1. avatar Orzo
    Anyone seen [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/18/atheist-bus-campaign]these posters[/url] up in Belfast?
    [img:7d43e0a15d]http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/11/17/1258478056803/ariane-sherine-001.jpg[/img:7d43e0a15d]

    Should incite....dialogue.
  2. avatar fastfude
    What, no Tarvu Child? Discrimination! It's SO easy to join!

    <object width="400" height="222"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="movie" value="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1911088&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1" /><embed src="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1911088&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="400" height="222"></embed></object><p><a href="http://vimeo.com/1911088">Say Hebbo!</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/user811107">Torvakian</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>
  3. avatar Chi-Lite
    Personally I think children should be thrown into the jungle before they develop speech comprehension. It's the only way they'll [i:b767317b89]really[/i:b767317b89] be able to find, like, the [i:b767317b89]real[/i:b767317b89] me, you know man...or the real them, even.
  4. avatar Deadlights
    Force religion upon them!

    I got dragged to church every Sunday when i was a kid, why shoudlnt they!

    Im not bitter, I swear :P
  5. avatar RaveDisco
    Nice poster. Probably preaching to the converted though.
  6. avatar The Ronster
    Nicely avoiding criticism by putting ATHEIST CHILD right at the centre of the thing.

    I like it.
  7. avatar clss_act_00
    I don't understand who wants to pay for this kind of thing..

    With religious advertising there is a part of the religion (in most cases) that encourages the promotion of these beliefs, spreading the news, etc. If Atheism is the absence of belief in deities (from wikipedia) then there isn't naturally a part of believing in this that would encourages the promotion of these beliefs, except for the common instinct (among most people in general) to want to show people that what you think is right. But to pay out for a big advertising campaign...?

    To be fair I come from a christian perspective (I'll take any abuse required in private message please) so maybe my view point keeps me from seeing some points as clearly, but surely being atheist would cast a sense of not really caring what other people think/believe? And therefore less desire to promote what they think?

    In saying all this, I would totally agree on letting kids decide for themselves, to have any real faith in anything being it seems vital. Tho this advertisement is for a belief system... so therefore attempting to influence peoples decisions... hence discouraging people from deciding for themselves..

    Either way, no doubt some local political leaders will throw the dummy out, always entertaining
  8. avatar Recycled Alien
    Most atheists probably believe that we'd all be better off if there was no religion, hence attempts to convince others. Utterly futile though.
  9. avatar thesacredhearts
    [quote:8867ebda6e]To be fair I come from a christian perspective (I'll take any abuse required in private message please) so maybe my view point keeps me from seeing some points as clearly, but surely being atheist would cast a sense of not really caring what other people think/believe? And therefore less desire to promote what they think?[/quote:8867ebda6e]

    nah i thinking you're mixing up the lack of belief in a deity, with apathy.
  10. avatar thesacredhearts
    double post
  11. avatar Orzo
    I think what Atheists want ultimately is a secular society free from religious indoctrination and interference. That's not too much to ask for really.
  12. avatar thesacredhearts
    agree with above.

    imo this ad doesnt advocate or 'preach' atheist ideals, but promotes a secular society, and in particular i would assume that this advert has implications for education, particularly with the number of faith schools in the UK.
  13. avatar Pavel
    [quote:dadcfa3601="clss_act_00"]To be fair I come from a christian perspective (I'll take any abuse required in private message please) so maybe my view point keeps me from seeing some points as clearly, [b:dadcfa3601]but surely being atheist would cast a sense of not really caring what other people think/believe?[/b:dadcfa3601] And therefore less desire to promote what they think?[/quote:dadcfa3601]

    At the expense of moving down a rocky road of aggressive conversation (because statements like this from persons of religious faith in general piss me off greatly)...where the hell do you get this idea from?

    Please explain yourself.

    Atheists have nothing intolerance wise that compares with the shite that religious zealots have flung at anyone not adhering to their beliefs since the concept of a higher power was created.

    ...in fact, if anything, we've got a great deal of catching up to do.
  14. avatar Chi-Lite
    Of course this is all just the usual wild allegations of "indoctrination" with absolutely no comprehension of its distinction from "influence" and "education".

    What do you mean "indoctrination"? Teaching kids things?

    Re the above; I think the point is not that atheists have no reason to care what other people think, but that their own world-view carries a lot of presuppositions about the nature of "evidence", "knowledge" and "belief", and, as such, messages like the one in this poster are actually subtly conveying a message to an unsuspecting audience - indoctrinating, if you will. which sort of runs contrary to the stated aim of the poster itself.

    I.E how is showing a child this poster any more or less "indoctrination" than reading a child the Bible?
    Last edited on , 4 times in total.
  15. avatar Fighting For Salem
    I think what yer man was trying to say is this..

    As a Christian you believe in the concept of an after life. The failure to accept Christ as God and as savior ultimately leading a man or women to an eternity in Hell. Obviously when you believe this you have a strong to desire to evangelize and hopefully help others avoid such a fate.

    I think the man was saying that if you dont believe in a God or a heaven/hell scenario then why would you feel a strong need to spread your message? In this case everyone is okay regardless of belief. If I were an atheist I would care less what other people believed in. That's just me though.
  16. avatar salfhal
    As a (training) Primary School Teacher, I see quite clearly the merit of this poster. Only 5% of all pupils in Northern Ireland attend a DENI Supported Integrated Primary School, this means that the further 95% attend schools with religion central to their curriculum. This religious area of the core subjects is controlled by the respective church (Catholic Church in Maintained Schools, and alternated between local Protestant churches in Controlled Schools).

    The comment above asks about when is education indoctrination... In my opinion education becomes indoctrination when you begin to teach children that a certain belief is right and another is wrong, especially when you don't provide information of viable alternatives. The fact that there is a debate about inclusion at the minute in terms of Special Educational Needs and the aim of some to remove SEN schools altogether actually makes me laugh, SEN schools are necessary in our system, yet we forget about inclusion at the very basic level.

    There are some that believe that the split in school type is actually in breach of the International Declaration of Human Rights, as it states that children have the right to mix with eachother regardless of their denomination/cast/creed etc.

    I am forced to teach RE when in schools unfortunately, I personally would rather remove religion from schools altogether. However, when I do take a lesson on RE I present any bible passage as a "story" not as truth, and any story that i'm required to teach, I also teach similar stories from other religions... It's funny how many different religions have the exact same content with some names and places changed.

    I hope to see more of these posters about. I also liked the one that said something along the lines of "God probably isn't real, now calm down".

    (PS I have a personal spiritual belief, however hate organised religion, before y'all bible bash me)
  17. avatar my-angel-rocks
    so what they're saying is "don't teach me stuff?"
    to be honest if i hadn't squinted to read the small print I thought it was about gender issues.
  18. avatar Recycled Alien
    [quote:458d12b8eb="Chi-Lite"]What do you mean "indoctrination"? Teaching kids things?[/quote:458d12b8eb]
    From my observation that the vast majority of people with religious beliefs follow the religion that they were taught as children, I deduce that religion is indeed a matter of "indoctrination". If it was due to "education", surely you'd get much more varied results.

    That is, if you explained a range of religious beliefs to children, it is improbable that 99.9% of them would adopt the same one that their parents and grandparents followed.

    It's my guess that our natural "bullshit detectors" don't develop until after a certain age, so it's usually possible to get children to accept quite unlikely things as true if you catch them early enough and present the teaching in a way that will not be subject to any incipient critical thinking. St Ignatius Loyola thought that too.
  19. avatar leeroy77
    [quote:10ac396a3e="Deadlights"]Force religion upon them!

    I got dragged to church every Sunday when i was a kid, why shoudlnt they!

    Im not bitter, I swear :P[/quote:10ac396a3e]

    Baptised in lemon juice!!!:evil:
  20. avatar daveshorty
    poster's class.
    what organisation would it be that's putting them up in belfast though?
  21. avatar Persistence
    [quote:50aae256ac="daveshorty"]poster's class.
    what organisation would it be that's putting them up in belfast though?[/quote:50aae256ac]

    I think this campaign's organised by the British Humanist Association.
  22. avatar my-angel-rocks
    [quote:ece8440cc1="Recycled Alien"]From my observation that the vast majority of people with religious beliefs follow the religion that they were taught as children, I deduce that religion is indeed a matter of "indoctrination".[/quote:ece8440cc1]

    But surely if it was indoctination you'd also get more people still following it when they grow up?

    I still don't get what this poster is trying to say though.
    Should staunchly vegetarian parents who believe meat is murder cook meat meals for their children so as not to "label" them?
    Parents instil the values they (umm) value into their children, you can't tell them not to, just because you disagree with those values.

    We shouldn't teach children not to kill people, because we don't want to label them, and they need to make up their own minds about it when they are older.
  23. avatar Chi-Lite
    That's just what I was going to say earlier, only then I couldn't be annoyed.

    It strikes me that this whole campaign is because the humanists haven't yet been able to prove that religion is "bad", so now they're working on making it seem like coercion.

    And why? Because our schools teach us things about religion? Because parents take their kids to mass?

    Lot of oul ballix. As you rightly say, parents do instil their values in their children. That's what parenthood is all about. The children then grown up to make up their own minds about everything they're parents have taught them. I don't see how religion is any different, unless you're claiming it some some supernatural hypnotic effect.

    Lot of oul ballix.
  24. avatar savoy truffle
    There is another reason besides the obvious why these posters are a good idea.

    I've seen a lot of Christian advertising in and on buses recently, but many people in Northern Ireland wouldn't perceive that as advertising because religion has been such a large feature of our society. Having Christian advertising in big print on buses gives peoples' beliefs an inherent validation. But this poster and others like it may remind said people that anybody can put up a poster if they have the money to do so.

    And in relation to use of the word 'indoctrination', there is no other word for forcing your beliefs onto a child before they have the tools to make up their own mind.
  25. avatar Chi-Lite
    I'm not sure where to start on that one.

    [quote:b62ae0e64f="savoy truffle"]
    I've seen a lot of Christian advertising in and on buses recently, but many people in Northern Ireland wouldn't perceive that as advertising[/quote:b62ae0e64f]

    A big feck aff poster on a bus? What do people think it is then?

    [quote:b62ae0e64f]Having Christian advertising in big print on buses gives peoples' beliefs an inherent validation.[/quote:b62ae0e64f]

    You what? Writing something in big leters on a bus gives "validation" to beliefs? Ye wha? You'l have to explain that one.

    [quote:b62ae0e64f]But this poster and others like it may remind said people that anybody can put up a poster if they have the money to do so.[/quote:b62ae0e64f]

    Thanks for reminding me. Before you told me that, I thought Translink were devout worshippers of Coca Cola and "The Co-Ownership Association".

    [quote:b62ae0e64f]And in relation to use of the word 'indoctrination', there is no other word for forcing your beliefs onto a child before they have the tools to make up their own mind.[/quote:b62ae0e64f]

    Right, so parents telling their children that stealing is wrong is "indoctrination" is it? I mean, they don't have the tools to understand concepts like "property", "commodity" or "labour alienation". We could be denying that child the right to become a marxist!

    Should we send our children into isolation in case someone tells them that murder and rape are wrong? That would be indoctrination, surely, forcing them poor kids to live by our beliefs before they can make their own minds up..

    What a lot of shi'ite.

    If it's a fact that some children inherit the blinkered and close-minded views of their parents, that's true right across the board. No parent brings up a child without instilling some of their own values in that child. If they're good parents, the child will grow up with a questioning attitude. If they're not, the child may grow up a wee muppett.

    Either way, it has no relevance to whether religious influence is good or bad. The point this poster sems to be making is that, because it's an influence on kids, it must be bad. That somehow kids should be able to grow up free from ALL influence in some kind of free-floating isolation, so that they can go into adulthood with a completely blank mind.

    What a lot of oul balls, no harm.
  26. avatar savoy truffle
    You don't seem to understand what [i:b3134af603]indoctrination[/i:b3134af603] means. Look it up.

    If you read my post in relation to the bus advertising, I said 'many people' not 'all people'.
  27. avatar InnerCitiesClaud
    EDIT.. delete
  28. avatar Recycled Alien
    You appear to be arguing that teaching children that killing and stealing are a bad idea is the same as teaching them that there's a big man in the sky with a beard who will get cross you don't sing to him.

    Or to put it another way, there's a difference between values and fairy stories.
  29. avatar feline1
    Clearly those posters could be used by paedophiles to, um, ...
  30. avatar my-angel-rocks
    [quote:810c4e373b="Recycled Alien"]Or to put it another way, there's a difference between values and fairy stories.[/quote:810c4e373b]

    Ok, lets leave religion out of it. As a vegetarian would you give your child a meal with meat in it? Thats a value or belief, and one that you directly (or indirectly) impart on your child, thereby labeling the child as "a vegetarian". Everyone has values and beliefs, and by the nature of parenthood and life those values and beliefs get passed onto the children.

    Or, lets bring religion back into it, and say that Marty decides to go to church on Sundays, but leaves his (hypothetical) kid round at Uncle Stephen's house not wanting to label his (hypothetical) kiddie. One day, while you're teaching the kid to play bass (or is that labeling the child "a bassist"?) the kid says "why does daddy go to church?". Do you say "Sorry, can't tell you, you've got to find out for yourself and make up your own mind", or do you say "thats cos daddy is a moron and believes in fairy stories"?

    Essentially all this ad is trying to say is "religion is bad mmmkay?" but wrap it up in some sophistry so the converted can look at it and say "oh, aren't we so clever", but really the argument put forward is just bollocks.

    When is a child able to make up their own mind? Do we need an age of consent for this?

    Still, all that being said, it doesn't annoy me as much as the fucking awful "there is a god? [] yes, [] no, [] probably" ones.
  31. avatar savoy truffle
    If you read the words on the fucking ad, it is about [b:2ae11f8f35]religion[/b:2ae11f8f35] and [b:2ae11f8f35]politics[/b:2ae11f8f35]. Not vegetarianism. Or stealing. Or riding a bike.

    It is saying that children are not old enough to decide their own political and religious views. Who could have a problem with that?
  32. avatar my-angel-rocks
    [quote:70435b844b="savoy truffle"]If you read the words on the fucking ad, it is about [b:70435b844b]religion[/b:70435b844b] and [b:70435b844b]politics[/b:70435b844b]. Not vegetarianism. Or stealing. Or riding a bike.

    It is saying that children are not old enough to decide their own political and religious views. Who could have a problem with that?[/quote:70435b844b]

    But children aren't old enough to decide any real views on anything much. This is the thing. If the ad is only about religion and politics it is saying "don't force views we don't think are acceptable on children, but forcing views we do like/don't care about is ok"

    There's no middle ground possible here, its really an all or nothing issue, and the nothing side is ridiculous. [b:70435b844b]You[/b:70435b844b] can't decide what views are or are not acceptable for someone else to impart to their child. You may disagree with some of those views, but you have no place to say that someone cannot feed a child only vegetables, or take them to a church or tell them that catholics are bad.

    Actually, the more I think about this ad from every possible interpretation the more it gets stupider. Sorry BHS, "C-, Must try harder".
  33. avatar Chi-Lite
    Spot on.

    And, of course, religions aren't fairytales but comprehensive metaphysical accounts of existence.


    Of course kids can't fully understand questions about "the being of being", but neither can they understand materialist dialectic. Stil, we tell them in simplisitic ways about a poor boy stealing a loaf of bread, or about the history of the peole of Israel.

    As Iain rightly points out, all you are saying is that you can somehow determine which indoctrination is bad and which is good.

    Full of shi'ite.
  34. avatar Recycled Alien
    [quote:764ff027b0="Chi-Lite"]As Iain rightly points out, all you are saying is that you can somehow determine which indoctrination is bad and which is good.

    Full of shi'ite.[/quote:764ff027b0]No, actually, you can. There is good and evil. The argument that all points of view are equally valid is just wrong.
  35. avatar Chi-Lite
    Exactly!

    My dispute was with the claim that YOU can determine that - i.e., humanists. I think some "indoctrination" is good and some is bad. But, funny enough, it's probably the opposite of what the humanists' think. So if the humanists are claiming that THEIR indoctrination is good but religious indoctrination is bad, I say they're full of balls, and they'll need to do more to make the case.

    Instead, however, this poster conveniently AVOIDS the issue of SHOWING that religion is WRONG - so instead it wraps it up in some bullshit about "labelling" - as if children are COERCED to believe something.

    Whereas in fact you're right. All values are not equally valid. And, as that's the case, it would be ridiculous for parents to simply allow their children to float in some kind of non-judgmental isolation where every view is as valid as every other.

    The problem with this poster is that, because they've already failed to show that religion is bad, they're now reduced to claiming that it's unfair to label a child with one view over another. Thereby implicitly asserting that all views are equally valid, or at least that they should be to children.

    I mean, if we agree that all views aren't equally valid, surely they'd want to make the point that humanism IS the valid one? But, as they're unable to make that point, they're instead implying that it's unfair to claim that one view has validity. Which is a lot of balls.
    Last edited on , 1 times in total.
  36. avatar Recycled Alien
    Of course, I include religion under "evil".

    Because it teaches people to let somebody else do their thinking for them, and because it damages rational thinking beyond redemption.

    I don't know why I'm bothering to argue. The religious have their rational thinking damaged beyond redemption. I think I'll stop now.
  37. avatar Chi-Lite
    [quote:2bbf98f163="Recycled Alien"]Of course, I include religion under "evil".

    Because it teaches people to let somebody else do their thinking for them,[/quote:2bbf98f163]

    Nonsense. do you say that about the primary school curriculum too? You'll have to actually argue that that's the case, rather than just say it.

    Funny enough, I was always taught to do my own thinking.

    [quote:2bbf98f163]because it damages rational thinking beyond redemption.[/quote:2bbf98f163]

    How? By attempting to frame an overarching conception of existence?



    [quote:2bbf98f163]I don't know why I'm bothering to argue. The religious have their rational thinking damaged beyond redemption. I think I'll stop now.[/quote:2bbf98f163]
    Actually, if you were at all rational, you'd be able to better argue your case, rather than just [i:2bbf98f163]saying[/i:2bbf98f163] things.

    In all of my time arguing about these things, atheists ALMOST UNIVERSALLY have to extend their arguments to claim that, ultimately, the universe has no rational foundation. In which context all of your talk about "rational thinking" is so much smoke and mirrors.

    And I'm ALWAYS suspicious of somebody who ends an argument with "I don't know why I'm bothering, sure you're not rational anyway". There's nothing more irrational.

    SHOW ME, in a rational way, [i:2bbf98f163]how[/i:2bbf98f163] I'm not rational.

    Surely these posters, with their implict message that religion is bad wrapped up in some guff about "labelling" and "freedom", without actually attempting to make any kind of argument, is a type of indoctrination? Or at least sub-conscious suggestiveness.
  38. avatar Bones
    Marty come on! Your well read enough to know there are many RATIONAL, coherent and conclusive writings arguing the irrationality of religion. I for one couldn't be arsed discussing these writings or getting involved in a lengthy argument on a local music forum just because your bored or watever and absoulutely love to be the most contrary person on the planet. You've clearly got too much time on your hands. Take the argument to one of the appropriate forums(of which there are many) before we end up with 278728728page thread of a argument that can't really be won.(well...)
    I do think these posters are crap. I see what they're getting at but they're very badly designed. Its a pointless campaign, you will never discourgage people from forcing(however subtly) their religious beliefs on children at home or in schools with a poster campaign. What is good about any poster campaign by the BHS or other humanist/atheist groups is that it lets atheists know that they're not alone and may help towards encouraging a few to come out of the closet(so to speak).
  39. avatar Deadlights
    fastfude.org... Why bicker elsewhere?

    Advertising campaign if I've ever seen one!
  40. avatar Chi-Lite
    Ach come on Kev! If you don't want to argue about it then don't express an opinion on it.

    It's no good saying; "you're wrong, but I couldn't be bothered telling you why".

    In that case the "you're wrong" bit loses some of its force, ya know.

    I'm saying that there are no rational arguments proving that religion is irrational. Just because you say there are doesn't win the argument. What are these loads of rational arguments that loads of people have written?

    If you don't want to argument about it then don't state a controversial opinion. I sometimes find them wee arguments quite interesting, although I can see why other people might think they're boring as fuck. Every now and again you get a wee interesting point from somebody.

    Jesus, If I'm boring yous all so much arguing about stuff I'm interested in, don't fecking bring it up then.
    Last edited on , 2 times in total.
  41. avatar Deestroyer
    Here we go. Let me know when we get to page 23 so I can wade in and write, "I saw a good one in the Holy Lands that said 'Free Barrabas!'"

    :031:
    Last edited on , 1 times in total.
  42. avatar Deestroyer
    Speaking about [url=http://www.datafilehost.com/download-5e51d8ca.html]free Barabas...[/url]
  43. avatar Bones
    [quote:8fe4cda780="Chi-Lite"]What are these loads of rational arguments that loads of people have written?
    [/quote:8fe4cda780]

    Various books and papers by these authors:

    George H. Smith
    Chris Hedges
    Sam Harris
    Robert J. Sawyer
    Richard Dawkins

    There are also many more that i'm not familiar with.
  44. avatar Chi-Lite
    Aye, and I say they're wrong! Now, wanna argue about it?

    :D

    Anyway, that's the books, not the arguments. What are these arguments?
  45. avatar The Ronster
    Yes, but Marty believes that an [i:9f3155e576]actual[/i:9f3155e576] god impregnated a young girl with his son, who was going to grow up and SAVE THE WORLD from itself. Not by stopping wars, or ending suffering, but by dying on a cross as a metaphorical sacrificial lamb so that he doesn't have to send us to a place of eternal torment when we die. Because he [i:9f3155e576]loves[/i:9f3155e576] us...

    Now, in order to go to heaven (a place where the best craic ever is apparently to [i:9f3155e576]worship[/i:9f3155e576] this insufferably egotistical prick) you have to BELIEVE that this son of his died for your sin - a concept so odd you have to be either quite smart or quite dim in order to convince yourself of it.

    It's weird no matter what way you spin it, or how many times you use the word dialectic...

    The best thing about all of this is that if you actually believe the Bible and its commandments, then Marty can't possibly get into 'heaven' unless he's ased for [i:9f3155e576]forgiveness[/i:9f3155e576] from God for all his wrongdoings: He's presumably had sex outside of wedlock (although if he hasn't that would explain a lot), he likes the swal and a wee toke now and again and has probably disrespected his parents more than once.

    There really is no point in arguing this with him though - while he would vehemently disagree, you cannot rationalise someone out of a mindset they never rationalised themselves into... (I know he'll say he did, but let's just accept that he believes that).

    As for philosophy? Well, I'll take the carefully documented evidence of what can [i:9f3155e576]prove[/i:9f3155e576] via science over the wooly and untestable 'discipline' of philosophy any day of the week. Even the Sabbath.
  46. avatar Chi-Lite
    Hahaha, Ron, if you've no time for philosophy then surely you shouldn't have an opinion on anybody's view of reality, not being interested in such questions yourself.

    I was going to start the argument but I've edited it, I'll try and resist it.
    Last edited on , 1 times in total.
  47. avatar feline1
    I feel it is vital that the point of view of pederastic priests is heard hear.
    How will they find children to have sex with if they are not allowed to indocrinate them from an early age?
  48. avatar Bones
    [quote:4674420527="Chi-Lite"]Aye, and I say they're wrong! Now, wanna argue about it?

    :D

    Anyway, that's the books, not the arguments. What are these arguments?[/quote:4674420527]


    I thought id already said i couldn't be arsed turning this into another mental, melting thread were arguments that no-one can win take place. Go to the Dawkins forum, they're all about that over there.
  49. avatar savoy truffle
    If you can't understand the context of placing those ads [i:5cd23f5055]anywhere[/i:5cd23f5055] in Northern Ireland then you're either a complete idiot or being willfully stupid.

    [i:5cd23f5055]But...but...but...[/i:5cd23f5055]

    No. Shut up, move on and find something else to be a smart arse about.
  50. avatar Chi-Lite
    Great, another of [i:7d44bd24af]those[/i:7d44bd24af] posts.

    So now it makes a difference where they're placed does it?

    I'm sorry, but I can't understand the relevance of puting these posters ANYWHERE. Especialy as the only explanations I've been able to get about the actual aim of the poster have been "are you stupid" then "children shouldn't be indoctrinated" then "children should only be indictrinated with things WE agree with, and we don't agree with religion" and then "well I can't tell you why religion is bad, it just is, somebody wrote some books about it. Are you stupid?"

    As a matter of fact I'm far from stupid, and these posters seem to me to be both pointless and deceitful. The above aren't arguments against that point of view.

    If you just don't want to bother arguing about it, why not just say that, rather than pretending that calling somebody stupid means you have won the argument. It actually just makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about.

    [quote:7d44bd24af]If you can't understand the context of placing those ads anywhere in Northern Ireland [/quote:7d44bd24af]

    So what is the context? That, because there are differences of identity here, children shouldn't be brought up according to one of those identities? But that's nonsense. Respect is the word, not homogeneity.

    And anyway, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these posters going up UK-wide? Do I take it then, that you woldn't support them in the context of England Scotland or Wales?
    Last edited on , 1 times in total.
  51. avatar tinpot anto
    I fucking hate evangelizing athiests.

    Religious people are not a problem. Asswanks are.

    Christ
  52. avatar savoy truffle
    Actually couldn't be arsed.
  53. avatar loveisthelaw
    I am at the point of my life where I am more hostile towards non believers than believers, have been that way since I discovered Meta-physics
  54. avatar salfhal
    Edit> see below i clicked quote instead of edit
    Last edited on , 1 times in total.
  55. avatar salfhal
    [quote="salfhal"]I'm pretty sure that y'all have overlooked the point of the advertisment.

    It's not gonna stop Jonny Jesus and his mate up there from indoctrinating any future children.

    What is has done is stimulated debate.

    I feel that in Northern Ireland we are made to feel as if the story book worshiping mass is more important than the rest of society, retail laws are bulit around "religious values", the Revised Northern Ireland Curriculum and its application is based around denominational practice, I can't buy a fucking bottle of port past 5 O'Clock on a Sunday because that might offend the people at church.

    This ad has got us talking about religion. Something which is usually avoided like the plague, and when it is discussed, it's usually based around wether you're a protestant or a roman catholic. Whereas here, we've discussed religion itself.

    Also the Billy Bible people that have posted so far seem awfully agressive. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"; Matthew 7

    Although it also says;

    If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people.

    He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people
    And the best of all

    If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," 15 then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. 16 The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver [b] and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

    20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death
  56. avatar Chi-Lite
    And you're supposed to be a teacher? I fear for the kids you might influence.

    First, as far as I can see we haven't actually discussed religion yet. We've heard a lot of balls about people somehow indoctrinating kids by "labelling" them. I'm still not entirely sure what's meant by that. Teaching them, it seems.

    Secondly, no one has mentioned the Bible. Just you. So I'm not sure how that's really relevant to this issue of "labelling".
  57. avatar ryanego
    What's your take on the bible Marty?

    Is that where the basis for your beliefs comes from? If not, where do they come from? How do you know God exists? How do you know it's the Catholic God?
  58. avatar salfhal
    [quote:35099f6982="Chi-Lite"]And you're supposed to be a teacher? I fear for the kids you might influence.
    First, as far as I can see we haven't actually discussed religion yet. We've heard a lot of balls about people somehow indoctrinating kids by "labelling" them. I'm still not entirely sure what's meant by that. Teaching them, it seems.
    Secondly, no one has mentioned the Bible. Just you. So I'm not sure how that's really relevant to this issue of "labelling".[/quote:35099f6982]

    Why do you fear my influence on children? I present religion on more or less of a level playing field, when religion is discussed in my class I present several different alternative beliefs.

    [quote:35099f6982="Chi-Lite"]"And you're supposed to be a teacher?"[/quote:35099f6982]

    Why be so attacking? I can see how you may be passionate about your beliefs, however, I'd rather that they didn't spill into antagonism.

    In terms of the biblical references; I suggested whimsically that the teachings of the bible specifically state that it is not the concern of an individual to criticise another human being, that is God's domain, and decided to quote something I remembered from the days when I was forced to attend church... Which then made me think of all of the strange, barbaric, unholy scripture that is often overlooked. Seems like a fairly simple chain of thoughts.

    [quote:35099f6982="Chi-Lite"]" we haven't actually discussed religion "[/quote:35099f6982]

    We have, at length. Although admittedly it has bounced in and out of irrelevant debates about vegetarianism... I certainly have quickly found out who is agnostic, atheist and those who are verging on religious fanaticism (not an insult). People have shared their views on "holy scripture", how they feel about religion being part of mainstream society etc.

    In terms of your views on "indoctrination". Indoctrination is distinguished from education by the way in which it is imparted, indoctrination is expected not to be questioned or critically examined; the way in which religous education becomes indoctrination is when questioning scripture is denoted as "sacrilegous". To question the bible is often viewed as a "sin". By pedestaling religion for children, you make it indisputable.

    So yes, MOST religious parents/schools ARE indoctrinating their children, they have a right to do so, and the majority of society feel that there is no issue in doing it.
  59. avatar thecunnyfunt
    indoctrinate your kids! just not with fluffy supersticious nonsense! teach them to ask questions, not guess the answers
  60. avatar Chi-Lite
    Ryan, I would tell ye, but I reckon somebody would shoot me for opening up another big long can of worms. I'll tell ya some other time.

    [quote:efb78b4a3d="salfhal"]I present religion on more or less of a level playing field, when religion is discussed in my class I present several different alternative beliefs.[/quote:efb78b4a3d]

    Hmmm, and you're a teacher. So who's doing all the indoctrinating?

    [quote:efb78b4a3d="salfhal"][quote:efb78b4a3d="Chi-Lite"]"And you're supposed to be a teacher?"[/quote:efb78b4a3d]

    Why be so attacking? I can see how you may be passionate about your beliefs, however, I'd rather that they didn't spill into antagonism.[/quote:efb78b4a3d]

    Sorry about that. I just have a bit of a brusque manner in type. I'm actually quite nice. :D

    [quote:efb78b4a3d="salfhal"] I suggested whimsically that the teachings of the bible specifically state that it is not the concern of an individual to criticise another human being,[/quote:efb78b4a3d]

    Just right too. But that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Unless that's just aimed at me for being so gruff and insulting, which is fair enough. but it's not really relevant to this ad campaign.

    [quote:efb78b4a3d="salfhal"]Which then made me think of all of the strange, barbaric, unholy scripture that is often overlooked. Seems like a fairly simple chain of thoughts.[/quote:efb78b4a3d]

    Well, yes, but entirely irrelevant to the ad campaign. Unless, of course, the ad campaign isn't really about labelling people but is about how wrong the bible is. Is that what you think it's about?

    [quote:efb78b4a3d="salfhal"][quote:efb78b4a3d="Chi-Lite"]" we haven't actually discussed religion "[/quote:efb78b4a3d]

    We have, at length. Although admittedly it has bounced in and out of irrelevant debates about vegetarianism...[/quote:efb78b4a3d]

    I think you're on the wrong thread mate.

    [quote:efb78b4a3d="salfhal"]Indoctrination is distinguished from education by the way in which it is imparted, indoctrination is expected not to be questioned or critically examined; the way in which religous education becomes indoctrination is when questioning scripture is denoted as "sacrilegous".[/quote:efb78b4a3d]

    I have never ever heard of this, and I went to a CBS. If your point is "teaching kids not to ask questions is wrong" then you're right. I'm sure there are parents and schools who do take that route, and they're wrong. but it's true right across the board. It has nothing to do with religion.


    Many people would refuse to countenance their children asking questions about why it's wrong to steal, or about the value of property. Is this capitalist parents indoctrinating their children? Well, it probably is, but that's what parenthood is about. I also think this indoctrination is well overplayed. If I'd asked my ma when I was growing up how property could belong to anyone I'd have got a clout round the ear. It didn't stop me growing up to be a fan of Proudhon.

    Parents DO indoctrinate their kids in all sorts of ways. The reason for this is that kids are too young to understand many things, and often they just have to be told, "...because that's the way it is".

    If the parents are good parents, and the child has sense, they will begin to question things as they learn more. This is true for children brought up in a religious home as it is for children brought up in a capitalist home.

    [quote:efb78b4a3d="salfhal"]To question the bible is often viewed as a "sin".[/quote:efb78b4a3d]

    Often? by who? you're a teacher, you should know. Do you know of any schools that teach kids it's a sin to ask questions about the bible?

    I've never heard the like of it in my life. No doubt there are some parental loons out there right nuff, but I'd hardly say "often". I know of a fella who got put out of the house years ago for arguing with his da about how shite Liverpool FC are. His da had put L:iverpool on a pedestal, and not a bad word was allowed to be said about them. There are some loons like. And his da probably shouldn't have done that there indoctrinating like. Can we get a poster for him?


    [quote:efb78b4a3d="salfhal"]MOST religious parents/schools ARE indoctrinating their children,[/quote:efb78b4a3d]

    You'd need to back that up. And then compare it to, for example, capitalist parents. I mean, most kids brought up in capitalist homes grow up to be capitalists! [i:efb78b4a3d]Coincidence?[/i:efb78b4a3d] I think not. ;)
  61. avatar Deestroyer
    Indoctrinate: verb cause to accept a set of beliefs uncritically through repeated instruction.

    Teach: verb (past and past part. taught) 1 impart knowledge to or instruct in how to do something, especially in a school or as part of a recognized programme. 2 give instruction in (a subject or skill). 3 cause to learn by example or experience. 4 advocate as a practice or principle.

    The difference isn't black and white, but there is a difference.

    [quote:8fe4e9c279]salfhal wrote:
    To question the bible is often viewed as a "sin".

    Often? by who? you're a teacher, you should know. Do you know of any schools that teach kids it's a sin to ask questions about the bible?

    I've never heard the like of it in my life. [/quote:8fe4e9c279]
    I think you're being economical with the truth here. I didn't go to the most religious of religious schools, but I do remember being told off for questioning the bible a number of times by a number of people, and thrown out of a class room for saying the church's belief that life began at conception was arbitrary.
    I also distinctly remember being accused of blasphemy by priests, family and even friends for questioning the bible and religion (not for taking the piss out of it, just for questioning it, and even for just asking questions about it). I don't remember getting the same treatment in other subjects in school were asking questions and critical analysis was actively encouraged.

    [edit: definitions are from the OED]
  62. avatar Chi-Lite
    Really?

    Seriously like? You were told off for asking a question? Well, as I say, there are some loon about.

    Do you think you'd have been told off for asking why you should respect property? I reckon you probably would. Depends what school you go to, I suppose.

    Aren't we all being indoctrinated wityh capitalist beliefs? I suspect we all are, but the point is this - does that indoctrination work? I suppose it does for some people. But then, some people could get indoctrinated by anything, for fuck sake.

    This ad campaign, although it pretends not to be, is specifically against religious indoctrination, and carries the implication that this is the worst kind of indoctrination. That's my problem with it.

    Kids ARE indoctrinated into all sorts of ways of thinking by society. Smart kids can keep asking questions anyway. did being accused of blasphemy make you afraid to ask questions?

    I suspect not. so were you indoctrinated or not? You seem quite balanced and inquiring to me.
  63. avatar Deestroyer
    I think the point being made is that there is a difference between the way religion is taught than most disciplines we are taught in school. That was my experience - religion is a sacred subject and its 'truths' are seen as beyond question. Not by every advocate, don't get me wrong, but certainly that is the position of a great deal of teachers on the subject in my experience and I assume the experience of some of the other posters on this thread (I deduce).
    I think it's disingenuous to say you have no experience of this disparity.
  64. avatar Deestroyer
    [quote:bf12ef739a]Do you think you'd have been told off for asking why you should respect property? I reckon you probably would. Depends what school you go to, I suppose.[/quote:bf12ef739a]
    It depends on your motive, but there's a difference. Question a societal norm on a philosophical basis, or a tenant of science or linguistic convention and you may be told off for ignorance of the subject, or in property's case for having an ulterior motive. Question religion and you're amoral and threatened with eternity in hell - Anything that threatens the ultimate punishment for being skeptical or critical is abhorrent to me and is where I see the difference between teaching and indoctrination.
  65. avatar Chi-Lite
    [quote:87126c3d42="Deestroyer"]I think the point being made is that there is a difference between the way religion is taught than most disciplines we are taught in school. That was my experience - religion is a sacred subject and its 'truths' are seen as beyond question. Not by every advocate, don't get me wrong, but certainly that is the position of a great deal of teachers on the subject in my experience and I assume the experience of some of the other posters on this thread (I deduce).
    I think it's disingenuous to say you have no experience of this disparity.[/quote:87126c3d42]

    Oh I'm sure religion is taught differently.

    But take morality, for instance. Aren't we indoctrinating our kids by telling them that stealing is wrong?

    Do we really allow them to question that.

    I'm not saying religion is taught like all other subjects. it is value laden, and therefore is going to be taught in ways that reflect those values. But isn't that the case with ALL values, not just religious ones?

    The point is that people see nothing wrong with that as long as they see nothing wrong with the values. People see no problem with children being indoctrinated not to steal or murder. This ad campaign is aimed at the imparting of RELIGIOUS values to children, but it obscures that by claiming its somehow against imparting ANY values to children.

    We teach children loads of things that they're not allowed to question. If we didn't, they would run amok. they're children.
  66. avatar Deestroyer
    Morals and ethics are essential for society to function. If you removed the chemical signals sent by ants to each other in an ant hill, ending their instinct to cooperate and they all just started raping and murdering each other, the ant colony wouldn't last very long.
    These essential rules and conventions are entirely separate from a grand theory of God and existence originating in a 2,000-year-old text.
  67. avatar Chi-Lite
    I'm not getting into the whole "ethics without religion" debate again, because that isn't the point.

    If you are against labelling and indoctrination, you have to be against indoctrinating kids with morality and ethics.

    Unless of course you're not against labelling and indoctrination, just the type of labelling and indoctrination YOU don't like. If so, say so.

    The humanists AREN'T against labelling and indoctrination, as they're perfectly happy for children to be indoctrinated not to steal and murder. As are you. Which is fair enough. They're against religion, but are being dishonest about it with this ad. That's the point. Of course anyone who knows anything about the humanist association knows fine rightly that the ad isn't about "labelling" or indoctrination. But some people might be fooled by it.
  68. avatar Orzo
    It's time to separate church and state. I think athiests want people who believe in religion not to have control over our destinies because politicians are too busy strengthening their hold on power to think about climbing into bed with religious groups that they allow to influence their policy and indeed this is usually hand in hand.

    Religion is a shroud in and around public discourse especially in NI.

    The reason people are angry towards these 'militant' athiests is because there can be no more complacency by atheists as there is too much at stake and there is now a groundswell movement taking place against using religion as a basis for public policy. The fact that the phrase 'militant' atheist is being bandied about shows that a nerve has been hit. A lot of these comments seem to illustrate this.
  69. avatar Deestroyer
    No, I'm saying there is a responsibility for parents to bring up a child to be moral and ethical.
    That is not the same as instilling a belief in a deity at an early age.
    If the child grows up and chooses to believe in religion when all the evidence is available to them, fine.
    This is the position of the humanists and this campaign, as far as I can see.
  70. avatar my-angel-rocks
    [quote:0d692d9a6d="Deestroyer"]I do remember being told off for questioning the bible a number of times by a number of people, and thrown out of a class room for saying the church's belief that life began at conception was arbitrary.[/quote:0d692d9a6d]

    Getting thrown out of class for questioning the bible, or because the teacher couldn't be arsed having a "trouble-maker" in the class disrupting it for everyone else? There is a difference.

    Maybe I went to the greatest school on the planet, but RE was the pisstaking class and the Christian teachers loved a good debate and took the piss out it all as much as the rest of us.
  71. avatar Chi-Lite
    [quote:2cef79ddca="Deestroyer"]No, I'm saying there is a responsibility for parents to bring up a child to be moral and ethical.[/quote:2cef79ddca]

    So says you. What if I disagree? the Humanists also seem to disagree, as you shouldn't "label" your child, according to them. At least, that's what they're claiming, but that's not what they actually think.

    "That is not the same as instilling a belief in a deity at an early age."


    I think I have a responsibility to bring my child up in awareness of God. Who are you (or the Humanists) to say I shouldn't?

    [quote:2cef79ddca]If the child grows up and chooses to believe in religion when all the evidence is available to them, fine.[/quote:2cef79ddca]

    Indeed. Sometimes, however, presenting evidence is a life-long task, and maybe we have to start early.
    [quote:2cef79ddca]This is the position of the humanists and this campaign, as far as I can see.[/quote:2cef79ddca]

    No, it's not. The point of this campaign [i:2cef79ddca]claims to be[/i:2cef79ddca] that we shouldn't "LABEL" children. But you've already agreed that we have to indoctrinate and label kids to make them moral and ethical. So really you're saying we can label them, but only in a way YOU agree with.

    I disagree.
  72. avatar Deestroyer
    [quote:80e7daabd1] Deestroyer wrote:
    No, I'm saying there is a responsibility for parents to bring up a child to be moral and ethical.

    So says you. What if I disagree? the Humanists also seem to disagree, as you shouldn't "label" your child, according to them. At least, that's what they're claiming, but that's not what they actually think.[/quote:80e7daabd1]Well of course you can disagree, but I think you're being purposefully circuitous as you know the length of discourse necessary to establish this as unquestionable. It's an assumption we've all held up to now.

    [quote:80e7daabd1]"That is not the same as instilling a belief in a deity at an early age."


    I think I have a responsibility to bring my child up in awareness of God. Who are you (or the Humanists) to say I shouldn't?[/quote:80e7daabd1]They're humanists. They don't believe in God, so they think you're wrong to do this.

    [quote:80e7daabd1]someone wrote:
    If the child grows up and chooses to believe in religion when all the evidence is available to them, fine.

    Indeed. Sometimes, however, presenting evidence is a life-long task, and maybe we have to start early.[/quote:80e7daabd1]Possibly, but if you don't believe that what is being taught is correct then it's a wasted task.

    [quote:80e7daabd1]someone wrote:
    This is the position of the humanists and this campaign, as far as I can see.

    No, it's not. The point of this campaign claims to be that we shouldn't "LABEL" children. But you've already agreed that we have to indoctrinate and label kids to make them moral and ethical. So really you're saying we can label them, but only in a way YOU agree with.

    I disagree.[/quote:80e7daabd1]
    Well the use of the word "label" is a failure on the behalf of this ad in my opinion. I think they mean "instill the belief of a particular or indeed any deity at an early age". 'Label' is a lot shorter though.
  73. avatar Chi-Lite
    Right, so the conclusion is that I disagree with the atheists humanists?

    Sure we knew that anyway. The point is that this ad is deceitful, as it claims to be about labelling and indoctrination, when really it's about teaching kids things that THEY don't like, and that THEY think are untrue.

    If you think religion is wrong, don't teach it to your kid. Fair enough. You can even "indoctrinate" your child to grow up anti-religious.

    What I resent is the humanists using a lot of bullshit about labels and "freedom to choose" when really all they mean is "We think religion is wrong".

    Yes, I know you do. Bringing in this bullshit about "labelling" and "indoctrination", as if kids could grow up in an entirely neutral environment if it wasn't for religious people, is deceitful.

    In reality, you have nothing against labelling or "indoctrinating" kids when that means instilling values that YOU agree with. You just don't like it when it's something YOU don't agree with. That's fair enough, but the ad doesn't say that. it's deceitful.
  74. avatar Deestroyer
    Maybe it is a little deceitful but it's an ad after all. It's saying teaching religion to kids is wrong. From my experience, especially considering the way religion is taught and some of the messages it contains about the consequences for disbelief, I agree with it.
  75. avatar Chi-Lite
    Fair enough. See if you don't agree with religion, it's make sense that you think its wrong to teach it to your kids.

    To try and obscure the argument by talking about "labelling" and "indoctrination" is a lot of ballix. It's fair enough to say it's an advert. that might be something that you would expect from an advert trying to seel you something. but for an advertisement claiming to encourage debate and free-thinking, to obscure the argument it's trying to make is not only deceitful, you could in fact say it's indoctrination. after all, who really wants to make the argument that children should be "labelled against their will". it's a difficult argument to make. But the ad [i:789c0bc32d]implies[/i:789c0bc32d] so much more than that, and it does so in a deceitful and cynical way. Again, if that was an ad trying to sell something, you would expect it.

    But anybody who thinks this ad is about encouraging discussion about "labelling" kids is being lied to. It's not about that at all, as we now seem to agree. It's about how wrong religion is. But, as they can't adequately argue that case, and have failed to do so in the past, they're obscuring it with bullshit about "labelling". This isn't an oversight, or some mistake in not making the advert as clearly anti-religious as it should have been. It's a deliberate tactic aimed at obscuring the argument. If you can't actually make the argument that religion is wrong, well, the next best thing to do is obscure it in a bunch of crap about "freedom" and "labelling". it's quite deliberate, and deliberately cynical.
  76. avatar Chi-Lite
    [quote:eab3c99450="Chi-Lite"]Fair enough. See if you don't agree with religion, it's make sense that you think its wrong to teach it to your kids.

    To try and obscure the argument by talking about "labelling" and "indoctrination" is a lot of ballix. It's fair enough to say it's an advert. that might be something that you would expect from an advert trying to seel you something. but for an advertisement claiming to encourage debate and free-thinking, to obscure the argument it's trying to make is not only deceitful, you could in fact say it's indoctrination. after all, who really wants to make the argument that children should be "labelled against their will". it's a difficult argument to make. But the ad [i:eab3c99450]implies[/i:eab3c99450] so much more than that, and it does so in a deceitful and cynical way. Again, if that was an ad trying to sell something, you would expect it.

    But anybody who thinks this ad is about encouraging discussion about "labelling" kids is being lied to. It's not about that at all, as we now seem to agree. It's about how wrong religion is. But, as they can't adequately argue that case, and have failed to do so in the past, they're obscuring it with bullshit about "labelling". This isn't an oversight, or some mistake in not making the advert as clearly anti-religious as it should have been. It's a deliberate tactic aimed at obscuring the argument. If you can't actually make the argument that religion is wrong, well, the next best thing to do is obscure it in a bunch of crap about "freedom" and "labelling". it's quite deliberate, and deliberately cynical.[/quote:eab3c99450]

    If the ad simply said "teaching religion to kids is wrong", at least it would be clear. I'd disagree, and argue against it. But that's not what the ad says, and it deliberately doesn't say that, even though that's what it really means.

    BALLS, that was meant to be an edit, not a new post. there's my posting limit probably gone now. see yous the morra! :lol:
  77. avatar tinpot anto
    the "Santa Doesn't Exist" series of ads will be starting on Cartoon Network next week.
  78. avatar theavenue
    These ads are a nice idea, but will ultimately lead to nothing. It won't stimulate the people who see it, they'll simply ignore it. Many won't even understand the message.

    My problem with religion and belief in deities is this; there is no evidence. Any rational person will require evidence or proofs before they believe something. You don't believe in goblins because there is no evidence. You don't believe in bigfoot because there is no evidence (aside from that one popular "picture" of him). There is more evidence and testimonies for the existence of aliens than for a god, yet people still scoff at the idea.

    I, personally, simply cannot put my "faith" in something. It is irrational and illogical. Why is faith only sufficient when it comes to the belief in a supernatural creator? If I asked you to have faith that you will not die if you plunge from the Chrysler building, would faith be sufficient? No, but to have faith that this 2,000 year old text holds the key to living a good life and that it explains how the universe and everything in it was created but we have no idea if it's actually true and our scientific research actually suggests, with evidential backing, that it isn't, faith is okay? It seems so backwards.

    We know the earth isn't 6,000 years old. We know that man wasn't made from dust. We know that snakes don't talk. We know that two of every species (and if we are to believe the bible, everything that exists today was made 6,000 years ago, so that is a lot of species) did not fit onto a boat that was apparently the size of one and a half american football fields.

    How do we even know the Abrahamic god is the correct one? Given that the stories of Jesus were plagiarised from many other gods, how do we know it's true? The bible is riddled with errors and contradictions. It is fallible. Yet, we are to take it as the inerrant, ineffable word of god.

    We rid of ourselves of so many archaic notions of how our universe works. The bible should've been thrown out with the flat earth idea.

    Edit;
    Also, of course indoctrination occurs. If you don't think that children are indoctrinated into their religious beliefs, you are 100% kidding yourself.
  79. avatar Chi-Lite
    [quote=tinpot anto]
    the "Santa Doesn't Exist" series of ads will be starting on Cartoon Network next week.[/quote]

    Haha, surely that should be the "don't label your child as a santa believer before they have the freedom to decide for themselves" ad. Because it's all about freedom, ya see. And what kind of monster would argue against giving kids total freedom to think whatever they like? what kind of MONSTER!!!



    [quote:f7f4836b33="theavenue"]These ads are a nice idea, but will ultimately lead to nothing. It won't stimulate the people who see it, they'll simply ignore it. Many won't even understand the message.[/quote:f7f4836b33]

    Does their deceitfulness help or hinder this?

    [quote:f7f4836b33]My problem with religion and belief in deities is this; there is no evidence.[/quote:f7f4836b33]

    Have you any evidence that your senses accurately reflect the universe around you?

    [quote:f7f4836b33]Any rational person will require evidence or proofs before they believe something.[/quote:f7f4836b33]

    Not at all. See above.
    [quote:f7f4836b33]You don't believe in goblins because there is no evidence. You don't believe in bigfoot because there is no evidence[/quote:f7f4836b33]

    But you do believe that your senses are indicative of an outside world, that logic and mathematics accurately reflect reality, that deduction is acceptable, that your ma loves you and that physical laws are stable. Where's your evidence?

    [quote:f7f4836b33]I, personally, simply cannot put my "faith" in something.[/quote:f7f4836b33]

    you do it all the time. See above. [quote:f7f4836b33]Why is faith only sufficient when it comes to the belief in a supernatural creator?[/quote:f7f4836b33]

    It's not. If we are to make any sense of the universe, certain assumptions have to be accepted. that logic holds, that language is descriptive, that the senses are affected by "external" things. If we wanted "evidence" for everything, Descartes wouldn't have got past his total solipsism.

    [quote:f7f4836b33]We know the earth isn't 6,000 years old.[/quote:f7f4836b33]

    Well, we think it's highly unlikely

    [quote:f7f4836b33]We know that man wasn't made from dust.[/quote:f7f4836b33]

    Ye wha? What is "dust", and what is man made of then?


    [quote:f7f4836b33]How do we even know the Abrahamic god is the correct one?[/quote:f7f4836b33]

    We don't KNOW, but it can be argued that it makes the most sense. If you know anything about it.

    [quote:f7f4836b33]Given that the stories of Jesus were plagiarised from many other gods, how do we know it's true?[/quote:f7f4836b33]


    What stories were plagiarised? for every similarity you can come up with, I could come up with loads of dissimilarities. By that reasoning, I could say that your life story is plagiarised from your da's life story, because you both have the same second name, and share a lot of family members.

    [quote:f7f4836b33]The bible is riddled with errors and contradictions.[/quote:f7f4836b33]

    Like what?

    [quote:f7f4836b33]It is fallible.[/quote:f7f4836b33]

    Yup. A tiny tiny minority of Christians think it isn't. I disagree. it is fallible. Like everything.

    [quote:f7f4836b33]
    Also, of course indoctrination occurs. If you don't think that children are indoctrinated into their religious beliefs, you are 100% kidding yourself.[/quote:f7f4836b33]

    Have you missed the rest of this discussion? We've agreed that children are indoctrinated in all sorts of ways, and that there is nothnig wrong with this in principle. So you'll have to do a better job of showing that religion is wrong, if that's what you're claiming, rather than making the implication that it must be wrong because it's indoctrinated. So is "not stealing or murdering", and there's nothing wrong with that.
  80. avatar Deestroyer
    [quote:355981945c]someone wrote:
    My problem with religion and belief in deities is this; there is no evidence.

    Have you any evidence that your senses accurately reflect the universe around you?[/quote:355981945c]Seriously but, is it not a bit early to be throwing out a gambit like that? Basing an argument on the premise that no one can know anything is a bit flimsy.
    What if I argue 'I believe Fascism is right because my senses tell me so, and seeing we only have subjective view points all your so called 'evidence' and 'logic' is invalid and you can't say I'm wrong.'
    You can't concurrently argue the validity of evidence and the nature of evidence. They operate on two different paradigms, shirley.
  81. avatar my-angel-rocks
    [quote:fa209089b8="Deestroyer"]What if I argue 'I believe Fascism is right because my senses tell me so, and seeing we only have subjective view points all your so called 'evidence' and 'logic' is invalid and you can't say I'm wrong.'[/quote:fa209089b8]

    Thats your right to believe that if thats what you want and I can't say you are right or wrong. The best I can do is say that I disagree with your analysis. I can say that I think your beliefs are dangerous and anti-social, but not wrong because if thats what your analysis leads you to believe then so be it.

    Have we slipped into a modernity/post-modernity debate all of a sudden?
  82. avatar my-angel-rocks
    [quote:3bba150654="theavenue"]We know the earth isn't 6,000 years old. We know that man wasn't made from dust. We know that snakes don't talk. We know that two of every species (and if we are to believe the bible, everything that exists today was made 6,000 years ago, so that is a lot of species) did not fit onto a boat that was apparently the size of one and a half american football fields.[/quote:3bba150654]

    We also know that the book of genesis is a book of multiple genres.
  83. avatar tinpot anto
    [b:4615f681ec][size=200]FUCK

    UP![/size][/b:4615f681ec]:lol:
  84. avatar salfhal
    [quote:2429a9b979="tinpot anto"]the "Santa Doesn't Exist" series of ads will be starting on Cartoon Network next week.[/quote:2429a9b979]

    Haha that's actually an interesting point you know, I don't believe in teaching fairy tales as reality to children. There is a difference between appreciating a good story and making a child believe in something that is seriously fucked up abstract.

    I tell kids about Santa stories, but like from experience as a child, believing that there really was a big fat man breaking into my house to leave presents freaked me the fuck out. Same with the tooth fairy etc. I liked the way my aunts/uncles presented these things in a tongue and cheek manner, making sure the children knew it was really them leaving presents seemed a more logical approach.

    Also to Marty; you keep saying about capitalism indoctrination...

    The Revised NICurriculum actually states for Foundation Key Stage that children MUST be taught about different ways to "pay" for things (page 2 in the statutory requirements) including non capitalist ideas of goods exchange and self sustenance. The way that this topic is usually presented is asking children how they could aquire things without using money. You'd be surprised also to know how marxist ideaologies resonate with children, the idea of sharing bodes well with their basic logic.

    So children aren't indoctrinated into capitalist beliefs (they are encouraged to ask questions in school, not discouraged).

    [quote:2429a9b979][quote:2429a9b979]I present religion on more or less of a level playing field, when religion is discussed in my class I present several different alternative beliefs.[/quote:2429a9b979]"Hmmm, and you're a teacher. So who's doing all the indoctrinating?" in response to [/quote:2429a9b979]

    Who's doing all the indoctrinating... Hmmm... Alot of answers to a seemingly simple question; parents, teachers, curricular boards, government, councils, churches, media all play a part. But I certainly try to avoid any indoctrinative influence in my professional life. I came to teaching not "because my ma and da were teachers" nor "because i think kids are just great", but with a philisophical and meaningful purpose, I think that's why I have such a defined idea of pedagogy.

    I retain the opinion that this advert was aimed at creating discussion, I can't imagine that they thought that the ad would actually impact parents. After all, parenting is often the most irrational and subjective process anyone can take part in.

    To be honest I don't really care if parents label their children, it's when religion seeps into schools that I have a problem.
  85. avatar DontPetABurningDog
    "If the ad simply said "teaching religion to kids is wrong", at least it would be clear. I'd disagree, and argue against it. But that's not what the ad says, and it deliberately doesn't say that, even though that's what it really means."

    Except that, according to the people who placed it, it doesn't mean anything of the kind:

    http://www.facebook.com/#/notes/british-humanist-association/bha-responds-to-critics-take-the-time-to-read-the-adverts-and-think/207888582852

    Still, though: What would they know about what they mean?
  86. avatar my-angel-rocks
    "We are saying that religions and philosophies (and 'Humanist' is one of the labels we use on our poster) should not be foisted on or assumed of young children and that young people have the right to choose for themselves in line with their developing capacities as they grow."

    But thats what we're arguing about, so we did get what it meant surely? But people are disagreeing with the message, because philosophies are foisted on children all the time and the BHS wouldn't have any problem with that. Its only the religious issues they have problems with (obviously).

    I thought about the advert from the "Don't label me cos I haven't made my mind up yet" angle, but I didn't see any point behind putting a huge ad campaign for this message because its pretty much stating the obvious. Who actually labels a child and what harm does this labelling do? Its not like the labelling sticks with the child as they grow older and develop their own personalities and opinions on things.
  87. avatar eucrid eucrow
    Apart from Dee, not one person here has been able to present a viable argument in defense of those ads and apart from his last post, which was utter nonsense, Marty has been right on every point.
    I'm an atheist, but those ads are a load of shite.
  88. avatar SimonC
    I've been reading this topic and trying not to comment .. but really feel that most of you are missing the point.

    If any of you know the background to these ads then ignore this bit ... The UK Humanist Society ran a pile of bus adverts in mainland UK which read "There probably is no God so stop worrying and enjoy your life" these clearly provoked a response - so much so that they had to be pulled as many bus drivers refused to work on buses with the advert.(Translink refused to display the original advert here in NI as despite your personal beliefs - NI is a fairly strong God following place). This latest advert has been launched in an effort to do much the same.

    This is only personal opinion - but I feel quite relevant here. Many of you have fallen foul of making this discussion into a religious debate. The Humanist advert features/mentions many different religions so what ever background/lifestyle you have something on the billboard probably relates to you in some way. As NI is a typically "Christian" country - its probably this line that relates to most of us.

    Here's the point. Jesus didn't come to start a religion and as many of you here have stressed - we all have free will, you can make your own mind up about following Jesus and for most of us - we all respect each others choices.

    In this respect, the Humanist advert misses the point. IMHO - ANY child, of any background has free will. They make their own choices - either through their guardian when they are a minor or as an adult when they are responsible enough to make their own choices.

    *Set the Lions out....
  89. avatar tinpot anto
    It's an actual pile of cock.

    This is why people should be forced to study some form of philosophy.

    The advert is either entirely redundant "Don't label your kids!!!!"

    Err, I wasn't fucking going to you knob. Why would I? It's not parents who label their kids, it's other people, and not as kids, as adults. An anti-racism, or anti-homophobia campaign has a value to it, but this fails at all those.

    Or it's a clunkingly awful veiled attack on religion. In which case GROW A FUCKING PAIR OF BALLS and say what you mean.

    The "Stop worrying..." ads were OK, at least they had a broadly positive message, these smack of insidious, guiltmongering that you are subconsciously LABELLING CHILDREN YOU MONSTER OH MY GOD WONT SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN

    Piss off.

    If I had unlimited money I would pay for loads of advertising space to say things like "you're not fat!" "Happy DAys!" "YEEEOOOOO!" and so on.
  90. avatar my-angel-rocks
    Maybe we're all missing the point, and its about not putting name tags on kids clothes.
  91. avatar Chi-Lite
    Hahahaha, nice, I'm with Anto on this.

    I'd love to see a big poster that just said "Look at all that! Isn't it fucking class! 'Mon we'll have a wee swal sure"
  92. avatar deadonmusic
    [quote:85233183f4="my-angel-rocks"]Maybe we're all missing the point, and its about not putting name tags on kids clothes.[/quote:85233183f4]

    balls. i waded through all those pages to make the same point!

    i'd have lost loads of school jumpers if i hadn't been labelled as a child!!
  93. avatar tinpot anto
    In Cuba I saw a massive Billboard with a wee black kid and a wee white kit and the words "REVOLUTIONARIOS SIEMPRE!" written on it.

    It pleased me.
  94. avatar Chi-Lite
    To be fair though, I think that's the cuban equivalent of "Wouldn't it be great if it was like this all the time?"

    I always preferred the Cat's in the Cradle and Your Da's Getting Shot, little boy blue and the man on the moon.
  95. avatar tinpot anto
    I like your "Mon for a swall sure" one.

    I'd get TV adverts too that just celebrate the endless diverse joys of the human spirit, only don't spoil it all in the end by trying to associate an insurance company with it.
  96. avatar Chi-Lite
    [quote:3de51cf80c="Deestroyer"]Basing an argument on the premise that no one can know anything is a bit flimsy.[/quote:3de51cf80c]

    I'm not saying no one can know anything. We know loads of stuff. I'm saying that all of our knowing is, however, based on a number of fundamental assumptions for which we have no "evidence", and for which you couldn't possibly have "evidence" because they deal with the nature of evidence itself.

    It could be argued that belief in God, dealing as it does with a fundamental, basic proposition about the nature of reality, can not possibly have "physical evidence". But this makes it no more or less valid than the other things for which we have no evidence, which I've outlined, but which we must accept in order to be able to think properly, or to have any grasp of what evidence is.

    So I'm only saying that the argument "I don't believe in anything until I have evidence" is nonsense. where's your evidence for [i:3de51cf80c]that[/i:3de51cf80c]?


    [quote:3de51cf80c]What if I argue 'I believe Fascism is right because my senses tell me so, and seeing we only have subjective view points all your so called 'evidence' and 'logic' is invalid and you can't say I'm wrong.[/quote:3de51cf80c]


    But that's the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying that a lack of evidence does not neccessarily make something subjective. There are loads and loads of fully objective things, like logic and mathematics, for which we have no "physical evidence" whatsoever.

    I realise that you posted that ages ago, and probably don't care now, but I've just seen it, and have a free half hour.;)
  97. avatar ryanego
    This is a cool thread.

    I was reading [url=http://www.vislab.ucl.ac.uk/pdf/in_praise_of_subjective_truths.pdf]this[/url] the other day, about subjectivity, objectivity and evidence from a neuroscientist's perspective.

    If you've got the time, it's worth a read. The bit about colour perception is class.
  98. avatar Deestroyer
    I know we've argued about the validity of evidence at length at least once before (now writhing somewhere in the egregious folder, I'm sure). It just seemed a bit early to be pulling that particular chestnut out of the bag. The 'Descarte defence' (I just made that up) is just a bit prone to misuse, is all. Although I appreciate now you weren't crowbarring it dismissively.
    Anyway, I think everyone has made their position clear on the subject of the poster. Yay! :025:
  99. avatar NeverSayDio
    check out the Pharmacratic Inquisition on youtube it should take less than an hour to find out the real story that all the fairytales are based on
  100. avatar Chi-Lite
    Jesus, here we go....

    Still, [i:773ee7c814]ignoring that[/i:773ee7c814], is it just me or are we all getting more understanding and peace-loving these days. I like it. Gis a buck at ye Dee.
  101. avatar Deestroyer
    Ah know! Nobody has called anybody's ma anything, and everything has been wrapped up (apart from [i:6cea169dae]that[/i:6cea169dae]) by page 7. Cue the black Obelisk, we are entering a new dawn.

    [img:6cea169dae]http://cinemaforever.com/2001_A_Space_Odyssey_01.jpg[/img:6cea169dae]

    Gis a buck at ye Dave.
  102. avatar Chi-Lite
    I met a girl from area 3,
    she told me that she worked in a chicken factory
  103. avatar tinpot anto
    I bucked all your mas.

    The only objectively verifiable truth there is.
  104. avatar salfhal
    [img:d6e4fc5332]http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/407/fastfeud.png[/img:d6e4fc5332]
  105. avatar remaderyan
    Brilliant!