talkmagic.co.uk

kolm wrote:

Charles Calthrop wrote:Too many people spend too much effort finding things to be offended about.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there

I think it was Stephen Fry who once said that when people complain about swearing on TV, they're swearing on behalf of somebody else. They themselves aren't offended, they just think "this sort of thing" shouldn't go on because other people might be offended...

Sir David Attenbrough was on breakfast TV the other day. He said people who swear all the time only offend him, only because they are robbing him of the power of a perfectly good swear word LOL

In the early days of satellite TV in the UK, one of the late night 'adult' channels was accidentally broadcast without the usual encryption one night. Anyone who selected that station (or flicked past it) would be able to see it for free. At least we assume it was done accidentally.

The ITC received only one complaint. It was from a man who sat, being offended, for three hours before turning the TV off in disgust.

Pete

Iain wrote:

but if was just a simple question, then they're all being a bit silly...

Quite right. People seem to take offence (or worry that others may take offence) at the drop of a hat these days and have lost the ability to put events into any sort of perspective...

It's not as if the woman offered to rush home and sacrifice a goat or anything!! (although that may have helped).

At the risk of sending this topic down another route, it occurred to me that this was just a media stir up following on from the earlier story about British Humanist Association raising £36,000 to have posters on buses proclaiming, 'There is probably no God'

Excuse me? 'Probably'? Come on guys, if you're paying out all that money, surely you could be a bit more positive one way or the other, either there is or there isn't!

Notably, the BHA have been supported by prominent atheist Professor Richard Dawkins who is quoted as saying, "This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think - and thinking is anathema to religion." Er, no it isn't Richard, from my experiences a great deal of thinking is required!

Well 'probably' is the right word since the it's not possible to say with certainty one way or the other. What we can say is that it's very unlikely.

The thinking stuff comes down to this: if you're one of the 'faithful' then you're not supposed to think about whether there's a God (or about many other questions). You believe what you're told and you shut up. Too much thinking got you a nice little bonfire in your honour until comparatively recently and can still get you stoned to death in certain parts of the world. If you're religious you don't need to think because you've got a book with the Truth in it and you can't argue with it because it's the Word of God. We know it is because the men who wrote it said so.

Not sure about other faiths but in my experience of CofE, these days it positively encourages thinking, debate and disagreement if appropriate. Probably because people tend to question more than at any time in the past, resources are available from far and near to check, double check and thow out any dodgy dogmatic statements. One other big benefit of all this is that a lot of the Clergy can now safely admit to having doubts and differences of opinion with previously established hard and fast thinking on many topics.

I was amused that the full text of the poster campaign was, "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." as if the existence of a God causes worry and spoils your fun. IMHO, that's just very blinkered and stereotyped thinking - who says those with a faith can't have fun and enjoy life?

Anywho, good debate folks, keep it going please!

mandrake raises a good point...

not all christians are wishy washy buck toothed eager to please pantywaists..

its a picture that is easy to paint, though for the majority is not true...

its like saying all atheists are cynical, skeptical beasts...we're not..well, I'm not, so there...

at christmas, i went to some kind of christian thing, with a friend of mine - neither of us are christian - however, she felt obliged to sing the carols, when i didnt...i just enjoyed watching people..especially the ones who over enunciated each word..very funny...

anyway, the vicar/priest/whatever their title is in a christian manner; he was actually quite a funny guy - he mentioned stealing the festival from the pagans, and how we should all indulge over christmas and spend lots of money to revitalise the country! nice guy...

there was mulled wine afterwards...a couple of 80s librarian jumpers were seen, but overall - people were just...normal!

nice, pleasant easy going people...i think in general, religion doesnt do much bad for us common folk...its only when you get fundamentalists of all faiths causing havok, or doing wicked things in the "name of God"...

most catholic people i know, and i seem to know a few for some reason - one or two suffer from guilt every now and again, but really - i dont find those people horrible, nor do they go around inflicting trouble on anyone else...

however, its the heads of these religions i often have trouble with, its because a lot of it is a business, and their "interpretation" of their holy handbooks...look at what catholicism has done to parts of Africa! look at all the wars throughout history that are started or at least partly caused purely over one "team" not liking the other "team"s choice of God.

religion plus basic common sense=nice life..

religion plus the bad side of human nature = destruction and death

atheist plus basic understanding = nice life...

atheist plus fundamental style approach to other people's choices = immensely irritating!

i find there are lots of parallels between a fundamentalist of both sides of the fence, especially that they dont think for themselves, and merely recant quotes and lines from their "god", be it Dawkins, Joseph or Allah...

Those buses..meh...a waste of good money if you ask me, if you want to enrich our lives, go give it to a childrens ward or something...money better spent..

dunno where all that came from...ive been ill, drank quite a lot of coffee this morning so that may have something to do with it...

Great post Iain, couldn't agree more.

Unfortunately a lot of church history (and that of other religions I'm sure) contains elements as described by Charles, but it's been changing for a while now.

And amusingly, this change has actually been influenced - not just by "modern advances in thinking" - but by a return to the historic methods of interpretation, as practiced by the rabbis etc, who would have been a lot better versed in their scriptures than many modern day believers... they'd study diligently, form theories about the meaning, test these theories out - there'd be differing schools of thought that would meet for public debates... dealing with it in an altogether more sensible and safe way than many do now!

Mandrake, if you haven't already give John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" a read - he goes into detail about dogmatism and the importance of giving voice to opposing ideas (especially in matters of faith); I think you'd find yourself agreeing with a lot of what he writes.

With regards to this Caroline Petrie, how ridiculous! I'm an atheist myself, but if I was ill and somebody asked me if I'd like them to pray for me I wouldn't have any problems or see any cause for offence. To my mind, the only conceivable situation in which one could justifiably take offence at an offer of prayer is in the "I'll pray for your soul" (read: your behaviour is immoral and you need help to behave properly - admissible in some instances, perhaps, but in most others quite patronising) sense.

Besides, as Farlsborough says showing care and affection (as Caroline did in offering to pray for her patient's health) help a patient to get better. To suspend a nurse over something like this and in doing so deprive people of her care - now that I find offensive.

Mandrake wrote:At the risk of sending this topic down another route, it occurred to me that this was just a media stir up following on from the earlier story about British Humanist Association raising £36,000 to have posters on buses proclaiming, 'There is probably no God'

Excuse me? 'Probably'? Come on guys, if you're paying out all that money, surely you could be a bit more positive one way or the other, either there is or there isn't!

Notably, the BHA have been supported by prominent atheist Professor Richard Dawkins who is quoted as saying, "This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think - and thinking is anathema to religion." Er, no it isn't Richard, from my experiences a great deal of thinking is required!

I think a few points should be made about the history of this advert, though:

The advert was proposed as a direct reaction to 'Jesus Said' adverts, which were displayed on London buses in June 2008.

The Jesus Said adverts pointed readers to a web page, which proclaimed that non-Christians 'will be condemned to everlasting separation from God and then you spend all eternity in torment in Hell' and stated that Jesus spoke about this as a lake of fire prepared for the Devil.

With that in mind, the 'now stop worrying and enjoy your life' slogan is quite apt.

The original idea for a reaction was to raise £5,500 for a small-scale run of positively-worded atheist posters. So far, £135,000 has been collected in public donations for the project.

The word 'Probably' was, as far as I know, added to keep the Advertising Standards Committee happy in advance of any complaints that would almost certainly come in.

As I've said before, I run hot and cold on the subject of Dawkins, and I never like to look at the world in terms of absolutes, but on the whole, I think the atheist ad is a positive one.

I choose to look at this in the context of all the different faith-based rent-a-quote pressure groups out there, from Christian Voice to MediaWatch UK... Yes, they represent the extreme minority of religious people in this country, but it's always been the way that the most hot-headed, extremist and bigoted examples of a demographic are also the loudest and quickly become the stereotype. If an atheist equivalent is to be established, I'm happy that it should be presenting a positive message rather than one of eternal Hell and Damnation...

But that's just me.

Pete

Thanks Pete,

The Jesus Said adverts pointed readers to a web page, which proclaimed that non-Christians 'will be condemned to everlasting separation from God and then you spend all eternity in torment in Hell' and stated that Jesus spoke about this as a lake of fire prepared for the Devil.

I actually find that more offensive than a nurse offering to pray for someone - the very idea of such a nasty attitude in the name of Christianity is just not on. No idea who would have arranged the original ads, 'extreme' views come from all quarters so it's to be expected I suppose, but I'd bet a pound to a penny it wasn't C of E - they got into hot water a few years ago for simply advertising the suggestion of nipping into your local Church in the lead up to Christmas! I noticed a quote from Methodists and C of E in connection with the recent bus ad campaign:

Churches have responded favourably. The British Methodist church welcomed Dawkins's "continued interest" in God, encouraging people to think about the issue. The Church of England said it would defend the right of any group representing a religious or philosophical position to promote that view through appropriate channels.

A spokesman added: "Christian belief is not about worrying or not enjoying life. Quite the opposite: our faith liberates us to put this life into a proper perspective.

So at least it's served the purpose of encouraging thought, discussion and debate.

True. A nurse offering to pray for someone's recovery isn't a hellfire-and-damnation sermon, and shouldn't be lumped in the same box. But the No God bus adverts weren't done in reaction to Caroline Petrie.

And I also agree that people of faith shouldn't all be tarred with the same brush as the minority of tub-thumping fanatics. I do regular work for local nuns, and none of them have ever asked about my own beliefs, let alone tried to sell me theirs.

But it just takes a handful of nutters to make everyone look mad.

pcwells wrote:But it just takes a handful of nutters to make everyone look mad.

That and ridiculous rags like The Sun and The Times

And the Daily Mail (sorry Derren !)

Amazing isn't it? Here we are, all with differing and equally valid opinions, discussing and talking, not necessarily agreeing, but simply putting various honestly supported points on the table for consideration. The very worst that could happen here is that a few feathers get ruffled, a few feet get stamped, and a thread gets locked.



In many parts of the word, even daring to hold such differing opinions would be a death sentence.