Religions have succeeded

[ProfessorDavey]

Professor Dawkins is not confrontational, he is quite personable and genteel in his discussions with people ...

Absolutely - actually his demeanour and manner is rather akin to a polite CofE vicar - perhaps this is what irks the religious so much, that he adopts the mild mannered approach of one of their own but says things they don't like.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think the bench mark here is the atheist bus.

Are you for real - you mean the bus that rather than being confrontational included the word 'probably' and then extolled people to, in enjoy their life. It was as confrontation as someone offering up a picture of a kitten while extolling you to 'have a nice day'.

A christian denomenational bus would promote religion, the atheist bus sought to demote religion head to head as it were. See the difference in approach. Atheist bus- attack their idea, Christian bus, promote your own. To date there's only been an atheist bus with it's, stop worrying about God and everything will be like the cumfy sofa ad message.

Hmm - like this:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/church-accused-of-inciting-religious-hatred-8zr3q8bkjwd

Or this one:

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/outrage-straight-pride-poster-promoting-27459931

Nice message - only heterosexual people are normal.

Or this one:

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/hate-incident-investigated-after-offensive-6062404

At least it isn't just gay people and atheists who are the target of offensive christian posters.

There is a time honoured tradition of christian churches using their own billboard, or renting space at railway stations etc to, in effect, tell people who aren't in their tent that they are going to burn in hell. Yup, nice friendly positive message ... not. That isn't even attack someone else's view, it is attack the person.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you for real - you mean the bus that rather than being confrontational included the word 'probably' and then extolled people to, in enjoy their life. It was as confrontation as someone offering up a picture of a kitten while extolling you to 'have a nice day'.
Hmm - like this:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/church-accused-of-inciting-religious-hatred-8zr3q8bkjwd

Or this one:

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/outrage-straight-pride-poster-promoting-27459931

Nice message - only heterosexual people are normal.

Or this one:

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/hate-incident-investigated-after-offensive-6062404

At least it isn't just gay people and atheists who are the target of offensive christian posters.

There is a time honoured tradition of christian churches using their own billboard, or renting space at railway stations etc to, in effect, tell people who aren't in their tent that they are going to burn in hell. Yup, nice friendly positive message ... not. That isn't even attack someone else's view, it is attack the person.

I heard the atheist bus campaign had to put the word probably in because the advertising standards agency required them to do so. Even the ASA recognised that the campaign could not substantiate their claim that God didn't exist although Hillside has tried bloody hard and the campaign could have been ''had up on trades descriptions''.

The atheist bus campaign was noted for not doing anything to raise the material wellbeing ofthose whose route it ran through I seemed to remember.

In terms of burning, I hear the fire brigade runs similar warnings in similar places so two sets of warnings one for our earthly life and one for our eternal life. You wouldn't dream of not letting the fire brigade post a warning.

If you feel got at by church posters perhaps you should explore why you feel like that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Actually this wasn't just an off the cuff comment, but one in an interview picking up on previous comments he had made in a similar manner, where the interviewer clearly indicated that some people (atheists and secularists) may have found his previous comments offensive. So he had ample opportunity in his response in the interview to clarify that he was not implying that atheists were not fully human. Yet he doubled down:

Roger Bolton – a lot of church leaders speaking on national matters sound rather defensive but you’ve gone on the attack because you’ve talked about secularists having an “impoverished understanding of what it is to be human” they might find that quite offensive mightn’t they?
 
Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor - I think what I said was true, of course whether a person is atheist or any other...there is in fact, in my view, something not totally human, if they leave out the transcendent. If they leave out an aspect of what I believe everyone was made for, which is, uh, a search for transcendent meaning, we call it God. Now if you say that has no place, then I feel that it is a diminishment of what it is to be a human, because to be human in the sense I believe humanity is directed because made by God, I think if you leave that out then you are not fully human.

Pretty clear - don't believe in god = not fully human.

Do you leave out the transcendant Davey? Why are you upset by Murphy O'connor believing that the full human experience involves the transcendent while tolerating Harris's monstrous nuclear fuelled delusion? Now that really is preaching that you will burn if you aren't in the right tent.

Murphy O'Connor's interpretation is different then from what I am saying.

[Dicky Underpants]

Do you leave out the transcendant Davey? Why are you upset by Murphy O'connor believing that the full human experience involves the transcendent while tolerating Harris's monstrous nuclear fuelled delusion? Now that really is preaching that you will burn if you aren't in the right tent.

Murphy O'Connor's interpretation is different then from what I am saying.

The Prof loves the music of Mozart and choral singing. I'm sure he's had experiences which many would refer to as the 'transcendent'. Since I share many of the Prof's musical enthusiasms, I can relate to various experiences that he has alluded to in this forum. But they are experiences of this world, however out of the routine of ordinary life they may be.

[Maeght]

I heard the atheist bus campaign had to put the word probably in because the advertising standards agency required them to do so. Even the ASA recognised that the campaign could not substantiate their claim that God didn't exist although Hillside has tried bloody hard and the campaign could have been ''had up on trades descriptions''.

The atheist bus campaign was noted for not doing anything to raise the material wellbeing ofthose whose route it ran through I seemed to remember.

In terms of burning, I hear the fire brigade runs similar warnings in similar places so two sets of warnings one for our earthly life and one for our eternal life. You wouldn't dream of not letting the fire brigade post a warning.

If you feel got at by church posters perhaps you should explore why you feel like that.

Where did you hear that? Any evidence that that is true?

[Nearly Sane]

Where did you hear that? Any evidence that that is true?

See the discussion here under 'Probably'. Unfortunately the footnote on the possibility doesn't lead to the article.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_Bus_Campaign

[Maeght]

See the discussion here under 'Probably'. Unfortunately the footnote on the possibility doesn't lead to the article.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_Bus_Campaign

Thanks. Found this

https://humanists.uk/campaigns/successful-campaigns/atheist-bus-campaign/

[Nearly Sane]

Thanks. Found this

https://humanists.uk/campaigns/successful-campaigns/atheist-bus-campaign/

  As I have mentioned many times on here, I think using ideas of probability on a claim that is not naturalistic is a category error.

[Maeght]

  As I have mentioned many times on here, I think using ideas of probability on a claim that is not naturalistic is a category error.

Yes, can see that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Prof loves the music of Mozart and choral singing. I'm sure he's had experiences which many would refer to as the 'transcendent'. Since I share many of the Prof's musical enthusiasms, I can relate to various experiences that he has alluded to in this forum. But they are experiences of this world, however out of the routine of ordinary life they may be.

What is it these experiences are transcending?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I heard the atheist bus campaign had to put the word probably in because the advertising standards agency required them to do so. Even the ASA recognised that the campaign could not substantiate their claim that God didn't exist although Hillside has tried bloody hard and the campaign could have been ''had up on trades descriptions''.

Needless to say, Hillside has never done any such thing. 

[ProfessorDavey]

I heard the atheist bus campaign had to put the word probably in because the advertising standards agency required them to do so.

The article deals with this - the inclusion of probably may have been to reduce the likelihood of challenge by the ASA, but there is no evidence that the ASA required them to do so. All be know is that the ASA ruled that the wording used was fine.

Indeed it is pretty clear that has the campaigned used the words 'There definitely is no god' they'd have been fine. How do we now - well because in response to the campaign a christian group ran a counter bus campaign stating 'There definitely is a god' and that wasn't banned by the ASA.

[Dicky Underpants]

What is it these experiences are transcending?

They are 'transcending' everyday consciousness. They are not, as I implied, indicative of a realm beyond the universe being contacted. Though some, as I said, might think so, probably even Mozart himself (and I didn't dismiss his thoughts on these matters lightly, I can tell you).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

They are 'transcending' everyday consciousness. They are not, as I implied, indicative of a realm beyond the universe being contacted. Though some, as I said, might think so, probably even Mozart himself (and I didn't dismiss his thoughts on these matters lightly, I can tell you).

So are they transcending consciousness into unconsciousness or subconsciousness since you seem not to have left them another option.

I think what you are describing is ecstasy. The experience of being taken out of yourself or losing yourself as it were.

[ProfessorDavey]

Do you leave out the transcendant Davey?

But transcend has a much broader definition than merely considering that you might have experienced god. But Murphy-O'Connor seems to see transcendent to be synonymous with belief in god - hence his attack on atheists and secularists (although clearly he doesn't understand the meaning of secularism which has nothing to do with belief or lack of belief in god). So he makes a claim about transcendent but rapidly shifts gear into concluding that those who do not believe in in god aren't fully human.

Why are you upset by Murphy O'connor believing that the full human experience involves the transcendent ...

But that isn't what he said - there are things that may be part of the full human experience that individuals may not have experienced - many of which might be considered transcendent - so over half of us won't have had the full human experience of being pregnant and giving birth (and by the way that will include Murphy-O'Connor, but he seems to ignore this). That doesn't mean we aren't fully human - we most certainly are fully human even if we haven't had that experience. Murphy-O'Connor did not say that atheists had not had a full human experience - nope he said that we weren't fully human. There is a massive difference between the two.

So if atheists aren't fully human for not believing in god, why isn't Murphy-O'Connor not fully human for not experiencing pregnancy and child-birth.

[Alan Burns]

If faith is so weak that an Oxford academic writing a few books and engaging in lectures and debates is going to shake it to the core - then that faith seems terribly fragile. Why is this faith so weak and fragile that you seem to imply that it needs to be protected from free speech of this nature.

The strength of people's faith varies from those with no faith at all to those who appear to have unshakable faith, with a complete spectrum of faith strengths between the two extremes.  Faith, no matter how small, is the most precious gift a person can possess.  It needs to be nurtured or it will die.  I have no doubt that there are evil forces at work which are intent of destroying people's Christian faith - and I have personally witnessed some who have sadly lost their faith.  Fortunately I have also witnessed some people who had no faith who have discovered the true love of God in their lives and become powerful witnesses to their experience.  There is always hope for everyone.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The strength of people's faith varies from those with no faith at all to those who appear to have unshakable faith, with a complete spectrum of faith strengths between the two extremes.

So far, so good.

Faith, no matter how small, is the most precious gift a person can possess.

Now you’ve collapsed again into, well, a faith claim. Why would you think “faith” is a “gift” rather than a failure in reasoning?

It needs to be nurtured or it will die.

Depends what you mean by “nurtured”, but if you mean something like “kept as far away from reason and argument as possible” you could be right about that.

I have no doubt that there are evil forces at work which are intent of destroying people's Christian faith -…

Your personal doubt about that is neither here nor there – do you have any evidence at all for these supposed “evil forces” you think to be real, or are they actually just imaginary?

… and I have personally witnessed some who have sadly lost their faith.

Why “sadly”? Some might say “happily” instead.

Fortunately I have also witnessed some people who had no faith who have discovered the true love of God in their lives and become powerful witnesses to their experience.

What makes you think they actually “discovered” anything rather than abandoned their critical thinking in favour of some blind faith woo?     

There is always hope for everyone.

Given your abject failure to grasp or engage with the arguments here that falsify you, it seems you me be an exception though.

[ProfessorDavey]

The strength of people's faith varies from those with no faith at all to those who appear to have unshakable faith, with a complete spectrum of faith strengths between the two extremes.

True 

Faith, no matter how small, is the most precious gift a person can possess.

That is a highly contested matter of opinion. People's faith can lead them to positive action, but of course it can also lead them to 'holy' war, discrimination and persecution of others. People followed the Nazis because they had faith in them. Was that a precious gift or a curse for both them and humanity. 

It needs to be nurtured or it will die.

And in some cases allowing that faith to die is absolutely the best thing to do. I'd be delighted if the faith-driven homophobia of many religions and religious adherents died out tomorrow. 

I have no doubt that there are evil forces at work which are intent of destroying people's Christian faith - and I have personally witnessed some who have sadly lost their faith.

But some of those evil forces of discrimination and persecution are fermented and perpetuated by that very christian religious faith. All power to the elbow of those that fight against such grossly unethical behaviour toward people, whether they be fighting from within those religions or from outside. 

Fortunately I have also witnessed some people who had no faith who have discovered the true love of God in their lives and become powerful witnesses to their experience.  There is always hope for everyone.

But certainly in the UK for every person who makes that journey from non-religious to christian there are 16 who make the journey in the other direction, rejecting their christian upbringing and choosing to be non religious. Guess what - those people may well be just as full of love and hope, arguably more so if they reject discriminatory religious teaching and treat people with love, respect and equality regardless of their sex, gender, sexuality or faith.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why “sadly”? Some might say “happily” instead.

As I did when I saw the decline of New Atheism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

As I did when I saw the decline of New Atheism.

There never was a "new" atheism, and the indicators I've seen suggest that atheism is on the rise rather than in decline. Naturally if you have evidence to the contrary you'll produce it right?

[Sriram]

There is an increase in secular spirituality around the world.

[ProfessorDavey]

There is an increase in secular spirituality around the world.

Evidence please.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

There never was a "new" atheism,

I'm afraid there has and you are in denial https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism
 

and the indicators I've seen suggest that atheism is on the rise rather than in decline

If you mean an encultured apatheism I agree in western countries.

Naturally if you have evidence to the contrary you'll produce it right

Of course.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/07/why-people-with-no-religion-are-projected-to-decline-as-a-share-of-the-worlds-population/

[ProfessorDavey]

There is an increase in secular spirituality around the world.

And what do you mean by secular spirituality - do you mean claims of being spiritual amongst people who are otherwise non religious. This isn't the same as secular as there are plenty of people who are personally religious but also secular, in that they do not support mixing of state and religion.