TRVMP Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 How sad £140,000 raised for this. If only there were worthwile causes out there this money could have went to. Us mindless religous drones usually raise money but instead of getting adverts on buses we tend to give it to the likes of sciaf and the needy. Shame on us! You'd probably want to read up on what this advertising campaign was a response to before you start spouting nonsense. are you saying creation should not be taught alongside evolution in schools? or are you talking about "religious" schools... ie catholic schools? To steal an argument from Christopher Hitchens, one can teach creation alongside evolution in the same way that you can teach alchemy alongside chemistry and astrology alongside astronomy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cet Homme Charmant Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 How sad £140,000 raised for this. If only there were worthwile causes out there this money could have went to. Us mindless religous drones usually raise money but instead of getting adverts on buses we tend to give it to the likes of sciaf and the needy. Shame on us! No sadder than the similar amount raised by Christian groups for an ad campaign telling non-believers they'll burn for all eternity in Hell. Maybe they too could have found a more worthy cause to spend their money on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRVMP Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 what, like non living matter amazingly changing to living matter? (even your beloved dawkin's calls this "something straight from science FICTION" ) that kind of thing? I don't know about abiogenesis. I don't claim to. It would be far easier for me to believe that some bearded fellow in the sky made them and they then had a booze cruise on some other bearded fellow's Ark but I'd prefer to wait until the evidence is in if you don't mind tremendously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xj2006 Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 You're missing the meaning of fundamentalist. apologies if so.. in my view fundamentalist is someone who has an extreme view and sticks to it no matter what if that is not what it is I would like to retract that statement. I used plenty of other apt adjectives that you never commented on though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRVMP Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 nacho's off on one. magic. Stay tuned. I'm just getting warmed up I'm just waiting for Pascal's Wager to come up then I'll hit my vinegars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xj2006 Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 I don't know about abiogenesis. I don't claim to. It would be far easier for me to believe that some bearded fellow in the sky made them and they then had a booze cruise on some other bearded fellow's Ark but I'd prefer to wait until the evidence is in if you don't mind tremendously. don't mind at all as would I if you don't mind tremendously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRVMP Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 apologies if so.. in my view fundamentalist is someone who has an extreme view and sticks to it no matter what if that is not what it is I would like to retract that statement. The basis of a scientific viewpoint is one of scepticism; that all is open to question. To be a scientific fundamentalist would be to exercise enormous levels of doubt - something the best scientists do. Whether Dawkins is among these (and I would hesitate to say that he is, to be honest) is up to you but I don't think that fundamentalist is the correct term for him regardless. I used plenty of other apt adjectives that you never commented on though Sorry - please repeat them, or point me to the post. I don't want to ignore peoples' points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRVMP Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 don't mind at all as would I if you don't mind tremendously? Absolutely. I raised this in response to what you gave, and to the creation/evolution in schools thing, not against you personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_mceleny Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 You'd probably want to read up on what this advertising campaign was a response to before you start spouting nonsense. Somes up my disdain really. You believe you can freely say what you wish but as always any religous minded response is nonsene. Dont worry come the revolution i'll try put a word in for you with the big man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xj2006 Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 The basis of a scientific viewpoint is one of scepticism; that all is open to question. To be a scientific fundamentalist would be to exercise enormous levels of doubt - something the best scientists do. Whether Dawkins is among these (and I would hesitate to say that he is, to be honest) is up to you but I don't think that fundamentalist is the correct term for him regardless. Sorry - please repeat them, or point me to the post. I don't want to ignore peoples' points. I was answering your question as to why I thought the evangelical nature of the campaign was ironic can't remember all my points, but I did mention that dawkin's zeal is almost religious in nature (ie the amount of time and effort he puts in into trying to convert the world to athiesm). something like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cet Homme Charmant Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Somes up my disdain really. You believe you can freely say what you wish but as always any religous minded response is nonsene. Dont worry come the revolution i'll try put a word in for you with the big man. Isn't referring to God as 'the big man' blasphemous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRVMP Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Somes up my disdain really. You believe you can freely say what you wish but as always any religous minded response is nonsene. Dont worry come the revolution i'll try put a word in for you with the big man. No - any nonsense-minded response is nonsense, e.g. someone coming in with the "what a waste of money - religious people don't do this!" when the ad campaign is a response to a religious advertising campaign on buses. If you'd actually read the original link, rather than resorting to prejudice, you would have avoided this misapprehension. edit: ha! perfect example of a religious poster resorting to "offence" already. And this is when they are shown to be wrong. Imagine what the uproar will be when the matter is something open to debate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRVMP Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 I was answering your question as to why I thought the evangelical nature of the campaign was ironic can't remember all my points, but I did mention that dawkin's zeal is almost religious in nature (ie the amount of time and effort he puts in into trying to convert the world to athiesm). something like that I suppose you could characterise some of his public appearances as zealous, and that, of course, does bring to mind religion. I think to do that, though, is to miss the point of the debate, for the reasons that I gave for "fundamentalist." Basically I can understand why people feel this way, although I think they're not really in tune with the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortonjag Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Isn't referring to God as 'the big man' blasphemous? Why-is he vertically challenged? First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then they pretend to befriend you, then you win! YER BARD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_mceleny Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Well i clearly did read the article but sorry if it upsets you but new age christians dont speak for me or the majority, just as Osama Barrack Bin Laden does not speak for the muslim people even if he thinks he does. Your 2 wrongs make a right logic is also clearly flawed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xj2006 Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 I suppose you could characterise some of his public appearances as zealous, and that, of course, does bring to mind religion. I think to do that, though, is to miss the point of the debate, for the reasons that I gave for "fundamentalist." Basically I can understand why people feel this way, although I think they're not really in tune with the debate. fair enough I do think though, that I am a balanced person. And believe it or not, I DO agree with a lot of dawkin's and others anti religious sentiments (by that I mean the evil that most organised religion is responsible for) I do however believe that it takes just as much "faith" to believe in evolution as it does creation (and I mean that the creation of life, the start of life, which as I mentioned before, even mr dawkin's refers to as "science fiction" - from the book "the selfish gene" if I recall) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cet Homme Charmant Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 just as Osama Barrack Bin Laden does not speak for the muslim people even if he thinks he does. Don't get the Osama Bin Laden/Barak Obama link there, can you elaborate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
le_chien_manquee Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 fair enough I do think though, that I am a balanced person. And believe it or not, I DO agree with a lot of dawkin's and others anti religious sentiments. I do however believe that it takes just as much "faith" to believe in evolution as it does creation (and I mean that the creation of life, the start of life, which as I mentioned before, even mr dawkin's refers to as "science fiction" - from the book "the selfish gene" if I recall) it's DAWKINS you f***ing MUPPET the guy below loves the boaby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRVMP Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Well i clearly did read the article but sorry if it upsets you but new age christians dont speak for me or the majority, just as Osama Barrack Bin Laden does not speak for the muslim people even if he thinks he does. Your 2 wrongs make a right logic is also clearly flawed! You threw yourself in with the nameless "religious" camp, not me. I'm not guilty of any two wrongs make a right logic as I don't think public awareness campaigns are wrong, especially when it comes to religion. As I clearly said earlier in the thread I commend all attempts for religious groups to make themselves known in the marketplace of ideas, wherein they invariably lose virtually any reasoned argument that comes their way. Advertising is no different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_mceleny Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Don't get the Osama Bin Laden/Barak Obama link there, can you elaborate? I think it was clinton's campaign that made some reference when they were using the Barrack obama hussein channel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.