Campaign: Atheist Bus
21.10.08 | Ariane |
Atheism, Atheist Bus Campaign, Donation, Donations, Fundraising, Humour, London Buses, Richard Dawkins, Slogan, Thank You
** We reached the total at 1006 BST (GMT+1) on 21st October, just over 10 hours after launch – thank you so much to everyone who contributed! If you haven’t donated yet and would like to then please do – we are now aiming to launch a full advertising campaign across the UK! **
The Atheist Bus Campaign launches today, Tuesday October 21. With your support, we hope to raise £5,500 to run 30 buses across the capital for four weeks with the slogan: “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Donate online now!
Professor Richard Dawkins, bestselling author of The God Delusion, is officially supporting the Atheist Bus Campaign, and has generously agreed to match all donations up to a maximum of £5,500, giving us a total of £11,000 if we reach the full amount – enough for a much bigger campaign. Our campaign partner, the British Humanist Association, will be administering all donations.
With your help, we can brighten people’s days on the way to work, help raise awareness of atheism in the UK, and hopefully encourage more people to come out as atheists. We can also counter the religious adverts which are currently running on London buses, and help people think for themselves.
As Richard Dawkins says: “This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think – and thinking is anathema to religion.”
856 Responses to “Campaign: Atheist Bus”
Pages: « 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 » Show All
Pages: « 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 » Show All
March 8th, 2009 at 17:14
eoin I am not quite sure what you mean when you said…
“Exactly!!. Its your silence I find totally wrong. I know youre not Catholic. So, come on – is their position morally right or wrong?”
What are referring to here..? As far as I know, I have given my opinion in previous posts with regards to what we were discussing..? Have a look back at the postings…
RedCitrus said…
“Phil, did you actually read the article? It’s nothing to do with sex (you’ve got sex on the brain!)”
Umm… If you look back at YOUR own post, I wasn’t referring to the article I was responding to your extra comment that said…
“Particularly as the church is partly responsible through its abhorrent banning of condom use in sub-Saharan Africa.”
In response to what Debbie K has said…
I am not homophobic, and I do have some gay friends etc… However, I wouldn’t say that all of them have ‘open’ relationships, but a majority do. We had a talk at work too from a worker from an Aids charity who got aids whilst in a long term gay relationship (they thought they would be together for life). Basically he and his partner had been to another country and been to a party, slept around, been invited to another country for another party, slept around again and then one of them got aids through this. Very sad….
Yes, before you say it – Hetrosexuals can and often do similar… That is our point!! God’s way is best… Save yourself for marriage then stay together and don’t commit adultery.
Paul N said…
“And do you really think the the drivel in the link that Phil posted has anything to do with real life?”
Paul, what link are you referring to..? I haven’t posted a link to anything for ages..? I think the most recent link was posted by RedCitrus..?
Phil.
March 8th, 2009 at 22:07
Phil,
Apologies are in order – it wasn’t you that posted this link …
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7529&CFID=28801106&CFTOKEN=22928496
RedCitrus posted it to show what utter nonsense it is.
But, again, sorry for mis-attributing it to you.
Paul
March 8th, 2009 at 22:23
Hi Paul, thanks for the apology. No problem.
Phil.
March 8th, 2009 at 23:06
“Deb,
I notice you didn’t comment on the article. Do you think it’s right that the abortion went ahead?”
Yes, and no. Abortion is never the answer, never. (I think, that as a woman, and further, one who’s had three children, all under less than ideal circumstances) I have more right to have an opinion on this than childless, presumably single men, But I’ve no doubt that because I am a believer who opposes abortion, somehting that’ll magically translate into less right to speak about it than childless single men… )
The abortion would be just as traumatic for the child as the incestuous rape (perhaps more so. Nine year olds are not infants and she’d be well aware of what was being done to her.) There was therefore no right answer for her, nothing at all that could save the situation for her. That being said, there’s no way a nine year old could safely give birth, and no way she could bring up children.
Hence yes and no. It’s a lose-lose situation.
Oh and yes, I do believe what Phil says, is relevant to life. Absolutely,
Deb
March 8th, 2009 at 23:37
@598
eoin
” Its homophobia in its purest form ”
Not homophobia, simply a statement of fact, based on my observation of gay (male) couples I’ve known.
” in a church service involving gay clergy”
I have been having attended a branch of the ‘Metropolitan Community church” with a gay friend. The clergyman was unaware of my views, and would probably have found them irrelevant.
Deb
March 8th, 2009 at 23:41
Deb,
Your ‘yes/no’ answer doesn’t cut it for me.
These are real people living in real life – according to the doctors, the girl was in danger of dying.
Have you any empathy at all? Put yourself in the mother’s position. Go on, try.
Deb, a lot of what you say is very bigoted. You don’t seem very Christian to me. I have mentioned before that there’s a lot to admire in attitudes like ‘Turn the other cheek’, ‘Do unto other’s’, etc. whoever said them. I don’t see this attitude on display in your posts.
Paul.
March 8th, 2009 at 23:44
Debbie,
Then I would question the kind of gay males you’re associating with/befriending if they’re ALWAYS in an open/unfaithful relationship. I know if I knew any of my friends were being unfaithful, gay or otherwise, I’d certainly let them know about it.
You said gay marriages are ALWAYS open/unfaithful. To describe that as “fact” is patently wrong. You must be associating with a bad group of people. The gay (both female and male) friends I have had have always had the most stable relationships I’ve come across. It’s heterosexual couples that, in my experience, are unstable and unfaithful. I choose to avoid relationships as they appear to be doomed to failure.
March 9th, 2009 at 0:02
@Paul, 606, who said: “Your ‘yes/no’ answer doesn’t cut it for me.
These are real people living in real life – according to the doctors, the girl was in danger of dying.
Have you any empathy at all? Put yourself in the mother’s position. Go on, try.”
Oh come on! Could you possibly have been any more insulting to me? I was trying to give a reasonable balanced answer, and you attack my character head on! I have a great deal more empathy than you do, I was trying to have empathy for all involved (except the girl’s abuser). You just see it in terms of a pro-abortion, anti-church position. I acknowledged that the girl was in danger if she went ahead with the pregnancy, did you choose not to read where I said that? I also pointed out that the girl was in danger whatever happened, and that abortion was no better, that really this situation is a gift to pro-abortion people, in that there’s no good answer. But anyone who points that out is condemned as heartless.
I warrant I have infinitely more empathy than you do, especially for mothers!
D
March 9th, 2009 at 0:04
Debbie,
I think it’s safe to say NO ONE is “pro abortion”. Pro choice, absolutely, but pro abortion? No.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:09
Deb,
According to the doctors, the risks in having the abortion are massively outweighed by risks in not having the abortion.
That’s the fact that the mother was facing. My personal opinion is that she did the right thing, given the facts. I don’t need to put religion into this context. It’s nothing to do with dogma.
As Alastair alluded to, ‘pro-abortion’ is a fiction. I personally have some real difficulty with abortion in general, but this case is a stonewall no-brainer.
Being pro-choice IS empathetic – by definition. Telling someone what to do (anti-abortion) is not.
Paul
March 9th, 2009 at 2:32
@Paul N., who said “According to the doctors, the risks in having the abortion are massively outweighed by risks in not having the abortion.”
Which makes it the necessary thing, but not a good thing.
“Being pro-choice IS empathetic – by definition. Telling someone what to do (anti-abortion) is not.”
Opinion, not fact. Yes, there are people who are pro-abortion, mostly those who are making a fortune from it – in the USA mainly. Also, women who’ve had multiple abortions and feel a psychological need to justify their actions, those who who are population control fanatics (and are mostly elitists who insist that 3rd world and poor women have abortions to they can have their Porsches) and those (mostly gay men) who are simply jealous of those they contemptuously call “breeders”.
This situation (with the child in Brazil) is a positive gift to you! What about the much harder cases, say for instance a woman with one child, a good job she doesn’t want to interrupt, and a husband who insists that if she has the child, they’ll never get their house paid off? Then they discover the child *may* have sickle cell? Excuse or reason?
Deb
March 9th, 2009 at 9:40
Deb,
Gladly, you have swayed from dogma.
Originally, you said:- “Abortion is never the answer, never. ”
Last post:- “Which makes it the necessary thing, but not a good thing.”.
‘Never’ is ’sometimes’ after all.
As I said before (which you obviously didn’t read) I have real difficulty with abortion in general. I can’t be more specific than that because it won’t ever be me having to face the situation.
The idea that this case is a gift to me is sad indeed.
Paul.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:03
Sex…homophobia…abortion – my how the conversation has turned.
My 10cents worth – Sex outside of marriage is wrong, homosexuality is wrong, abortion is wrong.
and now i am of course waiting for the hordes of missiles coming my way…
I have had the most fantastic – holy spirit filled – weekend, and have renewed energy for this forum with all of it’s little challenges.
God is good….and He is just waiting for you to submit to him.
Take care.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:10
Werner,
No missiles coming your way but can I ask you why you believe those things are wrong?
Let’s pretend, for an instance, that there is no god(!) and no bible and you’ve not been told that abortion, homosexuality and sex outside marriage is wrong and a sin.
Would you still consider those things wrong and immoral and if so, why?
Abortion – I can see the arguments against, although I don’t personally believe that life begins at conception.
Sex outside marriage – I’m a strong supporter and practitioner of this! I don’t see how this is wrong, harmful or hurtful to anyone. I play safe.
Homosexuality – this, I’m particularly confused about. I see absolutely no argument against homosexuality. After all, it’s a victimless “crime”! Who are homosexuals hurting or offending and why? The love between two people is surely a good thing?
March 9th, 2009 at 12:36
hi Alastair. good to hear from you. How is it going with your challenge…
if there was no God – humouring you – i would still be opposed to it.
ok – all of the above (with the exception of sex outside of marriage you might say) is unnatural. a baby is supposed to come out when it’s ready – 9 months. removing it prior is killing it.
Male to Male intercourse is unnatural – think about the way we are designed…THINK ABOUT IT.
Sex outside of marriage, in the end, only causes hurt, guilt and pain for one of the 2 parties. it rarely ends in a nice hug and farewell – there will always be those memories…and then there are the added STD’s – NASTY!
that’s why I say it’s wrong. Hope this clarrifies.
Cheers.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:49
Hey Werner,
Well I’ve got to say the challenge, despite my best efforts, didn’t come to much. I gave it a good, honest go but no revelation!
Your comment about homosexuality is concentrating on the subject of sex as opposed to love. It is quite possible that a homosexual (or heterosexual) couple may never engage in sexual intercourse but simply have undying love for each other. How would homosexuality in this instance this be wrong? Would it be fine for two males or females to have love for each other but not engage in sex as it is, as you describe, unnatural?
There are a lot of unnatural things in life but that doesn’t make them wrong.
I totally disagree about your comment on sex outside marriage. Many, many people who have sex outside marriage then go on to marry their partner. My parents, grandparents, best friend plus no end of other friends and colleagues all had sex outside marriage and now they’re all happily married. I’d wager more happily married couples in stable loving relationships had sex before marriage than not.
Regards to abortion – in a perfect world, we wouldn’t have to abort an embryo or fetus. But then in a perfect world, we wouldn’t have to deal with rape and severe disabilities and the issue, in the case of the 9 year old girl, of the mother’s life being endangered either. While I don’t necessarily agree with abortion outside those instances, ie. the mother “made a mistake”, I support their right to choose.
March 9th, 2009 at 13:24
Werner, you’re making a fundamental error. We are not “designed”. I thought we’d dealt with that already.
So, if (to put it bluntly) homosexual sex is wrong, what about anal sex between heterosexual partners? That’s not “natural” either, as presumably – using your criteria – any sex that is not solely for procreation is wrong.
Or house about Caesarean birth? That’s not natural either. Is it wrong? Or is it just things that you don’t agree with?
March 9th, 2009 at 13:52
Werner,
It seems after your particular ‘holy’ weekend, you’re quite happy to spell out what is wrong, without providing why. Religious behaviour at its best.
You seem to focus on what is “Natural”. ie gay relationships are not ‘natural’. Why is being Natural the benchmark by which you judge right and wrong?
Also, who defines what is natural? For example, is gene therapy ‘natural’? Is IVF natural? Who is the judge? And why should humans behaviour be modelled on Nature? There is much research demonstrating homosexual behaviour within nature. But what does this have to do with us?
There is also plenty of bizarre behaviour in Nature that if humans copied, would be slightly odd and quite unethical.
March 10th, 2009 at 4:28
Okay, since I was praised for having given up dogma regarding abortion, I have to make plain that my opposition to abortion was never about dogma! I opposed abortion long before I ever even knew what Christianity was! Always the hard cases hey? But most abortions don’t involve rape, incest or even disability. In all western countries we have abortion on demand. It’s never a good thing. Ever. That once in a very long while it may be necessary, doesn’t make it a good, any more than the fact that lying, or even stealing might perhaps in extreme circumstances be necessary makes them a good.
Deb
March 10th, 2009 at 7:10
Gentlemen… i could now go on and talk about soul ties, curses, sin etc – but you dont’ believe in all that. so i’ll try my best to explain my situation in a ‘worldly view’.
Alastair – i am of the opinion that a couple could not have ‘undying love’ for each other without engaging in some form of physically satisfying exercise. One thing inevitably leads to the next – it’s the way we were designed. (Yes Redcitrus – we are – and no, we haven’t ‘dealt’ with it – your belief) Sex outside marriage – if it works for you – whooo hoo! I happen to know that it causes problems in marriage later – again – things you don’t believe in so no point in talking about them. Abortion –indeed, in a perfect world… NOT in a world created or being dominated by the Catholic Church. (I have my own opinions about the catholic church that I don’t necessarily want to share on this forum)
Anal sex, RedCitrus, IN MY OPINION, is also wrong – looking at the function of the human body (our design ?) its not supposed to work that way!!! Caesarean birth – my wife had 2 of them – both our kids – not by choice, but because there were complications.
Eoin – I didn’t say I had a holy weekend – I said Holy Spirit Filled Weekend – HUGE difference. I’ll tell you about it someday!! Alastair asked me and I answered – simple as that – and it’s not religious behaviour – see that’s the problem – you would say something like: “everyone who is a Christian must be catholic – and we hate catholics” – who’s judging now?
Natural is not the benchmark by which I judge right or wrong – Alastair asked me “Pretend there is no God” so I humoured him and didn’t quote scripture etc…
Have a blessed day all of you!!
March 10th, 2009 at 9:02
Hi Debbie,
Now you something very interesting…
“That once in a very long while it may be necessary, doesn’t make it a good”
So, you feel once in a while, unfortunately abortion is the right choice – however tragic. However, this sets a principle. If you feel there are very rare occasions where we do, unfortunately, decide abortion is the correct choice, then you cannot say it is immoral. It is simply a very very difficult decision.
Werner,
When did I say
“everyone who is a Christian must be catholic – and we hate catholics”
I cant remember saying this. I do remember highlighting your own disbelief. I understand you are not Catholic, therefore there are somethings that you do not believe in.
You say…
“I have my own opinions about the catholic church that I don’t necessarily want to share on this forum”
Why?
You also say…
“looking at the function of the human body (our design ?) its not supposed to work that way!!! ”
You then mentioned you and your wife had Caesarean births. But the human body is not supposed to work this way either. Its only because humans have worked this out that we can do it. So, now we have a problem. Who decides on how the human body “it supposed to work”? Who should be judge?
March 10th, 2009 at 11:17
Hi all, I just wanted to pick up on something Alastair said…
“Regards to abortion – in a perfect world, we wouldn’t have to abort an embryo or fetus. But then in a perfect world, we wouldn’t have to deal with rape and severe disabilities and the issue, in the case of the 9 year old girl, of the mother’s life being endangered either.”
So is it ok to abort a baby just because they are disabled..??!! Where do we draw the line between disabled or severely disabled..??!!
I work with disabled, severlely disabled, and life limited children. These kids are amazing – their parents love them so much. Some of the kids who maybe would have been aborted by some people have actually amazed doctors at how well they have done and developed. One teenage girl in a wheel chair with very little motor skills has fund raised nearly £300,000 for the charity that is looking into her condition. The world would be a sad place without these beautiful kids. Yes some of these kids will, and have died young – but I know that the families cherish the years they have with them.
Also, just wanted to state a fact about anal sex. Anal fluid houses the aids virus in much higher quantites than virginal fluid. Maybe that shows that both God and nature didn’t intend us to have sex in this way..? Just a thought.
Remember guys, even though you choose to disbelieve Gods existance – He still loves you!!
Phil.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:30
Remember Phil, even though you choose to disbelieve Ganeshs existance – He still loves you!!
Anything you can do……
March 10th, 2009 at 11:31
Debbie,
No one has ever said abortion is “a good thing”. It’s obviously not a good thing for all involved, however sometimes it’s a necessity. The 9 year old girl is a great example. The point is, while it’s not a good thing, NO ONE should have the right to inflict their moral values on others and deny them the option of abortion should they choose to go down that route.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:40
Phil,
Regards to anal sex, why would the “male g spot” – the prostate gland – possibly be placed in the anus if it’s wrong?! Why did God and nature put it there? Sexually transmitted viruses are housed quite happily in the male and female genitalia. Does that mean we’re not supposed to have sex at all? What’s God doing creating these viruses and diseases for in the first place, anyway?
I don’t disagree with you regarding disabled children but there are often clear cut cases where the unborn child is not going to have any kind of life whatsoever and is likely not to survive outside the womb anyway. I’m not a doctor though and so I’m not qualified to say where the line should be drawn.
But again, the point is that the decision should be that of the mother – the carrier of the fetus – not doctors, not the government and certainly not the church.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:42
Hi Eoin. Tell me – why do you choose to pay attention to every little petty detail that everyone posts? the big issues you seem to run circles around and act like a little jackal, trying to kill the little lambs (#623) You refer to ganesh so much that i am beginning to think you are no Atheist at all, but actually believe in Ganesh?!?!?
The point of our conversations is not to show which denominations are right and who is wrong. i don’t represent ANY denomination or support any specific one for that matter.
You did not say it Eoin – but it was implied, as with most posts on this forum!!! no black and white but a lot of shades of grey – hey?
i said that my wife had 2 ceasarian births – with our kids. I am thankfull that they exist in the medical field – otherwise i may have lost both my children – I SAID IN A PREVIOUS POST – “Natural is not the benchmark by which i judge right or wrong”.
Why is the conversation on this topic anyway? What happened to the conversation about God’s Existence….
March 10th, 2009 at 11:49
Hi Werner,
Simple really – Ganesh is a great example of a god you dont believe in. You continuously claim your god ‘loves us’ etc. So, in return I do the same. Its quite interesting the reaction that this gets. And so it will continue. Everything you claim your god ‘loves us’ we can claim things that other gods feel about you. Of course, I dont believe in either.
March 10th, 2009 at 13:35
well eoin – you don’t really have a foot to stand on then do you – you are making claims of something you don’t believe in yourself – not a good salesperson are you? I am not trying to prove that My God is better than yours.
I KNOW God lives – I had a PHYSICAL, TANGIBLE experience with Him this weekend – and i’m not the only one. There may have been close to 50 people. All i’m trying to do is to share the wonderfull gift He has given us with you. If i say He loves you it’s because He does – not because i’m trying to convince you to believe.
Take care.
March 10th, 2009 at 13:56
Hi Werner,
Your reaction here is really interesting. No, I dont believe in Ganesh. But, you know what….. thats the point. Either do you. You simply do not believe.
Claiming something is not proof or knowledge. You have claims but only your ‘experience’ to back it up.
I’m sure plenty of hindu believers could say…. “I KNOW Ganesh lives – I had a PHYSICAL, TANGIBLE experience with Him this weekend – and i’m not the only one. There may have been close to…..”
I’m sure you get the idea. The point is – you dont believe. Their claim is not evidence for you -and your claims are not evidence either.
March 10th, 2009 at 16:52
This latest series of posts sums up nicely why it is that we need the Atheist Bus campaign at all.
Personally, I have no problem with consenting adults doing whatever they like behind closed doors. I have no problem with gay marriage. I believe in a woman’s right to choose abortion. I believe that gay and lesbian couples can make perfectly good parents. I am a supporter of embryonic stem cell research.
I am against religion interfering with our way of life. I’m sure that Debbie, Werner and Phil are perfectly good people, and whilst I don’t agree with them on many issues, I respect their decision to believe whatever they want to believe.
Where I draw the line is when religion and politics become combined.
It’s clear from some of the posts above that Debbie, Werner and Phil have strong views about a number of things. Fine. Fortuntely, they are not in a position to be passing legislation in this country. When homosexuality is declared a crime (legal in the UK since 1967), or abortion is banned (like the republic of Ireland), it becomes a problem.
Werner, Phil and Debbie – would you support a ban on these things if you had control of the legislature?
We have one of the highest levels of integration between church and state in Europe – as far as I am aware, second only to Italy. We have unelected bishops in the House of Lords, who have a degree of power over legislation. We have enforced “acts of collective worship” in schools. We have state-funded “faith schools”. The list goes on.
Only when we can cast off the shackles of religion will the need for campaigns such as the Atheist Bus no longer be needed. We’re getting there; there’s still a long way to go.
March 10th, 2009 at 19:51
Hi Deb
Responding to your earlier post …
Okay, since I was praised for having given up dogma regarding abortion, I have to make plain that my opposition to abortion was never about dogma! I opposed abortion long before I ever even knew what Christianity was!
Opposing the ‘idea of something’ and opposing it in terms of not allowing it are obviously very different things. The issue I was highlighting by posting this link was that the Catholic Church was against the abortion per se. They wanted the birth to go ahead, in spite of the massive risk involved, but didn’t have the power to enforce it. So they excommunicated the mother of the little girl (and the doctors). On top of that, the unborn children were, by doctrine (their word, not mine), being sent to limbo – whatever that is.
To me, this is mediaeval, brutal, nonsense. That highly educated, intellectual people can actually entertain this stuff defies reason. Forgive me but it also doesn’t sound very Christian – if the mother believes in god in the same way that you, Phil and Werner do, it then I feel very sorry for her indeed. Maybe this will make her question her belief.
Always the hard cases hey? But most abortions don’t involve rape, incest or even disability.
But many do, and are (in my opinion) why absolute laws are wrong. These cases must be taken into consideration when framing laws.
In all western countries we have abortion on demand. It’s never a good thing. Ever. That once in a very long while it may be necessary, doesn’t make it a good, any more than the fact that lying, or even stealing might perhaps in extreme circumstances be necessary makes them a good.
I pretty agree with you here although probably my ‘necessary’ would be different. But, wherever my line is drawn, I’m still pro-choice for the reason above.
Paul
March 10th, 2009 at 19:54
Man, I messed up the last two quotes …
Always the hard cases hey? But most abortions don’t involve rape, incest or even disability.
But many do, and are (in my opinion) why absolute laws are wrong. These cases must be taken into consideration when framing laws.
In all western countries we have abortion on demand. It’s never a good thing. Ever. That once in a very long while it may be necessary, doesn’t make it a good, any more than the fact that lying, or even stealing might perhaps in extreme circumstances be necessary makes them a good.
I pretty agree with you here although probably my ‘necessary’ would be different. But, wherever my line is drawn, I’m still pro-choice for the reason above.
Paul
March 11th, 2009 at 1:08
“Now you something very interesting…
“That once in a very long while it may be necessary, doesn’t make it a good”
So, you feel once in a while, unfortunately abortion is the right choice – however tragic. ”
I don’t think you are understanding me. Abortion is always immoral. That it is sometimes, once in a very long while, the lesser evil doesn’t make it a good. Ever. We live in a fallen world (and whether you accept the idea of ‘fallen’ isn’t really relevant, you can see it’s a non-optimal world!)
Deb
March 11th, 2009 at 1:17
@Alistair, who said: “Phil,
Regards to anal sex, why would the “male g spot” – the prostate gland – possibly be placed in the anus if it’s wrong?! ”
Simply because the prostate has a clear purpose, and that purpose is not to be a sex toy! Give me a break, that argument is simply absurd. Nipples are erogenous zones, but that’s not their primary purpose.. but even that’s not a good analogy. Using nipples for sexual purposes isn’t harmful. Anal sex is. My son was a student nurse on the urology ward at the main hospital here, you should talk to him sometime about the things he learned about the harm done by anal sex.
“But again, the point is that the decision should be that of the mother – the carrier of the fetus ”
“Carrier” of the “fetus” (sic)… Are you one of those people who regards the unborn child as some kind of horrible parasite? I tend to regard that view as simple envy of womens’ child-bearing capability. Studies have shown that women are much less enthusiastic about abortion than men are.
Deb
March 11th, 2009 at 1:27
“Debbie – would you support a ban on these things if you had control of the legislature?”
Abortion yes, homosex no. It’s impossible to legislate morality. And anticipating your counter-argument, abortion isn’t just an issue of morality any more than any other type of murder is.
Deb
March 11th, 2009 at 1:57
Debbie,
Whether you think anal sex is harmful or not – actually it’s not as a general rule (it can be but so can any kind of sex), my sister is a nurse of 14 years specialising in sexual health and has confirmed this with me – what two consenting men are doing in their bedroom is not harmful to YOU.
This is the point! This is what the whole argument is! Abortion, homosexuality, sex outside wedlock is NOT something that has any effect on anyone else outside the people involved. The church has absolutely NO right to inflict it’s morals on other people. Religion around the world continues to dictate it’s misplaced and ancient morals onto others and fails to recognise that times have moved on and we’re no longer living in the dark ages. Thankfully we’ve moved on somewhat from those times. Just not quite enough unfortunately.
And your “envy of child bearing capability” is absolutely laughable. It really doesn’t deserve any response. Than the world is over populated as it is, the last thing we need is more breeding.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:11
@Alistair who said: “Whether you think anal sex is harmful or not – actually it’s not as a general rule (it can be but so can any kind of sex), my sister is a nurse of 14 years specialising in sexual health and has confirmed this with me – what two consenting men are doing in their bedroom is not harmful to YOU.”
Oh dear, so I am not allowed to care about the health of people who are not me, is that it? Granted what men do to each other’s health doesn’t affect me personally, but it’s a weird argument to say that I should just watch them merrily harm each other and say “not my problem, la la la”…
So, I should be happy about drunk driving, because the people killed in motor crashes aren’t (so far) me or mine? I should be quite unconcerned about hit-and-run drivers because the brain injured boy is my student and not my son?
“And your “envy of child bearing capability” is absolutely laughable. It really doesn’t deserve any response. ”
I take your remarks as indicating that my arrow hit home.
Deb
March 11th, 2009 at 2:27
Deb,
By your argument car companies, aircraft manufacturers, manufacturers of cutlery, bleach, pills and rope are all also immoral as these are all capable of causing harm and death.
I’m not sure what the point you’re making is. Are you comparing drunk driving with homosexual sex? Please tell me you’re not. It certainly reads that way.
And, Deb, no I don’t have any envy whatsoever of women’s child bearing capability. Really, I don’t. You’ll have to take my word for it.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:12
Alistair, you said: “Deb,
“By your argument car companies, aircraft manufacturers, manufacturers of cutlery, bleach, pills and rope are all also immoral as these are all capable of causing harm and death.”
No, that’s a distortion of what I said. People who drink alcohol then drive, who run red lights etc, are in a different category and you know it.
“I’m not sure what the point you’re making is. Are you comparing drunk driving with homosexual sex? Please tell me you’re not. It certainly reads that way.”
You said that because homosexual activities don’t affect me directly, I’ve no right to be concerned. I was using drunk driving as an analogy, as you probably know, to get home to you why I care about activities that potentially cause harm to others when I am not directly affected. Please, don’t pretend to be stupid, you know what I meant! (In fact, you’re probably distorting what I said, in order to drum up indignation against me in those who read not what I said, but your interpretation of it. Homosex and drunk driving have in common, the potential for harm – destruction isn’t guaranteed, but the risk should give one pause. If the wowsers in ASH feel entitled to insist on trying to ban smoking on the grounds of harm that is far more potential than actual, far more potential than they’ll ever admit, and the same is true of those who want to tax ‘junk food’ because it might make some kids fat, and these fat kids might get Type 2 diabetes, then the same case might be made against risky sexual behaviour – but to make that case is political suicide!
Deb
And, Deb, no I don’t have any envy whatsoever of women’s child bearing capability. Really, I don’t. You’ll have to take my word for it.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:18
You also said (and sorry, I forgot to answer this) “And, Deb, no I don’t have any envy whatsoever of women’s child bearing capability. Really, I don’t. You’ll have to take my word for it.”
I do take your word for it, but I wasn’t referring to you as an individual, but to those who sneer at women as ‘breeders’ (as if that’s all there is to them), and deride unborn children as parasites. In many cases, these remarks come from those who’ll never have children unless they steal them (which is what ’surrogacy’ and stranger adoption are) and the cliche “sour grapes” springs to mind.
“come la volpe con l’uva’ as I said to a friend of mine yesterday,
Deb
March 11th, 2009 at 7:11
Eoin.
Please check my previous posts. i have said that i do believe that Ganesh and all these other ‘gods’ exist. the difference is i call them Evil Spirits and don’t worship them – because they are not God.
laters….
March 11th, 2009 at 8:40
Hi Werner,
You said
“i have said that i do believe that Ganesh and all these other ‘gods’ exist. the difference is i call them Evil Spirits and don’t worship them”
First – now I’m confused. You believe Ganesh exists?! Seriously?
Second – so you believe other peoples gods exist but you call them “Evil”?!! Have you ever discussed this with any Hindus? What is your basis for calling the Hindu gods “Evil”?
March 11th, 2009 at 11:38
hi Eoin.
Here is what i believe. God (Yahweh) is the almighty creator of Heaven and Earth. He threw Satan out of heaven along with a third of the angels. These angels became Demons.
Everywhere in the world we find people worshipping something. If it’s not God (Yahweh) it must be Satan…or his demons – conveniently called ganesh, budha, allah – whaterver.
I call them Evil because they are emmisaries of satan. his servants. demons.
Take Care.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:15
Werner,
Fascinating. How do you know all this?
March 11th, 2009 at 12:24
Werner,
I agree with jonnyess – this is fascinating. You are quite clearly not a typical christian believer – you have also acquired knowledge that every other religious believer ie Hindu, Buddists etc – are worshipping the Devil or Satan as you put it?!
You are quite clearly a rolemodel for world peace. I can imagine how enlightened the other religions of the world would be if we were to inform them that they are worshiping the devil.
Thankfully, you are on the fringe of Christianity with some seriously bizarre views.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:30
Werner
You’re views would be laughable if they weren’t so insane. I truly fear for your mental health if you really believe that crap.
Do you find it any surprise that western civilisation is gradually coming to reject religious superstition when exponents of Christianity spout such utter nonsense?
March 11th, 2009 at 12:54
i didn’t think you’d believe a word i’d say in the first place. Which is one of the problems we have now isn’t it. because it’s not independantly verified and there isn’t any proof and…
Hmmm…..
March 11th, 2009 at 13:17
This is what religion is up against. It’s about faith rather than proof, which is fine for some and not for others. At the end of the day, simply due to the nature of religion, it’s never going to be possible to prove it unequivocally. You could have a 100 people in a room who all say they’ve experienced X, Y or Z but that’s taking someone’s word for it as opposed to being able to prove it scientifically.
You may well believe you experienced X, Y or Z but the body and mind is an incredibly complex machine and it doesn’t take much to convince your mind that something unusual or unnatural happened.
At the end of the day, it’s impossible to prove the existence of any kind of god and as such, I’m hedging my bets on non-existence until something convinces me otherwise. For me, there’s far too much evidence against and really no evidence for other than hearsay.
March 11th, 2009 at 13:25
Alastair
Well said. I’d happily believe in God if he made his existence known to me without relying on a third-party who is, quite frankly, not very convincing.
If God exists, let him prove his existence outside the charade of “healing miracles” in questionable churches, appearing in currant buns and “visions”.
Turn the sky green or something spectacular. Let us know that you’re really there!
Of course, the argument against this is that “God won’t be tested in this way”, but quite frankly, if that’s the case, then he doesn’t deserve my worship!
I’m willing to believe…just give me concrete proof!
March 11th, 2009 at 18:04
Alastair. i have to admit – that pretty much sums it up. and if it’s up to eoin with his ‘independantly verifiable’ proof – than God would never exist. lucky for us this is not the case. and lucky for you as well…
funny, i just read ‘believing is seeing’ in a magazine….ha.
The day the “concrete proof” falls from the heavens – when every tongue will confess and every knee bow – then, regretabbly my friends, it will be too late…