pouët.net

actually my post isn't ironic. I really don't think that bus thing was a good idea, irrespectively of my own beliefs. I mean, what is the motive ?

"thank you o great Richard Dawkings and your enlighted followers for making me see the true light, that there is probably no god. I can live in happiness now." yeah right. Lets go and put a "There is no santa claus" on posters in malls during christmas. Children can then breathe in relief...

You are much nicer with demos than words :)

LOOK AT Y'ALL TILTING YO HEAD AGAIIINN:

Ahhhhh, crch55tmas, where did you find that? TEH PROOF!!!! Ilexiste..

Make people think on their own? Hey, even the churches hailed it as a positive thing. And the slogan can even be understood in two ways (either strictly as written or then sarcastically as "yeah, there's probably no god, go on and enjoy your life, don't really think about this stuff, just assume there's no god, don't ever think of god and just have fun. Don't say we didn't warn you. No, don't stop and think, just go and have your fun"). I could imagine those ads being put up by the churches as well. Besides, as a person who was scared shitless of going to Hell as a small child, I find the message rather comforting. First comes this life, and then perhaps something else, but we don't know about that so you really should put your emphasis on the one life we can know about.

And to answer the question , I have attended a lecture by Richard Dawkins and seen him speak but of course that's only indirect evidence and I might have been mislead (or I might be lying). Or my brain might be floating in a tank, or the universe might just be one big hologram..

regardless of how press portrays it. Dawkins needs to go to one of the places in the world that are at current only held together by a thin theological glue. Take away the hope of a better afterlife/reincarnation, and these people are left with nothing, no food, no shelter, nothing as in nothing at all. This is the point where they would properbly stop and think; "...wait a minute...my land have all these natural resources that everybody want's, how come I'm hungry?". and this -I assume- would be the point where he realise that some 5-10% of the world is sitting in butter slab, while he is not even left the gruel. what comes next?

a lot of people accept the shitty status quo only because religion dictates that they deserve it for ills comitted in a former life, some original sin, or similar.

Dawkins is either a well meaning idiot that cannot foresee the potential consequences of his crusade, or he is a dangerous agent provocatour IMO.

About this "advertising campaign", Dawkins said: "Religion is accustomed to getting a free ride - automatic tax breaks, unearned respect and the right not to be offended, the right to brainwash children."

"Even on the buses, nobody thinks twice when they see a religious slogan plastered across the side."

"This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think - and thinking is anathema to religion."



I'm not a "hardcore Dawkins fan" but I think that he's right is his support to this bus slogans. I believe that religions are superstitions and a danger to the freedom of the human mind.

And this is a very good argument for abolishing religion.

and give people what instead...Obama? You are not so naive as to belive that, just because religion is abolished the status quo will change for better, are you?

The status quo will change to whatever people will want to change it into. No government or system will survive if the people in masses repressed under it don't want it to.

"Make people think on their own": you don't do that with a half-baked aphorism (there is *probably* no god) and a command (go on and enjoy life) that sounds rather patronising. I understand the principle, it is just that I don't agree that religion makes one "sad" (and I know quite a few people that would live a sad existence without religion).

Nothing against making people think on their own, but I just don't think this is the way...

@eebliss:



### Religion, opium to the masses ###

@ham, lol I was just going to post that :)

@Navis: Perhaps is not the best slogan but I believe that "Probably" is better than "Surely" in the phrase.
It makes you think that our knowledge of the universe is uncertain (on the other hand, "Revelation" is dogmatic and is full of "certainness").

there he is

@El Topo: Illegal telepathy, you know. ;)

ok. I disagree, there is no evidence for this. Point in case, Ireland, Large parts of Africa, these guys, it is something else entirely than "the will of the people" that guides the future of the people. which revolutions has actually been succesful, and managed to maintain a "will of the people" model for decades after? Things always go back the way the were more or less, regardless of what "the peope" wants.

My dad just spend years in a war plagued african country. If it wasn't for christiandom, the place would have utterly disintegrated by now. But the hope provided by the religion, mixed with the belief that those who do well will have support from their god, have prevented it.

You'r oppinion is the typical pseudo intellectual one, that does not take into account how the world and people actually work, and quite frankly, I loathe it. I have seen, with my own eyes, how the alternative you present would cause incredible chaos. Our little luxury lifes here with personal development as the extend of consumerism cannot be compared to the status quo for a large part of the rest of the world.

Faith is all they have, it is all that keeps them going, and you think this is bad....because?!.....

@Navis: That would be a great tunnel effect for your next demo! :)

@ham - I agree entirely. And I think it is a much needed Opium as a sedative in a world so filled with greed and pain it borders the unfathomable, but this is only obvious when you get outside our own little navel society thingie we have going on here.

Instead of keeping them stoned and suppressed with Christianity we could also try to make it a better place by making them more aware about economics, human rights, etc.

Don't forget those are the same churches that preach against the use of condoms.

One thing at a time, and in a certain order. Introduce a better way of life, demonstrate actual democracy etc...and then perhaps at that point, people would become receptible.

is there a god? hard to tell, probably not

does he love mankind? obviously not

should we take the bible literally? then god would be worse then hitler

if there is a god, is it the god of the bible? i doubt. there is no evidence to that

if there is a god, is it the god of the bible in the way my parents interpret the bible? you have to be very self centered to belief this.

if there is no god, shouldn't we embrace the social function of religion? just make a map of where there is war on this planet.


as long as religion knows it's place in society, i have no problem with it. but when it starts attacking science, skyscrapers and children minds we have to put it back where it belongs: into the churches, comforting old people.

ah come on. blaming religion for war is so last century. it's just an excuse to rally the masses. in more godless or religiously uniform areas, sentiments like nationalism are shown to work just as well.

The Wikipedia English article of Richard Dawkins is longer than the article of God.

The most silly topics have always longer articles in Wikipedia - see List of Pokemons article. By that rule, I can't say if Richard Dawkins is real or not, but I can say that he is a sillier topic than God.

The OP is a real winner. This is his 40th troll/flamebait/off-topic thread and he's not banned and even taken somewhat seriously.


He is a bit of a prick, yes. What he fails to realize, is that religious feelings have little to do with intellectual capacity. These people, while surely upbringing and social climate play an important role too, have a desire or a need wired in their brain that non-religious people simply don't have. I like to compare it with creativity.

What I do like about him is that he's harshly opposing the idiocy that is creationism and that he is quite entertaining. ;) Also, he and some other people bring an long overdue debate about the virtues and failures of (organised) religion to the states, where atheism is still a bit of a hot-button topic and considered a no-go if you'd like to run for a major political cause/office.