The "New Atheisim" Classic or Dud

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/01/06/bus460.jpg

or blap

Nice t-shirt

I'd apostise it.

Pneumatic in an atheistic way

Nice t-shirt

tl; dnr

it's such a terrible slogan.

The AtheiSims

"Probably no God" = New Agnosticism, surely.

Definitely Maybe

The woman behind this campaign (possibly the broad in the photo) is a scriptwriter for Two Pints of Lager and A Packet of Crisps.

This should've been called Rolling "Humanists" Who Actively Hate Human Beings Thread.

that show really IS proof there is no god </panel>

^^^this guy brings content

sadly xpost, NRQ

</panel show writer> i mean

The thing is, religious people hold ghastly views, and they're not moderates like Richard "Jews monopolize American foreign policy" Dawkins.

that show really IS proof there is no god

On the contrary, only something beyond human comprehension and possibly divine could explain the BBC continuing to commission it

Dawkins is cleverer than you and his mum has bought him a t-shirt to prove it.

I must say he fills it out well

would blap agnostic t-shirt girl x1000

Joking aside, someone really should brutally knife-rape Richard Dawkins and then leave his dying body in a ditch somewhere.

but you have the highest testosterone count on ilx, this is established fact xpost

(she is pretty, to be fair)

Rob Daly at 10:40, on 02 January.
VERY interesting, quite a few assumptions there? Not interested how my mother votes eh? Also interesting. Oh and "true born" - good lord, I can't believe you actually wrote that, what are you, some kind of BNP nut job? And before you say I'm black, I'm black! some black people voted BNP (one of their candidates was black), they undoubtedly would spout the same bigoted nonsense about "true born" Londoners as you.

racial puppetry in right wing comments

jordan otm as hell

blappable agnostic t-shirt girl is "a television comedy writer and journalist from London. She's written for My Family, Countdown and the NME"

I got nothing.

Classic, it's a great thing, especially in America, where in many circles it's considered impolite to even say you are an Atheist or Agnostic. Now people are less afraid to say it. Funny thing is, it took two Brits to begin the mainstreaming of Atheism in America: Hitchens and Dawkins...until they showed up on the scene, a lot of Americans looked at Atheists as crazy people like Marilyn O'Hare.

Joking aside, someone really should brutally knife-rape Richard Dawkins and then leave his dying body in a ditch somewhere.

― The boy with the Arab money (The stickman from the hilarious 'xkcd' comics), Tuesday, January 6, 2009 4:15 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

This is worse than anything Dawkins has said, about Jewish people or otherwise. Oh, but you're joking! Oh wait, you said "joking aside." Perhaps you should issue a Fatwah?

yes i'm sure she is a horrible person xp

countdown is scripted?

xp

it took two Brits to begin the mainstreaming of Atheism in America: Hitchens and Dawkins

haw

Why did they attach balloons on the bus? Is this Boris braking innovation?

This is worse than anything Dawkins has said, about Jewish people or otherwise. Oh, but you're joking! Oh wait, you said "joking aside." Perhaps you should issue a Fatwah?

― thirdalternative, Tuesday, 6 January 2009 16:24 (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Hi ta! Do Jews control the world y/n? Thanks.

hawhawkins

to be fair it took two Brits to begin the mainstreaming of Christianity in America too: James I and God.

Oh wait, thirdlaternative's the dude who was arguing about why "Stuff White People Like" is the best site on the internet. Sorry, carry on.

Dawkins is great at pointing out the fallacies in arguments that no theologian has made in the last thousand years.

number of atheists vs number of people who feel that US foreign policy is monopolised by Jews

Balloons are there to help you quit worrying and enjoy your life. Also as buoyancy aid in case of great flood.

Those balloons were a gift from Will Mellor.

Dawkins is great at pointing out the fallacies in arguments that no theologian has made in the last thousand years.

yeah theology is such an advanced science these days

http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v1918/103/125/36910239/n36910239_38878062_8929.jpg

Theology is fun!

Is that what the inside of the atheist bus looks like? Cool (xp)

xxxpost

You wanna prove that people's beliefs are idiotic then starting with what they actually believe is a good idea.

yes the complexities of popular religion these days are astonishing, nothing like what those retards 1000 years ago believed in.

Ok I guess Dawkins is the number one philosophical mind of our age.

no, that is thomas sewell, remember

damn i would definitely pretend to be an atheist to mack on that chick

you'd have to pretend?

Ok so what if I have a sudden spiritual revelation about the existence of the almighty Ptharglfrzzzkr to whom all must bow down and tremble? To me it would be incontrovertinle gnostic truth. You would judge me (rightly) as a lunatic.

And yes if there is no means of distinguishing between gnostic truth and lunacy, I do write it off completely and utterly.

Ok so what if I have a sudden spiritual revelation about the existence of the almighty Ptharglfrzzzkr to whom all must bow down and tremble?

― ledge

That's gnosis.

if there is no means of distinguishing between gnostic truth and lunacy, I do write it off completely and utterly.

― ledge

That's fine, but you have to accept that you therefore have little to contribute to debates such as this beyond, "your shit's impossible and irrational."

That's fine by me. Anyway I must to bed, I wish you goodnight and may you have many mutually contradictory gnostic revelations!

unfortunately, Jesus doesn't seem to want me for a sunbeam

Yeah, rereading my post, it was a big mistake for me to use the term "rationalism" there.

Point is, I really think the theism debate is much more interesting on the level of Nietzsche vs. Kierkegaard rather than Hitchens vs. LaHaye or whoever.

Some people on this thread seem to have a really hard time understanding that some truths are outside the purview of scientific inquiry. Try to prove, for example, whether material objects outside the mind exist, or whether killing people is wrong, or what bands are "truly" metal/punk/pop in spirit, using the scientific method. You can't.

it is almost as if a whole discipline within philosophy could be created to describe this conundrum.

Some people on this thread seem to have a really hard time understanding that some truths are outside the purview of scientific inquiry.

I certainly don't think that. I do think that when it comes to discovering those truths, religion doesn't get us there. I also think that "do deities exist?" is one of the truths within that purview.

Well, I think it's more complicated than that. Some "truths" in non-scientific, dialectical thinking can take the apparent form of falsifiable propositions, but treating them as such is missing the point. To run with an example I used above, if I claimed that Magma is punk rock and the Clash are not, to respond to this by pointing out that the former conforms less to the musical definition of punk than the latter is missing the point. Although the statement takes the form of ((Band)) is ((musical style with empirically definable qualities)), it's not actually functioning on that level, and to treat it as if it is is making the same mistake that the Dawkinses of the world are making when they respond to the statement "Christianity is true" or "God exists" in the way that they do. (Again, none of this applies to attacks on fundamentalist-style Christianity in particular, because fundamentalists actually do treat the Bible as a sort of scientifically-valid history book.)

My basic point is that the concepts of God and Punk are similar in that, while they were originally created as specific, empirically definable things, most people who take the terms seriously enough also imbue them with a metaphysical/dialectical power that transcends their concrete reality. So basically old-skool medieval Christianity is like '77 punk (characterized by both a metaphysical meaning and an empirically-definable style), postmodern/existentialist-style Christianity is equivalent to all the underground styles of rock that trace their ethos back to punk, and fundamentalism is basically mallpunk (clinging to the outer empirical qualities of the idea at the expense of its metaphysical power).

I don't believe in punk.

(...re-reading what I just wrote, I'm beginning to think that studying Comp Lit has permanently destroyed my ability, in discussions like this, to not sound like a total chode to anyone without an extensive background in Weirdo French Bullshit.)

Nah, I see where yr. coming from, IFM.

Thing about arguments like Pancakes' and Ledge's is that they seek to define spirituality and divinity according to strictly materialist/scientific terms, and then challenge the validity of these straw-man material gods on similar terms. Which works, of course, but is so far removed from the actual underpinnings of religious belief as to be irrelevant as an argument against it. All that kind of anti-religious thrashing does is to suggest that "the Real God" is invisible and perhaps incomprehensible to the strict materialist, and TBH, I suspect intelligent believers are more bemused than convinced.

When I said earlier that Gnosis can't be evaluated for validity, I was wrong though. It can, but only by gnosis itself (other gnosis, higher gnosis, whatever). If I were a religious man and someone presented me with his Great Revelation concerning Pthargglh, there are a number of ways that I might evaluate the claim. I could compare it to the dogma of my faith, and accept or reject it based on how well it seems to square with that knowledge-set. This isn't a gnostic approach, but it is a religious one, based more in doctrine than divine guidance. Depending on how I made my comparisons and drew my conclusions, this could be a strictly rational approach. I could also simply decide for myself, independent of fixed doctrine, whether or not I thought this prophet's claim was likely. Does he seem insane in other regards, or does he seem like a sensible person? Has his new faith brought him happiness or suffering, riches or poores? This isn't a gnostic approach OR a religious one, but it, again, could be quite rational. Finally, I could compare his gnosis with my own. Does his story square with what the divine seems to reveal to me? This approach might or might not be religious (i.e., doctrinaire in its spirituality) but it is spiritual and is also essentially irrational.

I like the God/Punk analogy a lot. It's taking off from a totally different direction than "you can't scientifically prove murder is wrong," which is the kind of thing people do try to make evolutionary psychology arguments about.

A religious person might also argue that gnosis can be evaluated, or at least interpreted, in terms of the traditions and scriptures of the faith and how it actually works in the world. You get to keep your mind and eyes and conscience.

so when is New Atheism gonna be discontinued so we can have Atheism Classic

we need Crystal Atheism first

A religious person might also argue that gnosis can be evaluated, or at least interpreted, in terms of the traditions and scriptures of the faith and how it actually works in the world. You get to keep your mind and eyes and conscience.

― Maria

Yes! I was thinking the same, but couldn't finish the thought due to cooking spadgetti and telephone calls. Gnosis isn't necessarily incontrovertible (though I've been kinda suggesting that it is). While one type of believer is said to be more-or-less possessed by a revealed awareness of the divine, without recourse to doubt or denial, others simply seem to have "experiences" of varied sorts - experiences which they can embrace, deny, interpret, etc. So although gnostic awareness arrives by non-empirical, seemingly non-rational (arational?) means, it's reasonable to think that believers might make rational use of such knowledge, once it arrives.

Hey, anybody know anything about "bad gnosis": incorrect, though authentically spiritual, forms of knowing? Is this something theologians or spiritual types talk about? I mean, gnosis is often thought to be a form of insight, inspiration or higher understanding, therefore intrinsically valid. But what of the idea that Satan might whisper in one's ear? Isn't Satan a spiritual being, just as God is (though of course of a lower order)? And if so, then isn't the misleading "insight" offered by Satan and his like an authentic form of gnosis that is nonetheless pernicious, false, misleading? Anti-gnosis? Is there an accepted term for falsehoods from beyond the pale?

Gaaah. This is starting to sound like a billion angels dancing on pins. Everything depends on the nature of this probably imaginary thing I'm blithely dissecting without understanding at all...

Would be nice to hear from a few believers here, if only to tell me that I'm full of shit.

Atheist bus adverts could lead to watchdog ruling on God's existence

Awesome headline. Very dull story (if the ASA bothers its ass about this, I will eat a Bible).

"this current brand of in-your-face atheism"

This should be called "in-you-faitheism"

Joining Christian Voice will help you to:

Watch, and be a Watchman
(Isa 6:8; Ezek 33:1-9, Mark 13:37)

i bagsy rorschach

lol nerd

would make a change from my usual hobby of noodle vague cosplay

yo whoever linked to that Did the Greeks Believe in their Myths? thing upthread, thanks a lot; it looks way interesting and right up my alley. possibly the only thing of value that has come out of this otherwise terrible thread.

well actually everything since the last thirdalternative post was pretty good. and "faux-Nietzschean atheists vs. aspie atheists" made me lol

Hey, anybody know anything about "bad gnosis"

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41PZ805QP3L._SS500_.jpg

more to your point anecdotally i've heard people say something to the effect of 'the devil was trying to trick me'. you're dancing around it and i don't know why i want to throw a bone to some of the shitheads on this thread but...doubt is still the atheist's best friend, and it's built in to the gnostic experience for all but the most certain/credulous

doubt is still the atheist's best friend

Please explain further.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/mar/11/god-advert-christian-complaints

i didn't read it twice but lol at the graun's po-facedness over this. oh my god, 1,000 people complained. idk what they complained about the xtians' ad makes a lot mroe sense than the atheist original. saying there was 'probably' no god was an epic fail, but THEN saying 'enjoy life' was even worse. kierkegaard was right.

*what they complained about FULL STOP.
*more sense.

What are the other three most criticised ads of all time?

They had to put "probably" to get round some advertising rules. Which seemingly don't apply to xtians.

I'm confused, is there a God or not?

what are they advertising?

Cold logical existence :(

What are the other three most criticised ads of all time?

New Labour New Danger? that one that used a newspaper story about some guy dying (insurance thing?) maybe

that one where the kid says he wants to do a poo at his friends house.

pepsi max

lust for life insurance

pepsi max

entirely deserved any derision it received, IMO

Speaking as an athiest myself, there is something a bit smug and obnoxious about those bus ads.

can't believe i only learned the other day that some of the christian bus ads were paid for with the royalties earned by the guy who co-wrote "so macho" for sinitta.

BTW, I was talking about the original 'No God' ads in my last post. The xtian ones it goes without saying I object to.

They are a bit smug but I still liked them - if it only succeeded in winding up Stephen Green for five minutes it would have been worth it.

doubt is still the atheist's best friend

Please explain further.

i guess i meant "evangelical atheist's" first of all, or whatever someone like that calls themselves. and i meant that rather than attempting to snark away or dismiss someone's experience, the most effective 'tactic' would probably be to get someone to doubt the exact nature of those experiences. omgscience can be and is continuously squared with all manner of belief anyway, outside of an inordinately vocal segment of the religious population, and it kind of irks me that the oil and water relationship between the two is considered such a given in pop discussions. i don't remember why i thought it necessary to say anything on this thread but i don't feel like rereading it, so forgive any whiff of 'challenging opinion', hope it makes some sense.

It's not about dismissing anyone's experience, it's about confronting that "God says so" argument.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/01/06/bus460.jpg

"There's probably no bra"

it's about confronting that "God says so" argument

oh i don't have any answers for this, wait for them to experience brain trauma. don't pray for it though.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/01/06/bus460.jpg

Well, right, if you think you've got an immortal soul, you've got to ask why that should be so badly affected by any minor injury to the big poke of mince between your ears.

Bottom line, is what's the problem about asking people why they shouldn't at least consider coming over to the side of the tent where "god says so" doesn't apply?

People need to put their complaining general annoyingness into a good cause, like those fucking ads everywhere telling the world that they are a bit uggo and the world hates them until they get plastic surgery.*

*might be a bit of an overstatement but they piss me off.

you've got to ask why that should be so badly affected by any minor injury to the big poke of mince between your ears

^ somebody is listening