quote:

Originally posted by English Rachel They are collectively NOT believing. They are making it ok to NOT believe. They are not telling anyone what they should and shouldn't think so how can they be a religion or a cult????????

Do you ever see adds such as THERE PROBABLY IS GOD, SO YOU BETTER BEHAVE, well if there were I didn't pay attention to it, I think this is nonsense the city as a whole has bigger issues to deal with, I'm not religious, but religious people don't bother me either ... so whats the problem and need for it?

___________________
Great Music Stations: 2HP.ca Radio & etn.fm

I was a little hesitant to post here after my initial little approval, but I feel compelled to point out a few things.

First, you can certainly exercise your freedom of religion; however, we also have the right to freedom from religion.

Second, religious belief or lack there of, is private--so keep your delusions to yourself. I completely respect your privacy to practice whatever the hell is you want to practice--as far as faith is concerned--but that’s not enough is it? Religious people feel obliged to somehow try to justify their beliefs and/or impose them on to others. It is as if it’s not enough that they themselves believe it, nope, I have to belief it as well. Please spare us your quotes from your holy books--keep them to yourself.

I have no problem with individuals and their private beliefs. The overwhelming and growing problem with religion is that it is the exact opposite--you're wrong, I'm right, my God is true, your God is false, I will be in heaven, and you will burn in hell. I can literally give you hundreds of books to read on this, but to save time, all I ask is that we examine the past and the present affairs of religion in causing global scale conflicts. I'll give you an example close to home.

In June of 2003 President George Bush said to the Palestinian leaders in an interview that God told him to attack Iraq.

It’s amazing really--if you are so confident of your convictions, why not just be happy that you’re going to prosper in the afterlife, and just let everybody else live their own lives. Why are you people so upset about these posters? Does your God cease to suddenly exist because a poster was printed? Is your God so insecure or are you that insecure about your faith?

Hell, even if the poster said “There is no God,” you are still being absolutely stupid to get upset over it. As the same principle applies: are your convictions so fragile that they’re disturbed by an alternative point of view? And that’s all this is, is an alternative way of looking at life.

quote:

Originally posted by Yohan oh please religion is like any other moral values. it's similar to another philosophical idea do you begrudge your parents to forcing you to be polite to strangers, or have good table manners, or teaching you what they think is good and right? it is a parents prerogative to raise their kids however they feel is right. likewise when kids become old enough to reason and make decisions for themselves, it should be up to the kids to figure out whether how their parents brought them up is good and correct i guess i should be upset next time some canadian parents force their kids to play hockey, because it's a good canadian thing to do eh i'm also having a good laugh at your portrayal like atheism is some sort of innocent idea that all of humans should embrace

Yohan, you are completely wrong on this.

I think it's important to note the difference between providing information and giving information. I am all for providing a child with the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, a physics text book, a philosophy book etc... and allowing the child to come to a conclusion for him or herself. But when you label a child a Muslim child or a Christian child simply due to faith of their parents--that is forcing your ideas on a child--as the child is far too young to understand the concepts he is being labeled with, never mind being allowed to make the choice him or herself.

And by comparing it to teaching your child to play hockey you’re trivializing the topic. That is, some religious teachings are directly contradictory to what we scientifically know--this is a fact. Even Francis Collins said in his book that we can only find God though faith and not evidence. Christianity, for instance teaches certain stuff about the creation of the universe, life and how we came to be that is simply not aligned with logic--these are facts Yohan.

So when you raise a child from birth--FROM BIRTH--to have unquestioning faith to doctrines that the child CANNOT understand or evaluate at his age, that is indoctrination. However, as I’ve mentioned, if you give the child time to reach an age where he or she can evaluate and think for him or herself, I have no problem with providing that child with various different scientific or otherwise religious information on how, and why life is, the way it is.

In respects to atheism supposedly portrayed as this innocent doctrine, I disagree and I think we have different understandings of faith and atheism or anti-theist like myself, someone who is scientifically inclined. Science does not need to be portrayed as an amoral, apathetic, or sometime cynical point of view; on the contrary, science takes great delight in attempting to answer intricate questions of life, and takes even more delight in hypothesizing what we have yet to unravel. It is a roller coaster ride--sometimes you're right, and sometimes you're wrong; science is always in a state of flux, scientists exult when they are proven wrong by other scientists, because that's all more motivation for them to work harder. In short, science is the study of the world, of life, of the unknown--and I much rather take pleasure in not knowing certain things, but rather having the confidence, that as we advance, we'll get a little closer to the answers; as opposed to having all supposed answers provided in holy scripture--doesn't leave much room for the imagination does it...

Also, the aforementioned scientists and believer, American Geneticist Francis Collins makes his entire argument in defense of God based on two things: the counterintuitiveness of altruism in evolution via natural selection and the ambiguity and the origins of Moral Law. He argues that due to discrepancies in behavior in species, the current limitations of science, coupled with the assumption that altruism is counter-productive to evolution, God must be the figure who is responsible for our moral sense; or else he argues, we could not explain why species tend to be good--altruistic.

What Collins fails to recognize, and indeed the majority of religious people, is that, first it is fallacious to invoke God simply because we have not yet found out how a particular principle or species operates. Secondly, there are brilliant alternatives that have an immense amount of evidence and consensus in the academic community. One alternative is kin selection. In short, kin selection displays how altruism and the evolutionary premise of propagating the species are complimentary principles. An example of this would be if one brother was to sacrifice himself in order to save his other brother--in this case, not only is one being altruistic but more importantly the genes which the brothers share are going to be passed on, therefore it is absolutely beneficial.

In respects to moral law and ethics, likewise there are dozens of alternatives which are in practice and theory far more sound than the answers advocated by any faith based system. In particular Memetics theory--put forth by evolutionary biologist and renowned public intellectual Prof Richard Dawkins. Meme theory illustrates how culture and faith principles are biologically passed down from one generation to the next--a sort of advanced mechanism of heredity. Additionally, if you're not merely convinced by the evidence, then I'd say, (to borrow from Christopher Hitches,) that how insulting is it for people to tell you that the only reason you are doing good is because your actions are divinely governed? This is an absolute insult and complete disregard of our own, very much developed faculty of reason.

In short: keep your private beliefs--private.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 If they allow other people to post similar ads such as "if you dont believe you are a sinner" etc then im fine with it. If it becomes a double standard then i have a big problem with it. Freedom of expression should be applied equally

No. I would have a problem with that. Its such a scolding tone. It feels like the ad is forcing ideas onto readers.

This new ad is different. It creates thought and conversation without forcing an idea.


If other ads said "if you dont believe you may be a sinner" or "are you a sinner" then I would be fine with it.

___________________
"House music is the soundtrack to the more deviant, exciting, rebellious side of life." -Lawler

quote:

Originally posted by Rodrico But would you not agree that disobeying the laws and practices of a religion make them less religious. Im not saying you have to be Mother Theresa to be catholic, but lets be honest, smoking crack isnt something the Pope does every Wednesday. I would hope his more devout followers would understand why.

Smoking crack isn't something the Pope does every Wednesday, but the pope probably lies, probably has impure thoughts, probably commits many other sins (pardoning gay pedophiles anyone?). And yet, he's held in great esteem within the Catholic religion.

If we're talking Christian faith then you can't just look at a coke-snortin religious zealot and say "What a hypocrite". Coke-snortin is just ONE sin among MANY that we can commit. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Jesus (who committed no sin) died in our place, that we might be forgiven through him, no matter what our sin (remember, just before he died on the cross, he forgave a robber who expressed his faith and asked for his forgiveness). Now, farbeit from me to declare it's ok to snort coke every night, ask to be forgiven on your death bed, and take the elevator straight up to Heaven, but since we ALL commit sin, it's quite unreasonable to require that someone be perfect, in order to make the claim that they are religious.

We all have a sinful vice. Some of us lie, some of us cheat, some of us steal, some of us murder, some of us do drugs, bang the neighbours wife, ignore those in need, hit our kids, rape, pillage and cause despair in our presence. Yet ALL of us can also make the decision to stop these actions, and persue a higher purpose. And some of us won't decide to stop those actions, and yet persue that higher purpose DESPITE our sin. Maybe your friend can't find the power within himself to stop snortin coke, but maybe, just MAYBE he'll be the catalyst that causes someone ELSE to repent and follow Christ's example. If such a case happens, I believe that he's done the Lord's work DESPITE his sin, and perhaps may be forgiven.

No one EARNS their way into heaven. Anyone who gets in is there by God's grace, and by his grace alone. Your good deeds mean nothing if they aren't devoted to God. If your motivation is the good feeling you get from helping others, then the act is a selfish act, if your motivation is to help others because God commands it, and you share that faith with those you help, then they know that it's not YOU who are helping them alone, but you, helping them, through your God, which can mean they begin to follow him, which is what we are to strive for. Spreading the word of God, that those who are not, might be saved.

Bottom line, coke heads CAN be religious. Same as liars, cheats, and adulterers. The question REALLY is, can someone who TRULY believes, be capable of ignoring the commands of God and living a life for themselves, when God commands that we live our life to serve Him, and serve others. Is the coke-head snortin lines every weekend really SERVING anybody? If I smoke a joint and go help out in a soup kitchen because God tells me to help those in need, am I not doing his work, despite my sin of smoking a joint? When it boils down to it, I'm just as confused as you are. I think the best we can do is choose our motivation, and have faith that the God we believe in and serve will remember the work we do for Him on this earth, despite the many, MANY times we will forget him and do selfish acts only to help ourselves.

In the end, if he doesn't exist, then oh well, whatever happens at death happens, and the adds are right, I shouldn't have worried about it. If he DOES exist, then I'd like to believe that I spent my time on this earth committed to His cause, because the Bible tells me that I'll be rewarded in heaven if I have. And heck, if the atheists are wrong, AND the Bible is wrong, if ANOTHER God is the one that exists, welps... damn, at least I took my best guess.

___________________
Captain Planet is gey.
Water, Fire, Earth, Wind, Heart???
These forces are supposed to combine to create Captain Planet?
Bullshit.
Those forces combine to create a soaking, boiling mudstorm on Valentine's Day.

I don't believe in God so I like the message. It provokes conversation too. I don't mind religious folk, I just hate it when they believe they are right and everyone else is wrong. Open minds ppl.

___________________
Upcoming Events:

February 15-16: FREQUENCY 2014 at Shaw Conference Centre

Boodang Music Canada
Boodang Music Canada Facebook Group

quote:

Originally posted by Intangible No. I would have a problem with that. Its such a scolding tone. It feels like the ad is forcing ideas onto readers. This new ad is different. It creates thought and conversation without forcing an idea. If other ads said "if you dont believe you may be a sinner" or "are you a sinner" then I would be fine with it.

If you are a believer (not even necessarily religious), this ad is an insult because it's like saying you are probably full of shit if you believe. There's nothing thought-provoking about a two-liner advertisement.

What kinds of stimulating conversations can come out of the statement that there is probably no God? Does it try to provide any explanation? Does it offer anything at all really?

This ad *is* pushing thoughts onto readers... it's not saying "do you disagree that there is a God? Let's talk further!".

It would be like a religious ad telling non-believers "you are probably going to hell."

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie I was a little hesitant to post here after my initial little approval, but I feel compelled to point out a few things. First, you can certainly exercise your freedom of religion; however, we also have the right to freedom from religion. Second, religious belief or lack there of, is private--so keep your delusions to yourself. I completely respect your privacy to practice whatever the hell is you want to practice--as far as faith is concerned--but that’s not enough is it? Religious people feel obliged to somehow try to justify their beliefs and/or impose them on to others. It is as if it’s not enough that they themselves believe it, nope, I have to belief it as well. Please spare us your quotes from your holy books--keep them to yourself. I have no problem with individuals and their private beliefs. The overwhelming and growing problem with religion is that it is the exact opposite--you're wrong, I'm right, my God is true, your God is false, I will be in heaven, and you will burn in hell. I can literally give you hundreds of books to read on this, but to save time, all I ask is that we examine the past and the present affairs of religion in causing global scale conflicts. I'll give you an example close to home. In June of 2003 President George Bush said to the Palestinian leaders in an interview that God told him to attack Iraq. It’s amazing really--if you are so confident of your convictions, why not just be happy that you’re going to prosper in the afterlife, and just let everybody else live their own lives. Why are you people so upset about these posters? Does your God cease to suddenly exist because a poster was printed? Is your God so insecure or are you that insecure about your faith? Hell, even if the poster said “There is no God,” you are still being absolutely stupid to get upset over it. As the same principle applies: are your convictions so fragile that they’re disturbed by an alternative point of view? And that’s all this is, is an alternative way of looking at life. Yohan, you are completely wrong on this. I think it's important to note the difference between providing information and giving information. I am all for providing a child with the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, a physics text book, a philosophy book etc... and allowing the child to come to a conclusion for him or herself. But when you label a child a Muslim child or a Christian child simply due to faith of their parents--that is forcing your ideas on a child--as the child is far too young to understand the concepts he is being labeled with, never mind being allowed to make the choice him or herself. And by comparing it to teaching your child to play hockey you’re trivializing the topic. That is, some religious teachings are directly contradictory to what we scientifically know--this is a fact. Even Francis Collins said in his book that we can only find God though faith and not evidence. Christianity, for instance teaches certain stuff about the creation of the universe, life and how we came to be that is simply not aligned with logic--these are facts Yohan. So when you raise a child from birth--FROM BIRTH--to have unquestioning faith to doctrines that the child CANNOT understand or evaluate at his age, that is indoctrination. However, as I’ve mentioned, if you give the child time to reach an age where he or she can evaluate and think for him or herself, I have no problem with providing that child with various different scientific or otherwise religious information on how, and why life is, the way it is. In respects to atheism supposedly portrayed as this innocent doctrine, I disagree and I think we have different understandings of faith and atheism or anti-theist like myself, someone who is scientifically inclined. Science does not need to be portrayed as an amoral, apathetic, or sometime cynical point of view; on the contrary, science takes great delight in attempting to answer intricate questions of life, and takes even more delight in hypothesizing what we have yet to unravel. It is a roller coaster ride--sometimes you're right, and sometimes you're wrong; science is always in a state of flux, scientists exult when they are proven wrong by other scientists, because that's all more motivation for them to work harder. In short, science is the study of the world, of life, of the unknown--and I much rather take pleasure in not knowing certain things, but rather having the confidence, that as we advance, we'll get a little closer to the answers; as opposed to having all supposed answers provided in holy scripture--doesn't leave much room for the imagination does it... Also, the aforementioned scientists and believer, American Geneticist Francis Collins makes his entire argument in defense of God based on two things: the counterintuitiveness of altruism in evolution via natural selection and the ambiguity and the origins of Moral Law. He argues that due to discrepancies in behavior in species, the current limitations of science, coupled with the assumption that altruism is counter-productive to evolution, God must be the figure who is responsible for our moral sense; or else he argues, we could not explain why species tend to be good--altruistic. What Collins fails to recognize, and indeed the majority of religious people, is that, first it is fallacious to invoke God simply because we have not yet found out how a particular principle or species operates. Secondly, there are brilliant alternatives that have an immense amount of evidence and consensus in the academic community. One alternative is kin selection. In short, kin selection displays how altruism and the evolutionary premise of propagating the species are complimentary principles. An example of this would be if one brother was to sacrifice himself in order to save his other brother--in this case, not only is one being altruistic but more importantly the genes which the brothers share are going to be passed on, therefore it is absolutely beneficial. In respects to moral law and ethics, likewise there are dozens of alternatives which are in practice and theory far more sound than the answers advocated by any faith based system. In particular Memetics theory--put forth by evolutionary biologist and renowned public intellectual Prof Richard Dawkins. Meme theory illustrates how culture and faith principles are biologically passed down from one generation to the next--a sort of advanced mechanism of heredity. Additionally, if you're not merely convinced by the evidence, then I'd say, (to borrow from Christopher Hitches,) that how insulting is it for people to tell you that the only reason you are doing good is because your actions are divinely governed? This is an absolute insult and complete disregard of our own, very much developed faculty of reason. In short: keep your private beliefs--private.

My great, great, great, great, great, great, greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat
grandaddy is a rock. Yup, science tells me so.

___________________
Captain Planet is gey.
Water, Fire, Earth, Wind, Heart???
These forces are supposed to combine to create Captain Planet?
Bullshit.
Those forces combine to create a soaking, boiling mudstorm on Valentine's Day.

quote:

Originally posted by daves If you are a believer (not even necessarily religious), this ad is an insult because it's like saying you are probably full of shit if you believe.

So be offended.
I've been offended by the idea that I'm a sinner and will be punished in the afterlife for a very long time. Tit for tat.

This is a great movement by the FAC. It was about time that we stopped brainwashing our kids with religious mumbo jumbo but at the same time we have to teach them about morality outside the context of religions.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper So be offended. I've been offended by the idea that I'm a sinner and will be punished in the afterlife for a very long time. Tit for tat.

Exactly, people find religious beliefs offensive, why should we be protected from offensive atheistic beliefs? This is why we have (well, are supposed to have) freedom of speech in this country. We don't have freedom from being offended.

Skipper makes a good point, religious groups could just as easily post adds that say

"God probably exists, so enjoy your life.
It's all you have left before an eternity in Hell."

___________________
Captain Planet is gey.
Water, Fire, Earth, Wind, Heart???
These forces are supposed to combine to create Captain Planet?
Bullshit.
Those forces combine to create a soaking, boiling mudstorm on Valentine's Day.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper So be offended. I've been offended by the idea that I'm a sinner and will be punished in the afterlife for a very long time. Tit for tat.

so long as you know it's tit for tat and can call a spade a spade - and those of you who think like that are nothing better than religious who say you are sinners. nothing but a different side of the same coin. a group of free thinkers? nah... just a religion of non-religion at that rate.