Hannah Cann tells us why she loves political correctness.
Do you have swine flu? No. Do you know anybody who does have swine flu? Probably not. So what's all the fuss about?
Can't afford ethical clothing but can afford a night out at Ziggy's? Jennifer Heyes discusses where students' priorities should really lie.
Three of The Yorker's blogs team have had a hard think about what general rules they live their lives by and written them down in the form of their own Personal Philosophies.
Now is it just me or, for a group of people who base a lot of their argument on the concept of "There’s about as much proof of God existing as there is for the existence of the tooth fairy", are they being about as immature as they are accusing people who believe in God as being?
That’s not to say I disagree with this idea of, as some reports have described it, "atheists having a voice". I think it’s fantastic that people who don’t believe in God are having the chance to voice their opinions, and they’ve done it fairly creatively and without aggression with their favoured slogan of “There probably is no God; now stop worrying and enjoy life”. They’ve taken their ideas, affixed it with ‘probably’ instead of ‘definitely’ and made their opinions public. I like the fact that there was no forum for this kind of opinion that didn’t rely on abusive comments or tense academic debates; so these people have created one.
I think it’s fantastic that people who don’t believe in God are having the chance to voice their opinions, and they’ve done it fairly creatively.
In essence, it’s legalised graffiti, but with a message that makes you apply far more brain power than traditional "blank loves blank 4 eva". I like the way that this makes people think. I like the way that two different groups, both atheists and Christians get to put across their opinions in a creative, if slightly petty, way.
I think one thing to consider though is this: Christians aren’t the only group that believes in God. We have in this country a diverse collection of Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, and many other mainstream and lesser known groups. So why is it the Christians who are getting the brunt of this yet again?
Could it be because it was a Christian group (not all Christians; there’s a difference) that put up the religious ads initially? Or is it because we British are so concerned that we will be accused of intolerance, or even direct racism, that we simply avoid questioning (that’s right, simply questioning, not attacking) any religion that may A) respond with an accusation of an ‘-ism’ or B) possess a stereotype of responding violently?
I’m not a Christian, but the more I look at them as a group the more I can see why they are used as a soft target for all kinds of issues. Sometimes it seems like people use Christians as a target in the religion debate simply because they are so afraid of being accused of some socially unacceptable bias against another group that they once again start debating the beliefs of a relatively placid and mainly pacifist few.
I don’t agree with everything Christians have to say. I don’t agree with the way that some of them (again, not all of them) try to get people to come over to their way of thinking. Most of all, I don’t believe the same as they do. However, I don’t believe the same as all atheists do either.
Call me indecisive. Call me gullible. Call me weak if you must. Never call me closed minded though. I find the creativity of the atheists in this bus ad debate fantastic, and I think it’s good that we live in a country where somebody looked at the religious slogans and thought "I’m quite tired of just seeing that… I want my opinion voiced too" and was able to do that. It is this kind of action and tolerance of said action that keeps the concept of freedom of expression alive and well.
However, what we as a nation must be careful of is the possibility of becoming way too harsh on a single group because they are the ones who will tolerate it; or becoming too harsh on a group as a whole, when it is a sub-group that is causing the issue (for example, in the case of the poster campaign it was the Alpha Foundation that put up the ads).
Perhaps the correct reaction to this should be a series of responses from different groups. Possibly that would simply perpetuate the pettiness, but at least it would be fair. Even agnostics like me should get a voice, although I don’t think we could be as catchy as either of the two groups so far involved: “There may be a God; if you see him say hi from us” probably wouldn’t have the desired impact.
I don't quite get what the atheist bus has to do with the rest of the article... First of all, it says "There probably is no god", not "There probably is no christian god", so it doesn't say anything specific about Christians. Second, the campaign started not to respond to just "buses plastered with slogans about there being a God", but to such posters with a link to a Christian website stating all non-Christians would spend eternity in hell... So it isn't a simple attack on religion, but a reply to a Christian group for their crazy message, not the fact that they're christians. If some muslim group would put up posters saying that all non-muslims would go to hell, that suicide bombing gets you 72 virgins in paradise or any other crazy religious teaching from any other group, I'm pretty sure you would get a similar, if not bigger, reaction.
But of course Christians get the most criticism, they're the majority, probably those with the most power in politics (bishops in house of lords?). And, if you look at the main atheist lobby in the UK (British Humanist Association, those who supported the atheist bus), you'll see that they are against Sharia Law, and any other crazy ideas from different religions, not just poor little christians.
Also, there are very very few atheists who would prefer the word 'definitively' (and anyway, which religious group would say non-believers will 'probably' burn in hell?). There is no way of disproving something, so 'very very likely' is the furthest we can go. Which brings us back to the tooth fairy argument, which you don't seem to challenge but just link to immaturity for no apparent reason. Especially as an agnostic, I am very surprised you haven't come to grips with this argument yet.
And finally, the atheist bus slogan is closer to an agnostic viewpoint than an atheist one, unless for some reason you believe that all religions are 'equally true', rather than 'equally unlikely, and as likely as the tooth fairy'.
There are plenty rational reasons for thinking that God exists. I'm not getting bogged down with explaining it all again but suffice to say that I'm not some brainwashed idiot. I'm studying Astrophysics and I wouldn't believe something that didn't make logical sense. On the other hand, we know that the teeth actually get taken away by parents so that shows that the tooth fairy either doesn't exist or is lousy at (her?) job.
The bus campaign is a bit stupid. I mean "there probably isn't a God" isn't a good thought if it's in response to "non-believers go to hell" after all. Also it implies that Christians or people from other faiths "worry and don't enjoy life" whereas I would argue that true Christians don't worry and enjoy life anyway. It's a completely pointless campaign that costs them money and that they do for the sole reason that they're full of hatred for religions. It's saddening that people are so full of loathing that they'd spend so much money on a 100% useless campaign, really :(
Do you not think it's rather a bold assumption to say that atheists, or at least those behind the ad are:
"full of hatred for religions"
I also find it highly ironic that you try to write a serious article but can't resist the temptation end it with ":(".
I think the buses are great - especially if they get people thinking about what are, ultimately, the most important questions. Apathy is a terrible thing!
I didn't write an article but regardless emoticons show the underlying emotion. People that don't use emoticons should do so >.>
And yes, there is no reason to spend that much money on something that is against religion unless you hate it. Or, at least, I can see no other reason. If people have ideas I'm happy to listen to them 
By that logic, there's no reason to spend that much money promoting religion unless you hate atheism?
If people who believe in a divine being are allowed to advertise their message (that your only way to salvation is through forgiveness, or something), then surely people who believe in one less God than the Christians do are allowed to say theirs?
Chris #6: I disagree. There is much more reason to promote religion. Those who don't believe in God have no logical reason to prevent others from believing in God, or much reason to do anything (as long as Christians aren't trying to force them to believe something they don't or are threatening them), after all they and Christians are just "dancing to their genes".
On the other hand Christians are taught to love our neighbours as ourselves. Since the consequence of sin is death and eternal separation from God, it is out of love as well as Jesus' commandment that we are to tell people that they can be saved from sin.
James, yes that was my point, by saying that atheists just "hate religion" you might as well just say religious people "hate atheists", whereas neither are obviously true.
The belief that there is not a God/hell/etc is just as much a belief that there is, and it's perfectly justifiable for both views to be voiced, even if you think the others are misguided (as atheists do of religion), or condemning themselves.
As some Christians feel a need to convert to save people, some atheists feel a need to save people from worry and stress of having to be a good Christian (as you can still be a good person without a belief in God, imo).
Chris:
Whether the atheists behind the campaign actually "hate" religion is indeed uncertain, however they have no unselfish reason consistent with their atheist faith to care whether Christian's are misguided or not. Why bother with the whole campaign if not because they strongly dislike religion, and wanted to raise lots of money for their cause?
Just to be clear I have no problem with their campaign as it (perhaps unintentionally) encourages discussion.
If atheists feel a need to save people from worry and stress in christianity, then they have completely failed to understand it. Christianity is about freedom, we are free from our sin. We are not saved by being a good Christian but by faith in Jesus' death to pay the penalty for our sin (he comitted no sin himself so he had no penalty to pay). No acts we ourselves can perform will make us right with God, not even trying to be "good", for we will never succeed.
So in this sense Christians disagree that it is possible for any of us (including christians) to live a good life or be a good christian. We are all born into sin, so our lives will never be "good" in God's eyes. But the influence of God in our lives because of our salvation makes us want to please God in what we do, and changes how we think and behave. We are not forced to obey rules, we just want to try and please God, for it is because of his love that we are saved.
Incidentally, without biblical foundations and a definition of what is and isn't "good", the word is up for personal interpretation. People will do what is "good in their own eyes", and we have no reason to judge a murderer, rapist, or pedophile for doing what feels "good" to them.
Please James, let the grownups discuss this...
If I accept your crazy book, I have every reason to accept another one, written by a "murderer, rapist, or pedophile" - and by the way, your book isn't that 'evil free' either...
And God deciding what's good doesn't make sense, maybe you should familiarize yourself with the Euthyphro dilemma.
And don't bother giving me a long and boring counter-argument, just read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor instead.
I don't think degenerating into insults is really the best way to approach.
At the end of the day, James is entitled to his beliefs, and is also entitled to promote them if he so desires. Similarly, atheists are entitled to their beliefs, and also to promote them if they want, and to allow only one side to air their views isn't really fair.
Jason Rose: "I'm studying Astrophysics"... What a poor argument indeed... As valid as saying "I'm a rocket scientist and I'm about to jump out of the window. Rocket scientists are clever, therefore jumping out of the window can't be such a bad idea."
You might be 100% rational BESIDES that, won't change anything to your delusion in this particular matter though.
#13: Please, it really isn't on to go calling people deluded just because they believe something you don't. Frankly it's rude and offensive, and suggests strongly that you have no arguments of substance against them that you would resort to insults.
Good campaign, brought philosophy back to the front of my mind!
I'm too uncomfortable with hell and sin to be a religious believer, yet i realise i have no perfect proof against god, and i never will do. So strong agnosticism it is.
Whats good about this campaign is that it doesnt just ask you to think about the existence of God, but how you should ultimately aim to live your life - in fear (or awe) of something that might be there, in fear that God won't be there, or enjoying the time we know we definately have.
Despite my agnosticism, i choose to live my life as an atheist, because i know for certain that life on earth is real. Therefore it seems to me that we should focus on this life and enjoy it, and above that help those who can't enjoy it as much as you to the best of your abilities. If an afterlife exists i'll deal with it when i get there.
#15: Interesting point of view. I'm curious, what do you mean when you say you're "uncomfortable" with hell+sin?
Incidentally, many Buddhists are atheist. The two are not incompatible. Same goes for one or two varieties of hinduism.
Some people seem to have a problem with atheists putting forward their arguments.
"Leave Christians alone - what have they ever done that could possibly annoy you?"
Well, quite a bit actually. As a gay man I'm pretty fed up of all the problems that have been caused both to me personally and to LGBT people more generally. And you can't divorce that entirely from religion - the argument "just because some religious people are intolerant doesn't mean you should object to religions themselves" doesn't particularly wash with me as the religion provides (irrational?) justification for the intolerance.
One does of course have to be slightly careful when talking about religion in this sense though, as different religious traditions have very different attitudes to homosexuality - ranging from religions like Rastafari, and certain evangelical forms of christianity, which are horrendously intolerant of homosexuality, to hinduism, which doesn't have a problem with it at all. On the subject of non-intollerant Christianities, it's probably worth mentioning that the current Archbishop of Canterbury wrote some very pro-LGBT theological papers before becoming archbishop.
I also sincerely hope that if there is a God, he is tollerant of my dreadful spelling.
A lot has been said on here about the rationality of belief in God. Having studied philosophy of religion a fair bit, it's my view that the only good way to justify religious belief is Fideism - the position that you haven't really got any rational reason at all for believing in God, and may even have rational grounds for disbelief in God, but you just do believe anyway. There's also Deism, which is the belief that God (or something) created the world, then left it alone and can't really be bothered answering our prayers or anything.
Most monotheistic philosophies of religion have a great deal of difficulty explaining away the existence of evil while keeping God omnipotent and all-loving.
For a more intelligent debate about God's existence, we have a pretty well stocked philosophy section in the library.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report