This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Atheists claim bias over rejection of 'No God' ads

Gibbon's Avatar Jump to comment 30 by Gibbon


If they aren't worrying, they can ignore it, right? Are you really saying no religious people are worried? That none are not enjoying their life, perhaps because of that worry, perhaps because of other impositions of their religion?

Let me tweak that statement of mine for a bit more accuracy.

“It falsely assumes that everyone who believes in a deity is in fact not enjoying life and is instead worried.”

There is no evidence that indicates that theists by virtue of their belief in deities are not enjoying life and are in fact worried.

I guess New Zealand is not so perfect...

Evidenced by the likes of Brian Tamaki and Simon Fisher, the latter of which has a problem in that he appears to be in lock-step with Richard Dawkins.

Hee hee you sure you got that right?
A personal bias towards religion?

Yeah, well that personal bias is clouding your judgement and inhibiting your objectivity.

NO what you are doing is attempting to stifle a dialogue that needs to happen, in all countries. What the fuck are you scared off? I would say you have major issues around conflict and conflict resolution.

This is not a dialogue you people want; rather you want to start war. You can’t figure out why it is that people believe in things for which there is no evidence, like deities and the supernatural, so rather than trying to comprehend it you just want to eliminate it. Simon Fisher’s own words were that he wants people to “question their own beliefs”, and since the atheist campaign is targeted at theists what reason other than conversion to atheism could there possibly be for the adverts? It appears that you are irked by people believing things that you yourself can’t believe, which is why you’re basically objecting to religion. Any reasonable person would turn the other cheek to different beliefs.

In the words of Thomas Jefferson:
“It does me no injury if my neighbour chooses to believe in no god or twenty gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

Thats you reason? other issues? Come on what are those issues?John Key hasnt addressed you problems of concern yet?

How about the economy? It may slowly be improving but there is still a high unemployment rate. The recent problems with the NZ telecommunications sector are of legitimate concern. How about the growing number of attacks on police officers here? Even the recent spate of dog attacks and animal cruelty incidents are of pressing concern. Those are real issues that need to be addressed; religion in New Zealand is not. Like I said, the vast majority of Kiwis aren’t fond of religion and politics mixing, so it is unlikely that we are going to ask our politicians to get involved with religious issues, which is justifiable really. If you desire church/state separation why would you want government getting involved in religious debates?

So you know what sort of debate atheists want?

War. You said it yourself, you perceive there to be a conflict. Atheists are trying to set things up where it is an “Us vs. Them” situation, one where people must necessarily take sides and fight. And you’re doing it as part of an unwarranted attempt to marginalise religion. It is not debate or conversation that atheists want, as there is no civility and respect in their statements; instead sentiments of the exact opposite effect are what they are expressing. It’s pretty clear that what the New Atheists want is conflict or war. You necessarily view people who disagree with you as being your enemies, which is a view that I would think any reasonable person would want to avoid.

Are you even aware that fundamentalism is largely reactionary? The first fundamentalists emerged as a response to German Higher Criticism in the 19th century, and the Moral Majority and Religious Right originated from a perceived marginalisation of religion in America in the mid 20th century. Islamic fundamentalism in Iran originated out of grass-roots opposition to the Shah’s oppressive regime, and the fundamentalism that emerged from Sayyid Qutb’s writings was the product of disaffection with certain Islamic governments and Western involvement in the Middle East.

Really? So if there are divisions and closed minds in New Zealand it's the fault of atheism? Really?
Gibbon you are a first class moron.

So I’m the moron, despite the fact that you just misinterpreted what I said. There was no implication that atheism itself creates divisions and closed minds, rather what I said is that it is a certain type of “debate” that does that; a type of debate that atheists among others, are trying to perpetuate.

Easy to pass I hear.

Based on your comments, it wouldn’t be so easy for you. Although chances are you would probably end up significantly changing your beliefs if you were to ever take any Religious Studies courses.

If the majority of people in NZ don't have a problem with atheists...then why is this ad being rejected? Why would it be controversial?

Because of all the feedback that NZ Bus received, the majority of it appears to have been opposed to the adverts. You would then have to assume that all that feedback the bus company received, both positive and negative, provides an accurate cross-section of New Zealand society for your question to have a legitimate point. But what do you base that assumption on?

As for why the advert is controversial, read my statement above about what the ad is in fact saying.

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:09:00 UTC | #444151