[Merged] Donations welcome for atheist bus banners in London - Page 4

slingblade · 25th October 2008, 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

Are kids who believe magic and perhaps even HP are real delusional, ill or a sad, small group

?

Magic is not real. I know it can harm people later in life to foster a belief in magic as a child. They can grow up, often I'd say, to believe in magic as adults, too.

If I simply cant this bit of phrasing over and over, and really, truly believe it, some magical force will be summoned, and my husband will stop hitting me.

I tried that magic for 13 years. Pardon me if I'm a bit cynical about the results.

Yes, children are susceptible to believing what we tell them. This is a tremendous power we have, and a tremendous responsibility. We can convince a small child of almost anything, with only a modicum of art or finesse.

I suppose the line here is "protect their innocence." Innocence in this case is only ignorance. Protect their ignorance.

Well, children of a certain age lack experience. They are unsophisticated, and even primitive, if you will, in their cogency. It is the responsibility of adults to explain, in honest and explicit terms, but until one does, a child might easily believe that HP is a real boy. In that case, no, the child is not ill, or sick, or sad. He's simply ignorant. Ignorance can be corrected.

But I wasn't talking about unsophisticated, inexperienced, ignorant children. I was talking about cogent adults who understand very well what fiction means and would yet persist that Harry is real, that he could be approached, spoken to, phoned, engaged, in exactly the same way as you might engage me.

Now, you want to tell me what your question has to do with:

1) I'm arguing the point that hurt feelings aren't a proper or legitimate reason to not have or to discontinue the ads.

2) I am also arguing the point that we don't need adverts to point out that Harry Potter, a fictional character, is fictional.

How does your question or my answer inform those points?

articulett · 25th October 2008, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by geni

Tikopia. Strict population control.

Well, this is hardly an example of what you claim it to be an example for since it involved the ready practice of infanticide. Sure, immediate death was staved off and a sustainable culture was achieved... for those who were not the victims of infanticide. The Island's rescue by outsiders after Hurricane Zoe shows that thinking ahead can and does aid survival and the welfare of humanity. And their own infanticide policies are responsible for their own sustainability as a culture. I hardly see how this supports an argument that the bus sign is futile (or whatever it is you are arguing.) What was the point of this small Island example again?

SusanB-M1 · 26th October 2008, 12:42 AM

This morning on BBC Radio 4, at about 07:10 the 'Sunday' Programme had an interview with Araine sherine about her idea for the bus ad. I immediately went to her web site and sent a 'congratulations!' e-mail.

By the way, she was asked about the word 'probably' and explained that the Advertising Standards Authority would object to a word such as 'definitely' which cannot be 100% proved. RD would have preferred 'almost certainly' (think that's what she said) but the 'probably' also has allusions to a lager ad.

Mashuna · 26th October 2008, 12:56 AM

Originally Posted by geni

That would be Britannia I meant the one on the right.

My mistake. Two doddery old ladies then.

six7s · 26th October 2008, 12:58 AM

Originally Posted by slingblade

Still trying to derail, because you've found a tiny weakness, and are just itching to exploit it? Your argument is like a chihuahua, and I'll thank you to get the beast off my ankle.

Whole post nominated

six7s · 26th October 2008, 01:02 AM

Originally Posted by Mashuna

Ha! My money has a portrait of Darwin on it.

http://www.hayadan.org.il/wp/wp-cont...PoundNote.jpeg

My money has me my avatar on it

ETA: more physicists on the money:
www2.physics.umd.edu/~redish/Money/

SusanB-M1 · 26th October 2008, 02:43 AM

It's a long morning this morning - the clocks have gone back - so I have had time to work my way through the whole thread. I have (as usual) particularly agreed with , and admired, Slingblade's and articulet's posts.
In one post the words, 'but his fellow humanists, not known for their generosity, wouldn't stump up the cash' were quoted, so I wonder where this idea comes from; and I can't help commenting on the fact that the religious writer who is quoted in in #77 as saying:
It would be hard to come up with a messagee more self-centred message than this.'
could have done with a bit of proof-reading!

humber · 26th October 2008, 08:54 AM

Although the current slogan is rather anodyne, more direct statements may only raise the "offense" bugbear. Atheists should avoid the campaign being seen by the general public as an entertaining bun-fight with the religious.

Organised religions are not so worried about losing the faithful, as not gaining new recruits, and atheists would do better to address the "there might be a god" sector than the already converted.

Religion and culture are heavily intertwined, and it is difficult to attack one without affecting the other. Personally, I don't have a lot of time for the sanctity of culture, but if this is a concern for some, then perhaps they should
ask themselves if they want to continue to support those aspects of their culture that are based upon falsehoods.
This campaign is a good idea, and worthy of continued financial support.

Mobyseven · 27th October 2008, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by geni

But not fiction to the extent the standard disclaimer would claim. So you are aparently happy with adding a false disclaimer to things.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! This little girl was most decidedly real - would a statement, therefore, that Alice in Wonderland is a work of fiction therefore be a false disclaimer?

Nonsense.

See, you're getting confused when you talk about this. Yeah, Pilate was a real, historical figure. But that doesn't mean that the Pilate of the bible was a real historical figure (indeed, it seems highly unlikely). Based on a real historical figure, certainly, but still fictional. The same goes for many other historical figures who have made appearances in works of fiction - Hitler was most decidedly real, but the character of Hitler in the movie Max is for all intents and purposes fictional.

Just because a character shares a name and draws elements (even very heavily) from the life of a real, historical figure, that does not make that character a real historical figure - something that is important to remember in an age where far too many people deliberately blur the boundaries between fact and fiction.

slingblade · 27th October 2008, 12:41 PM

Thank you, Moby. My brain ran in circles trying to explain something I've always understood, but never had to put into words before. Well done, well explained.
Thanks.

dogjones · 27th October 2008, 05:06 PM

To quote a friend of mine - "Why spend money on not believing in something? It's dumb and wasteful."

slingblade · 27th October 2008, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by dogjones

To quote a friend of mine - "Why spend money on not believing in something? It's dumb and wasteful."

If all you have is a fallacious 15-second sound bite, you're wasting everyone's time, including your own. That's pretty dumb.

six7s · 27th October 2008, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by dogjones

To quote a friend of mine - "Why spend money on not believing in something? It's dumb and wasteful."

Exactly! There is no reason - other than, I guess, fear of retribution - for religious organisations (esp those with assets in the gazillions), to be subsidised/afforded tax-free status/etc

So... paying for a bit of advertising is a very worthwhile investment

geni · 1st November 2008, 03:42 AM

Originally Posted by articulett

Well, this is hardly an example of what you claim it to be an example for since it involved the ready practice of infanticide. Sure, immediate death was staved off and a sustainable culture was achieved... for those who were not the victims of infanticide. The Island's rescue by outsiders after Hurricane Zoe shows that thinking ahead can and does aid survival and the welfare of humanity. And their own infanticide policies are responsible for their own sustainability as a culture. I hardly see how this supports an argument that the bus sign is futile (or whatever it is you are arguing.) What was the point of this small Island example again?

It was an exaple of humans being responciple. In their situation and without acess to proper birth control infanticide was a reasonable course of action.

geni · 1st November 2008, 03:45 AM

Originally Posted by Mobyseven

Whoa, whoa, whoa! This little girl was most decidedly real - would a statement, therefore, that Alice in Wonderland is a work of fiction therefore be a false disclaimer?

Absolutely. I regard our entire culture of disclaimers to be problematical. Probably a side effect of reading EULAs from time to time.

Mobyseven · 1st November 2008, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by geni

Absolutely. I regard our entire culture of disclaimers to be problematical. Probably a side effect of reading EULAs from time to time.

...I spent all morning looking for an epic fail image grand enough to use in a reply to you, but none exist. Alice In Wonderland is most decidedly a work of fiction, and the character of Alice in the book is most definitely a fictional character.

Cavemonster · 1st November 2008, 06:37 PM

Eh, the only function of those disclaimers is to prevent people from suing by saying that the book is about them.

What holy books really need is a "Religion: Don't try this at home" sticker on the cover.

geni · 2nd November 2008, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by Mobyseven

...I spent all morning looking for an epic fail image grand enough to use in a reply to you, but none exist. Alice In Wonderland is most decidedly a work of fiction, and the character of Alice in the book is most definitely a fictional character.

Grab a book and look at the actual wording of the standard form disclaimer. It will be something along the lines of:

Quote:

All characters in this book are fictitious and any similarity to actual persons living or dead is purely coincidental

any similarity (or sometimes resemblance).

See the problem?

geni · 2nd November 2008, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

Eh, the only function of those disclaimers is to prevent people from suing by saying that the book is about them.

And in that I suspect they are about as effective as a chocolate teapot.

Quote:

What holy books really need is a "Religion: Don't try this at home" sticker on the cover.

I think the catholic church tried that aproach. Didn't work out too well.

slingblade · 2nd November 2008, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by geni

Grab a book and look at the actual wording of the standard form disclaimer. <snip>
See the problem?

Apparently, you do. Now, having determined there is a problem, what do you intend to do to rectify it?

25th October 2008, 07:44 PM	#121
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper Are kids who believe magic and perhaps even HP are real delusional, ill or a sad, small group? Magic is not real. I know it can harm people later in life to foster a belief in magic as a child. They can grow up, often I'd say, to believe in magic as adults, too. If I simply cant this bit of phrasing over and over, and really, truly believe it, some magical force will be summoned, and my husband will stop hitting me. I tried that magic for 13 years. Pardon me if I'm a bit cynical about the results. Yes, children are susceptible to believing what we tell them. This is a tremendous power we have, and a tremendous responsibility. We can convince a small child of almost anything, with only a modicum of art or finesse. I suppose the line here is "protect their innocence." Innocence in this case is only ignorance. Protect their ignorance. Well, children of a certain age lack experience. They are unsophisticated, and even primitive, if you will, in their cogency. It is the responsibility of adults to explain, in honest and explicit terms, but until one does, a child might easily believe that HP is a real boy. In that case, no, the child is not ill, or sick, or sad. He's simply ignorant. Ignorance can be corrected. But I wasn't talking about unsophisticated, inexperienced, ignorant children. I was talking about cogent adults who understand very well what fiction means and would yet persist that Harry is real, that he could be approached, spoken to, phoned, engaged, in exactly the same way as you might engage me. Now, you want to tell me what your question has to do with: 1) I'm arguing the point that hurt feelings aren't a proper or legitimate reason to not have or to discontinue the ads. 2) I am also arguing the point that we don't need adverts to point out that Harry Potter, a fictional character, is fictional. How does your question or my answer inform those points?
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

26th October 2008, 12:42 AM	#123
SusanB-M1 Incurable Optimist Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Almost in the New Forest, Hampshire, UK Posts: 2,867	This morning on BBC Radio 4, at about 07:10 the 'Sunday' Programme had an interview with Araine sherine about her idea for the bus ad. I immediately went to her web site and sent a 'congratulations!' e-mail. By the way, she was asked about the word 'probably' and explained that the Advertising Standards Authority would object to a word such as 'definitely' which cannot be 100% proved. RD would have preferred 'almost certainly' (think that's what she said) but the 'probably' also has allusions to a lager ad.
	__________________ I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. Last edited by SusanB-M1; 26th October 2008 at 12:48 AM.

26th October 2008, 12:56 AM	#124
Mashuna Ovis ex Machina Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Welsh Wales Posts: 6,581	Originally Posted by geni That would be Britannia I meant the one on the right. My mistake. Two doddery old ladies then.
	__________________ GENERATION 10: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and put in a random number. Anti-social experiment.

26th October 2008, 12:58 AM	#125
six7s veretic Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 8,710	Originally Posted by slingblade Still trying to derail, because you've found a tiny weakness, and are just itching to exploit it? Your argument is like a chihuahua, and I'll thank you to get the beast off my ankle. Whole post nominated
	__________________ Evolution and the rest of reality fascinates the be-jeebus out of me!

26th October 2008, 01:02 AM	#126
six7s veretic Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 8,710	Originally Posted by Mashuna Ha! My money has a portrait of Darwin on it. http://www.hayadan.org.il/wp/wp-cont...PoundNote.jpeg My money has me my avatar on it ETA: more physicists on the money: www2.physics.umd.edu/~redish/Money/
	__________________ Evolution and the rest of reality fascinates the be-jeebus out of me! Last edited by six7s; 26th October 2008 at 01:04 AM.

25th October 2008, 08:16 PM	#122
articulett Banned Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Las Vegas, NV (and the ethers of cyberspace) Posts: 15,786	Originally Posted by geni Tikopia. Strict population control. Well, this is hardly an example of what you claim it to be an example for since it involved the ready practice of infanticide. Sure, immediate death was staved off and a sustainable culture was achieved... for those who were not the victims of infanticide. The Island's rescue by outsiders after Hurricane Zoe shows that thinking ahead can and does aid survival and the welfare of humanity. And their own infanticide policies are responsible for their own sustainability as a culture. I hardly see how this supports an argument that the bus sign is futile (or whatever it is you are arguing.) What was the point of this small Island example again?

26th October 2008, 02:43 AM	#127
SusanB-M1 Incurable Optimist Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Almost in the New Forest, Hampshire, UK Posts: 2,867	It's a long morning this morning - the clocks have gone back - so I have had time to work my way through the whole thread. I have (as usual) particularly agreed with , and admired, Slingblade's and articulet's posts. In one post the words, 'but his fellow humanists, not known for their generosity, wouldn't stump up the cash' were quoted, so I wonder where this idea comes from; and I can't help commenting on the fact that the religious writer who is quoted in in #77 as saying: It would be hard to come up with a messagee more self-centred message than this.' could have done with a bit of proof-reading!
	__________________ I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

26th October 2008, 08:54 AM	#128
humber Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,928	Although the current slogan is rather anodyne, more direct statements may only raise the "offense" bugbear. Atheists should avoid the campaign being seen by the general public as an entertaining bun-fight with the religious. Organised religions are not so worried about losing the faithful, as not gaining new recruits, and atheists would do better to address the "there might be a god" sector than the already converted. Religion and culture are heavily intertwined, and it is difficult to attack one without affecting the other. Personally, I don't have a lot of time for the sanctity of culture, but if this is a concern for some, then perhaps they should ask themselves if they want to continue to support those aspects of their culture that are based upon falsehoods. This campaign is a good idea, and worthy of continued financial support.
humber Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,928

27th October 2008, 09:39 AM	#129
Mobyseven President of Covert-Ops Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Not the Rat. Posts: 5,672	Originally Posted by geni But not fiction to the extent the standard disclaimer would claim. So you are aparently happy with adding a false disclaimer to things. Whoa, whoa, whoa! This little girl was most decidedly real - would a statement, therefore, that Alice in Wonderland is a work of fiction therefore be a false disclaimer? Nonsense. See, you're getting confused when you talk about this. Yeah, Pilate was a real, historical figure. But that doesn't mean that the Pilate of the bible was a real historical figure (indeed, it seems highly unlikely). Based on a real historical figure, certainly, but still fictional. The same goes for many other historical figures who have made appearances in works of fiction - Hitler was most decidedly real, but the character of Hitler in the movie Max is for all intents and purposes fictional. Just because a character shares a name and draws elements (even very heavily) from the life of a real, historical figure, that does not make that character a real historical figure - something that is important to remember in an age where far too many people deliberately blur the boundaries between fact and fiction.
	__________________ "[Mobyseven is] a fantastically friendly, open, curious, happy, charming, sweet and adorable young man! And those are his bad points." - HistoryGal on Mobyseven "Damn, you're good." - Ichneumonwasp on Mobyseven

27th October 2008, 12:41 PM	#130
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Thank you, Moby. My brain ran in circles trying to explain something I've always understood, but never had to put into words before. Well done, well explained. Thanks.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

27th October 2008, 05:06 PM	#131
dogjones Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Bermuda Posts: 1,281	To quote a friend of mine - "Why spend money on not believing in something? It's dumb and wasteful."
	__________________ It's great being ideologically flexible.

27th October 2008, 06:15 PM	#132
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Originally Posted by dogjones To quote a friend of mine - "Why spend money on not believing in something? It's dumb and wasteful." If all you have is a fallacious 15-second sound bite, you're wasting everyone's time, including your own. That's pretty dumb.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

27th October 2008, 06:24 PM	#133
six7s veretic Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 8,710	Originally Posted by dogjones To quote a friend of mine - "Why spend money on not believing in something? It's dumb and wasteful." Exactly! There is no reason - other than, I guess, fear of retribution - for religious organisations (esp those with assets in the gazillions), to be subsidised/afforded tax-free status/etc So... paying for a bit of advertising is a very worthwhile investment
	__________________ Evolution and the rest of reality fascinates the be-jeebus out of me!

1st November 2008, 03:42 AM	#134
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,571	Originally Posted by articulett Well, this is hardly an example of what you claim it to be an example for since it involved the ready practice of infanticide. Sure, immediate death was staved off and a sustainable culture was achieved... for those who were not the victims of infanticide. The Island's rescue by outsiders after Hurricane Zoe shows that thinking ahead can and does aid survival and the welfare of humanity. And their own infanticide policies are responsible for their own sustainability as a culture. I hardly see how this supports an argument that the bus sign is futile (or whatever it is you are arguing.) What was the point of this small Island example again? It was an exaple of humans being responciple. In their situation and without acess to proper birth control infanticide was a reasonable course of action.

1st November 2008, 03:45 AM	#135
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,571	Originally Posted by Mobyseven Whoa, whoa, whoa! This little girl was most decidedly real - would a statement, therefore, that Alice in Wonderland is a work of fiction therefore be a false disclaimer? Absolutely. I regard our entire culture of disclaimers to be problematical. Probably a side effect of reading EULAs from time to time.

1st November 2008, 06:20 PM	#136
Mobyseven President of Covert-Ops Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Not the Rat. Posts: 5,672	Originally Posted by geni Absolutely. I regard our entire culture of disclaimers to be problematical. Probably a side effect of reading EULAs from time to time. ...I spent all morning looking for an epic fail image grand enough to use in a reply to you, but none exist. Alice In Wonderland is most decidedly a work of fiction, and the character of Alice in the book is most definitely a fictional character.
	__________________ "[Mobyseven is] a fantastically friendly, open, curious, happy, charming, sweet and adorable young man! And those are his bad points." - HistoryGal on Mobyseven "Damn, you're good." - Ichneumonwasp on Mobyseven

1st November 2008, 06:37 PM	#137
Cavemonster Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 3,916	Eh, the only function of those disclaimers is to prevent people from suing by saying that the book is about them. What holy books really need is a "Religion: Don't try this at home" sticker on the cover.
Cavemonster Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 3,916

2nd November 2008, 09:28 AM	#138
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,571	Originally Posted by Mobyseven ...I spent all morning looking for an epic fail image grand enough to use in a reply to you, but none exist. Alice In Wonderland is most decidedly a work of fiction, and the character of Alice in the book is most definitely a fictional character. Grab a book and look at the actual wording of the standard form disclaimer. It will be something along the lines of: Quote: All characters in this book are fictitious and any similarity to actual persons living or dead is purely coincidental any similarity (or sometimes resemblance). See the problem?

2nd November 2008, 09:30 AM	#139
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,571	Originally Posted by Cavemonster Eh, the only function of those disclaimers is to prevent people from suing by saying that the book is about them. And in that I suspect they are about as effective as a chocolate teapot. Quote: What holy books really need is a "Religion: Don't try this at home" sticker on the cover. I think the catholic church tried that aproach. Didn't work out too well.

2nd November 2008, 12:14 PM	#140
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Originally Posted by geni Grab a book and look at the actual wording of the standard form disclaimer. <snip> See the problem? Apparently, you do. Now, having determined there is a problem, what do you intend to do to rectify it?
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642