviously true. But if we want to make any progress in developing a real understanding, we have to use all of our tools (technological, conceptual, linguistic, and intuitive) as effectively as possible. Being so imprecise with the language blunts one of our most powerful tools.

I have no hope of making a significant contribution to any meaningful problems if I cannot effectively communicate my ideas and observations to others working on aspects of the same or related problems. So I must use my words carefully and correctly to convey information as accurately and efficiently as possible. As well as words, we've developed a lot of other ways to communicate (graphs, photographs, mathematics, algorithms, etc.) but spoken and written language remain among our most important tools, not only for communicating, but also for *thinking* (have you noticed that when you think, you use words in your 'internal dialogue'). So learning to use words well is part of developing one's intelligence.

The misuse of words, particularly by eroding their meaning by equating previously conceptually distinct words like "god" and "life", makes the already challenging task of communicating about such abstract concepts essentially impossible.

If we cannot define a concept or phenomenon, we certainly can't characterize it or develop any meaningful understanding of it.

This, of course, is one of primary reasons (if not the only reason) the 'god' discussion persists in modern philosophy. If people could agree on a definition of 'god' we could probably make a much stronger argument that such a thing does not exist.



> Einstein, one of my favorite scientists, contended that imagination is more important than knowledge. Imagination requires faith...


I'm increasingly certain that you are using this 'faith' word to represent a very different concept than I am. This illustrates my point. If we could agree on what 'faith' means, we probably wouldn't be having this argument. I don't see how imagination requires any faith at all. I can imagine a tea pot orbiting Saturn just fine - I could even draw you a picture of it - without using any faith at all. However, to believe that such a tea pot _exists_ in orbit around Saturn, that would require faith, and I can't do it.

Cheers


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Misuse of language is a tactic used by cults brainwash their members, by politicians convince voters, and is a popular arguing tactic by those who don't really have a valid argument (often cults and politicians  ). It bothers me when those who feel strongly about something feel the need to alter definitions of words to argue their side, when in fact they should be thinking hard about whether or not they actually have a well thought-out argument to make.

You can't have real debate on any subject unless both sides adhere to established definitions of words in the given language. I'm glad bryanc is pointing this out.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

faith |fāθ|
noun
1 complete trust or confidence in someone or something : this restores one's faith in politicians.
2 strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
• a system of religious belief : the Christian faith.
• a strongly held belief or theory : the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe.
PHRASES
break (or keep) faith be disloyal (or loyal) : an attempt to make us break faith with our customers.
ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French feid, from Latin fides.


This is from the dictionary that came with my Mac. It covers the ground, I believe. One meaning of "faith" certainly makes reference to religious belief, but it is not the the only definition or even the first definition. What definition of "faith" are you using, if I am the cultist who twists the language?


----------



## chowmainia (Mar 13, 2008)

this is also a funny definition of faith and rather quite vague. When faith is used in the context of people it simply states that you trust or are confident in someone, but does not comment on whether or not that "faith" is based on any proof. However, when used in the context of God, it automatically assumes that it is a "belief/trust/faith/confidence" without proof.

what do they mean by "spiritual apprehension"? and what do they mean by proof?

it seems there is already an assumption that "spiritual apprehension" does not qualify as proof. But if there is such a thing as spiritual apprehension, then why can't it be used as proof? and if there is not such thing as spiritual apprehension then why even mention it? why not just say "without proof"? 


And if "spiritual apprehension" is some sort of personal experience, then why can that not be used as proof for oneself. As bryanc rightly and insightfully puts it in regards to love: "I don't need to know the reasons for things I can directly experience to have evidence for their existence."


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

*From Dictionary.com:

faith (fāth) Pronunciation Key 
n. 
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs.

and there's much much more…

faith definition | Dictionary.com

 And here's another interesting word, while we're at it, same source:

ex⋅ist   [ig-zist] Show IPA
–verb (used without object)
1.	to have actual being; be: The world exists, whether you like it or not.
2.	to have life or animation; live.
3.	to continue to be or live: Belief in magic still exists.
4.	to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur: Hunger exists in many parts of the world.
5.	to achieve the basic needs of existence, as food and shelter: He's not living, he's merely existing.
Origin: 
1595–1605; < L ex(s)istere to exist, appear, emerge, equiv. to ex- ex- 1 + sistere to stand

And more…

exist definition | Dictionary.com


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I think the subject of "existence" is perhaps even more controversial than the subject of "faith." Existence, while it seems to have an objective meaning, is actually more mysterious, because everything we consider to be objective reality, that is, manifest in the real world, are only accessible to us through our senses, which can never be more than a _subjective_ interpretation of what we perceive to be reality. The "real world" that exists must always be experienced through the filter of our perceptions, whether one is a scientist or a clergyman. Science also recognizes that at the most basic atomic level, our very act of observing changes the nature of that which we observe.

So whether there is probably no God (a rather weak caveat) or whether there is a God and we can never fully understand Her, or whether there is a different God for every culture on the planet, or whether our very existence is just a fluke of Nature (not God), we can still never really experience the universe in a truly objective manner. So defenders of science as the only thing worthy of respect, you may want to consider your point-of-view from up on that high horse.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

This Ad campaign went down in flames in Ottawa since it goes against the policies protecting people against persecution and hate. Now it is time for this garbage to go down in flames elsewhere, since it does infringe on religious freedoms, and dishes out hatred from scum like Dawkins, who associates himself with other various hate mongers and holocaust deniers that the media seems to love to lionize...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

fjnmusic said:


> I think the subject of "existence" is perhaps even more controversial than the subject of "faith."


I suggest you take a second and/or third year course in epistemology. This was one of my favorite subjects as an undergrad, and the topic of conceptual relativism (which is what you are grappling with) was well-and-truly beaten to death. It's a fun idea to play with but it has no philosophical 'legs.' It's a dead end. We can't prove that an objective reality exists, but there's no point in arguing about it because if it doesn't, then there is no frame of reference and everyone is 'right'.

Cheers.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> This Ad campaign went down in flames in Ottawa since it goes against the policies protecting people against persecution and hate.


How does saying "There's probably no god. So get on with your life" persecute anyone or promote hate?!? This is an ad that basically says "have a nice day (paid for by your friendly neighborhood atheist)"


> since it does infringe on religious freedoms, and dishes out hatred from scum like Dawkins


I always thought many Christians had a serious persicution complex, but this is _ridiculous_.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> since it does infringe on religious freedoms, and dishes out hatred from *scum like Dawkins*


the irony, the irony....... quite the insight into the religious cellar.....


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I suggest you take a second and/or third year course in epistemology. This was one of my favorite subjects as an undergrad, and the topic of conceptual relativism (which is what you are grappling with) was well-and-truly beaten to death. It's a fun idea to play with but it has no philosophical 'legs.' It's a dead end. We can't prove that an objective reality exists, but there's no point in arguing about it because if it doesn't, then there is no frame of reference and everyone is 'right'.
> 
> Cheers.


Exactly. Glad we can agree on this.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> How does saying "There's probably no god. So get on with your life" persecute anyone or promote hate?!? This is an ad that basically says "have a nice day (paid for by your friendly neighborhood atheist)"


I gotta side with Bryan that I don't find the ad offensive. Not to say I've never heard anything offensive, hateful and bigoted from the mouth of an atheist but this is not the case with this ad. I certainly don't agree with this sales pitch for atheism but I don't feel attacked or violated by it. And in a country with freedom of speech I have to say I think they have every right to express this opinion but I also say an advertiser has every right to pick and choose the clients they're comfortable with. 
In fact from a Christian perspective I can actually see some good come of them. It promotes discussion and thought about God within self professed theists that may be giving more attention to American Idol or Brad and Angelina. I think they're are hundreds of thousands of atheists in theists clothing these days. They just don't want to hurt Grandma's feelings and they profess a faith but live like they have none.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment: what if the ad had read "Santa Claus" instead of "God"? I'm guessing the response from most western parents would be something like "thanks alot, arsehole," because it ruins the relatively harmless myth that we tell children in this society. It's like someone spoiling the end of a good story or movie for you. Sure, they may be right, but that doesn't mean they had to wreck it for everyone else. If believing in a magical sock puppet or a flying spaghetti monster or flying motor-car helps you get through life, then who am I to tell you you're wrong? Personally, I choose the Force.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

fjnmusic said:


> Just to play devil's advocate for a moment: what if the ad had read "Santa Claus" instead of "God"? I'm guessing the response from most western parents would be something like "thanks alot, arsehole,"


:lmao::lmao:
Laughed out loud on that one. 

That would actually be a bit more clever of an ad...

*Spoiler alert*
There probably is no god... No enjoy your life



I'm sure God is waiting with baited breath right now to find out if he exists or not.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

ehMax said:


> :lmao::lmao:
> Laughed out loud on that one.
> 
> That would actually be a bit more clever of an ad...
> ...


There was a funny editorial cartoon in the Ottawa paper over this whole ordeal. It showed a bus driving down the road with the sign saying "There probably is no God, so stop worrying and enjoy life!"

The next frame says its a year later and a bus sign reads "We were only joking, now can we have our jobs back?"

Thought it was pretty clever.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

The ads went on buses in Calgary this morning. Godless gangs of goons have been rampaging 17th Street as Godfearing groups of believers have rallied to make a final stand between good and evil. If Calgary and Toronto go, then this will spread from west to east. Only St.John's will be left to defend the faith. "Death before Dishonor" banners have been going outside of many homes here in St.John's ............... just in case. Paix, mes amis. Keep the faith.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

bryanc said:


> How does saying "There's probably no god. So get on with your life" persecute anyone or promote hate?!? This is an ad that basically says "have a nice day (paid for by your friendly neighborhood atheist)"


It is pretty simple - it attacks God and those who follow the teachings of God - and thus, by all measures, is a hate message that is prohibited by existing anti-hate legislation. It is especially inappropriate to put these sick messages on those services that are owned by the public trust, and I applaud those places where they decided to do the right thing, rather than just being greedy and scoring some quick cash by promoting hatred.



> I always thought many Christians had a serious persicution complex, but this is _ridiculous_.


I have no idea what "persicution" is.

This "message" simply goes against the precepts of our own society. Sure, maybe people think it is a harmless message, and downplay it - but it is a dangerous slope of hatred. For instance, if we allow "atheists" to place such messages into the public realm, then it must be a free for all. We could have all kinds of gross messages that would be unfettered, like "There was probably no Holocaust. Go pick some flowers".

I think it is a case of common sense, that we hold certain liberties as core values, including the freedom of religion; but there has to be bounds. We do not allow Muslims to tax non-Muslims, even though it is part of their religion. We do not allow Catholics to burn non-believers for being Satan worshippers, and so on.

This is the same deal, a hate message being peddled by some British nut jobs - that has no point other than to promote their views of hatred against others. It is in bad taste, especially to post such garbage on public transit, which is owned by the very people this "message" attacks.

It is a simple issue, and that is whether as a society: we condone unfettered freedoms of speech even if those freedoms attack all other people and we allow any message because of this freedom; or we continue on the course of allowing religious freedoms for all by having a codex of anti-hate legislation to guarantee that freedom.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> It is pretty simple - it attacks God and those who follow the teachings of God - and thus, by all measures, is a hate message


How does stating that something probably does not exist, promote hate against people who believe it exists? Does arguing that the FSM does not exist in someway promote hatred of Pastafarians? When I contend that magic is not real, does that show hatred of Wiccans?

Personally, I think the ads on the busses are a waste of time... anyone who needs a bus ad to get them to recognize something so obviously true is probably beyond help, but I can't understand people finding them offensive.




> I have no idea what "persicution" is.


You're right, it's supposed to be "persecution"... I wonder why the spell-checker didn't catch that?



> "There was probably no Holocaust. Go pick some flowers".


Nice job illustrating Godwin's Law. Unlike gods, there is plenty of objective evidence for the holocaust, and unlike gods, historical events like the rise of Naziism and religiously-justified extremism remain serious threats to civilization.



> no point other than to promote their views of hatred against others.


See 'persecution complex' above. Seriously, dude, you need to calm down.

Cheers


----------



## ScanMan (Sep 11, 2007)

Gerbill said:


> If I thought God didn't exist, I'd just cross religion off my mental checklist and get on with my life.


Got the T-shirt.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*It had to happen department . . .*

*Leave God a message at his Dutch answering service* 



> AMSTERDAM (Reuters Life!) – God is taking calls.
> 
> Dutch artist Johan van der Dong has set up a local telephone number in the Netherlands, where he urges people to leave messages for God on his answering machine.
> 
> ...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Top court strikes down ad ban on B.C. buses - Nova Scotia News - TheChronicleHerald.ca


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
It just goes to show that the Supreme Court is entirely incompetent, and makes rulings based on some special interest payola, rather than on fundamental human rights and freedoms that are purportedly contained within our Constitution.

It's time for transit services to pull all advertising, and let the Government pay for the shortfall - until such a time that the Government sees fit to return those fundamental rights and freedoms of religion and conscience that we are supposed to have.

But then - none of this surprises me. I'd be more surprised if the Supreme Court actually made a ruling in favour of rights, freedoms or the Constitution - like in overturning all profane acts of Jim Crow in this country...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

bryanc said:


> How does stating that something probably does not exist, promote hate against people who believe it exists?


It all comes down to our corpus of hate legislation. These people are "speading their message" of hatred and intolerance, and with the ruling of the Supreme Court, I would expect that it would entirely be legal for the KKK to have their ads on public buses, you know, showing glorious hooded knights defending their fiery cross from the ******.

This promotes hatred because it attacks those who have come to this country because we purportedly allow for freedom of faith and religion, whether people are Christian or Muslim or Jewish or Hindu or whatever. If they want to advertise "hey, we don't believe in anything, come join us for a good time", that would be different, but these despicable ads attack people of all faiths, by putting people down for having faith in the first place.

It also attacks the rights of companies to have fair policies of their own, and for free enterprise to decide whether they want to score money for such things or not based on those policies. They are shoving this stuff down people's throats, just like the Government, supported by the Supreme Court, decided years ago that it was perfectly fine to shove French down our throats, while imposing laws that prohibit free born citizens from the civil service because of Jim Crow legislation.

It's time for the Government and the Courts to get out of such shenanigans, and to stick to the current anti-hate legislation, rather than to make a heap of exceptions that allow for Atheists to have free reign at attacking people of faith, but to prohibit Zundel from making his stupid prognostications. So much for "Charter Rights"...



> When I contend that magic is not real, does that show hatred of Wiccans?


We are not talking about personal beleifs or opinions - we are talking about attacking people of faith. Should it be righteous for you, who does not beleive in magick, to take out massive public advertisements that put down those that do, in disparaging and degrading ways? I am not fan of Wicca, but I accept that it is their rights and freedoms to practice their faith, so long as they are not breaking the law or something; just as I accept that I am free to practice my own faith without having a branch of Government dedicated to the Inquisition.



> but I can't understand people finding them offensive.


I find it as offensive as skinheads painting swastikas on synagogues, or people blowing up Hindu temples, or discriminating against Sikhs because they wear a turban, just as I would find it offensive to let Muslim zealots to take out ads celebrating the destruction of the WTC as a paramount act of jihad.

Of Atheists want to have a message that asks for people to consider their (lack of) faith, that is one thing - but to attack all of those who hold faith and have beliefs, and who came to this nation out of a need to escape religious oppression and genocide - this ruling is a disgrace.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

When I was younger there was a sort of rule which stated you didn't discuss: Politics [ gone due to too much campaign money ], sex [ certainly gone with beer ads ] and religion. " Oh My deity, omnipotent being of my choosing, whom ever she may be....what the final resting place, ultimate reward, nearer my belief occupier to thee is going on here....can't we just have some fun and get along!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Never heard tell of the "sex' part of the saying, but it was common in the 50s for people to say, "never talk politics or religion when drinking".


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

EvanPitts said:


> It all comes down to our corpus of hate legislation. These people are "speading their message" of hatred and intolerance, and with the ruling of the Supreme Court, I would expect that it would entirely be legal for the KKK to have their ads on public buses, you know, showing glorious hooded knights defending their fiery cross from the ******.
> 
> This promotes hatred because it attacks those who have come to this country because we purportedly allow for freedom of faith and religion, whether people are Christian or Muslim or Jewish or Hindu or whatever. If they want to advertise "hey, we don't believe in anything, come join us for a good time", that would be different, but these despicable ads attack people of all faiths, by putting people down for having faith in the first place.
> 
> ...


Whew, Evan, take a chill pill. They're only saying "probably."


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I think it's a gross stretch to read that slogan as being hateful and persecuting religious types. The thing of it is, if you're comfortable in your own skin and confident of your faith and its enduring strength, are you actually going to let a simple slogan on a bus or streetcar derail your faith or even merely ruin your day? I don't think so. If your faith is that fragile then you have a host of other, infinitely larger problems to deal with.

Look forward to seeing the ads here and hearing about the range of reactions it's bound to elicit.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Max: Amen to that!


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

The day I start taking advertising as truthful and to be unquestioningly believed is probably (hopefully) not gonna happen in my lifetime. 

I roll my eyes at the FREE PREGNANCY HELP Centers commonly advertised on public transit....obviously promoting a pro-life/anti-abortion agenda...


----------



## shredder (Mar 15, 2009)

all religions advertise and promote their faith , some even come to your door and ask you to join their sect. so why can't atheists advertise what they feel.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

shredder said:


> all religions advertise and promote their faith , some even come to your door and ask you to join their sect. so why can't atheists advertise what they feel.


Here's the crux of it: what if the atheists are right? Best not think about it. Religions need a good memory wipe device like they had in Men in Black. It's really hard to put the genie back in the bottle.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

I'm going to break a rule here....talk about religion. First, not all of the ills in the world are caused by someone's faith. Really religion is like a societal police force....one that about 95% of the people follow. In that sense it is a good thing. The bad thing is when one doesn't respect another's religious beliefs. The trouble is, is that everyone thinks that G_d is on their side and that they are the champion for the right. Don't know how to reconcile this, but we've had to live with it for centuries. Personally, I've always felt that one's beliefs are personal...if everyone kept their religious beliefs to themselves we would all be better off.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Personally, I've always felt that one's beliefs are personal...if everyone kept their religious beliefs to themselves we would all be better off." Amen, brother rps. Amen.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I am much more offended by a blaring loud idiot hawking crap for the Brick or Best Buy or Leon's than I ever am by a religious message on a bus, or anywhere else for that matter.

The former think I'm stupid and an easy mark and the latter are poor misguided souls, but I respect their right to be misguided.

The ads? I write the CRTC about _them_.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> Whew, Evan, take a chill pill. They're only saying "probably."


If so, then we must allow Ernst Zundel to say "There probably was no Holocaust", and it must be allowed everywhere because private enterprise is no longer allowed to decide what is and isn't acceptable for them to advertise.

This is just turning public transit systems into vehicles of further politicization; while the courts poop once again on our Constitution, our Charter of Rights, and our rights to religious belief and freedom from systemeic hatred and persecution.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

shredder said:


> all religions advertise and promote their faith , some even come to your door and ask you to join their sect. so why can't atheists advertise what they feel.


It isn't that the atheists are not allowed to advertise - it is that their message entirely attacks everyone else that has faith, or had religious beliefs. Their "message" goes against the whole body and reason of our anti-hate legislation.

Beyond that - it introduces big brotherism, where free and private enterprises are stripped of their right to follow their own existing policies, policies that comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in order to foster futher politicization, and to provide a safe haven for various organizations in which they have carte blanche to attack and degrade those who do not share in their peculiar beliefs. It is hypocritical on one hand to have a corpus of laws that take away the rights of expression of belief from white supremacists or neo-Nazis or those that support Al Qaida or other terrorist groups - but then to force free enterprise to show those same expressions that attack other people for their beliefs because we make exceptions for vast sections of hate mongers and the intolerant.

With this "precident", how can we justify discriminating against those that discriminate? How can we, even though they may have cash, keep some supremacist group from purchasing the rights to advertise on, say, a TTC route, complete with ads showing the various glorious achievements of the white race, bucolic scenes of plantations with happy black people out picking cotton, or the nice sea cruise they got with their free passage to America, or the great achievements of eugenics or racial purity...

All of it is bunk. Our courts have saw fit to overturn laws - laws that are entirely based on our most fundamental rights and freedoms, laws that are meant to protect the vulnerable, laws that are meant to end systemic hatred and discrimination, laws that are to make all men free and equal, and to protect their rights to thought, freedom of conscience and religious belief. We have also overturned the right of free enterprise to engage in those lawful acts, using policies that are fully complaint with those Charter rights and freedoms, and force them to overturn those policies, policies that were designed to protect them against various acts of hatred and politicization.

But then again, we have the court in BC that just this week stated that it is entirely fine to engage in discrimination based on gender, because our Charter of Rights and Freedoms can not protect the freeborn citizen of this nation from gender discrimination. Just as it is ok to discriminate against women because they are women, it is just as OK to discriminate against those who hold religious beliefs because the Charter obviously can not be used to guarantee our Rights and Freedoms that we do not actually have. It is nothing more than a useless scrap of paper that says many things high and mighty, but when it comes down to it, it's fine to attack others because it is our right to attack others, just as it is our right to have some nutcases overturn the policies of free enterprise because even though those policies are in place to protect people and are entirely compliant with the law and the Charter, it is the right of the nutcases to attack whoever they please with their hateful and spitefilled message because it is their right to attack the citizens of this nation.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

EvanPitts said:


> If so, then we must allow Ernst Zundel to say "There probably was no Holocaust", and it must be allowed everywhere because private enterprise is no longer allowed to decide what is and isn't acceptable for them to advertise.


Evan, are you deliberately misrepresenting the issue? The holocaust is not an issue of *faith* - it's an historical fact. To deny it, with the intent to promote hatred against the jewish people, is not at all equivalent to atheists who wish to communicate their beliefs.

Surprisingly dogmatic, there, amigo.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> Evan, are you deliberately misrepresenting the issue? The holocaust is not an issue of *faith* - it's an historical fact. To deny it, with the intent to promote hatred against the jewish people, is not at all equivalent to atheists who wish to communicate their beliefs.
> 
> Surprisingly dogmatic, there, amigo.


An excellent point, Mark.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Thank God those ads are coming to the TTC!

oh wait ...


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

*Let's Chill here!*

Evan, we do sort of meander a bit. I know you are passionate about these subjects and you do have a right to your opinion. But sometimes we need to step back a bit and look at the situation in a holistic manner.

Zundel actually believed what he was saying...which is not exactly in the legal definition of hate. He is wrong!, but he still believed he was right....sort of a world is flat concept. By being so against the TTC ads, aren't you actually becoming a member of the groups you so rightly are suspicious of?


----------

