That’s better. In a context where there was a lot of belief that there was e.coli in burgers it might actually be OK.
But certainly even that is not good. The whole slogan is broken.
How about if you had been taught your entire life that there was e.coli in all burgers, all of the time, with no escape, except not to eat any burgers? And you try, but there are lots of burger bits in damn near everything you eat? And sometimes you just feel the uncontrollable urge to just bite down full force on a big juicy e.coli burger? Then, would “There’s probably no e.coli in this burger.” be a good slogan?
Depends on the person. It might get some thinking but it does, as I’ve been saying, sound to me a bit like damning with faint praise.
IMHO a lot of people like religion’s certainty. Many religious folk have no qualms about saying that there just plain is a god. Heck, many don’t even discuss or allow the fact there mightn’t be. All their discussions are about what their god is/wants etc. Not what he might be or want, if he exists.
Many, many people have real difficulty with the difference between a possibility and a real chance. Witness the popularity of lotto. For a huge number of people, if you say there may be something, even if probably not, they take that as there is one or may well be one.
Yeah, I was just kidding around.
I think the message should be “we’re not going to allow you to proselytise unopposed any more”. There is a Christian ‘Songs of Praise’ on BBC every Sunday. There is a religious ‘Thought For The Day’ on BBC Radio 2 at 09:15 every day and they’ve explicitly rejected allowing an atheist voice. The few times Atheists do get a mention it’s usually to bemoan the ‘militants’ or Richard bloody Dawkins. Then they started proselytising on buses. Well no more.
I don’t think Atheists are persecuted in this country. Not at all. I just think we’re conveniently ignored.
Or it’s intended to make suicide bombers think twice before blowing themselves up on the top of a bus…
I don’t know what the “Thought For The Day” is like, but “Songs of Praise” sounds like it’s a program for the benefit of Christians, which is something completely different from proselytising. And it would be a bit tricky to have an analogous atheist program, since there wouldn’t be much for it to be about—atheism being a lack of belief.
Demanding “an atheist voice” on a religious program sounds a bit like demanding a “people who don’t like sports” voice on a sports program, or a “people who don’t believe in astrology” voice in the daily horoscopes.
I don’t think there’s anything particularly oppressive about Songs of Praise. It’s just 400 old people mangling the words to hymns. Might as well be a broadcast of a bingo game.
Thought For The Day isn’t offensive in itself. They bring on some theist to talk about what is happening in the world and give people something to think about. It usually encourages people to think of others and generally be better people. They embrace all faiths but I sometimes get the feeling that they’re implying only religious people can act morally and think of others. I see no other reason to exclude atheists.
Songs Of Praise only gets on my tits because it’s an hour of Christian praise on a state funded channel. I don’t particularly want to see programs promoting atheism (or agnosticism).
Like I said, atheists are not oppressed (in England) by any measure. We don’t have the fundamentalist radio personalities that you might have in the US. At most, we’re ignored and not considered worthy of debate, which is why I encourage any awareness campaigns that don’t include Dawkins.
I don’t have a problem with Dawkins other than his polarising influence.
(I wasn’t trying to be an arse before. I didn’t realise atheist shouldn’t be capitalised).
While I think most people do conveniently ignore nonbelievers, I have often heard “secular humanist” used as an epithet in certain circles.
I was at a Humansts’ Associaton meeting last night - our annual Darwin Day celebration as a matter of fact. The speaker, the current AHA president, and a former editor of The Humanist both mentioned these signs. Very briefly (and in my words, not theirs), they stated that it was time for humanists (and other non-theists) to define themselves, instead of letting others define us. Said that for decades Humanists have believed that increased public acceptance was inevitable, yet we have not seen it occur. (They noted, however, - IIRC - recent surveys in which 15% of Americans identified themselves as having no religion, 25% of those under 30.)
To the contrary, there seems to have been a progressive increase in the power of the religious right to push policies directly contrary to Humansts’ core values. In large part, these ads are a part of an effort to simply make the presence of Humanists known. We do not advance our values and concerns by remaining silent. We ought to freely acknowledge our “beliefs” and insist that they be treated as validly as any others’.
I don’t know now. Your interchanging of something that might exist with something that definitely does exist, has gone and knocked me off my train of thought.
I mean, as an athiest, you know that there is no God, and that all religions are nonsense. So why would it bother you if religious people indulge in irrational behavior? Why would you care if your neighbor goes to church?
I mean, children have fantasies all the time (Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, etc.)-do you lecture each and every kid?
Franly, I don’t get it it-you have your beliefs and I have mine-live and let live.
It bothers this atheist, because (many) religious folk are so aggressive (and effective) in getting their particular beliefs legislated. And (many) religious folk openly criticize non-religious as less-good than they.
Why are so many religious folk unsatisfied with practicing their beliefs within their homes and places of worship? Why must they proselytize, and force it upon others in public settings?
Well said. The major religions of the world would like us all to believe that anyone who does not believe in a super-duper, supernatural God is incapable of being a moral person. The bus sign was a shot across the bow of so many pushy, pushy, pushy religious groups. It says that nonbelievers do exist, we are not evil and are in fact normal people who just want to enjoy life. It says so much that a few uppity atheist can create so much controversy just by stating their beliefs openly. That is reason enough right there for the signs.
I certainly do not wish to equate the situation of the godless with gays, but I think there are some analogies.
Humanists/atheists aren’t saying anyone needs to adopt our beliefs. But we do exist, our “philosophy” is at least as valid as that of “believers,” and we are going to be socially and politically active, supporting policies that are consistent with our philosophy, and opposing those that are contrary. While we have no objection to anyone choosing to practice christianity or any other belief system, the US was not founded as a christian nation, and we do not desire it to be one.
If going to church and having bake sales was all there was to it I wouldn’t give two shits what anyone else believes.
Children who believe in Santa Claus do not generally attempt to curtail my civil rights. Or, perhaps more importantly, show up on my doorstep on a Sunday morning and bother me when I’m hung over.