It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Atheist ads to adorn New York subway stations

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Oh yay, atheists advertising. How hXc...

...Their ads might as well just read "man god duznt exizt slipknawwwwt".




posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   
To those having a go at atheists who read all of Dawkins books and that kind of thing. Well consider, if your beliefs are based upon science and evidence then it stands to reason you would read publications about science and logic. There is nothing insidious or wrong about it and as science and logic are often under attack in the school system it again stands to reason that atheists would read books by authors that arm them with the facts and details that they need to refute claims that are baseless.

As to the adverts. Well i don't see the point, it won't cause anyone to change from a strict believer into a non believer. It's a waste of time and money but in the end if someone wants to waste that money then it's up to them.

Oh and for the record, i haven't read Dawkins books, i'm such a bad atheist lol. Or maybe believers saying that every atheist reads these books is making a rather ignorant statement.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Revolution-2012
LOL!

I say that all Religious, or lack there of, advertisement should be banned from public locations.

Anyone agree?


But atheism isn't a religion, is is a lack of belief in all religions. Atheists don't have to follow any doctrine other than a lack of belief in religion or a supernatural existence. We can be goths, emos, hippies, conservatives, militants, middle of the roaders or anything else for that matter. You can't pigeon hole an atheist on any subject other than saying they don't believe.

Religion defined by oxford dictionary


noun 1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship. 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.


If you really stretch the second one you still can't really put atheism in there as they don't have faith and they don't worship.

So no, atheism is not a religion.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


And you completely ignore #3.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


And you completely ignore #3.


Not at all, there is nothing to devote to within atheism therefore no devoution. You cannot really devote yourself to non belief, you can write about science and argue cases in court to stop religion obscuring facts but that is not devotion.

Even then lets say someone follows something religiously, lets use Star Trek as an example, they never miss at episode. It is still not a religion as it only controls a small area of their life. Religion effects everything in your life. You can follow an interest religiously but not be religious


[edit on 22-10-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Face it, most Atheist don't know jack about most religions, or God. So they are just lost.

Most religions believe that the entire universe is God's body. They can prove the universe exists, and that it creates, and that it gives life.

So when Atheist write stuff like "A million New Yorkers are good without God. Are you?" and the background is a blue sky and clouds.... all that is, is complete ignorance, and blindness.

So you are ok without the breath of life(air)?

You are ok without water?

That energy that makes your body, you are ok without that?

That is like the microorganisms in your body, who survive in your body, coming out and saying "we are ok without you"... LOL sure....



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Warped semantics. You can devote yourself to a idea, like I don't know, that there is no chance a "god" could exist. But go a. and define it as you wish. Just don't be suprised when others disagree.


[edit on 22-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Warped semantics. But go a. and define it as you wish. Just don't be suprised when others disagree.


The semantics are highly important on this issue and you have not countered what i said. Using the star trek example please give the counter instead of a rather passive one liner.

reply to post by ALLis0NE
 




Care to back up anything, even one fact in your statement with empirical data? And the idea that most atheists don't know about religion is ludicrous. Many atheists have raed the Bible and the texts from many other religions or at the very least have a decent level of general knowledge on the subject.

[edit on 22-10-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
I have to wonder what motivates them.
Hate?


Atheists are movtivated by a natural and healthy sense of skeptiscism. They are suspicious of recieved wisdom unless of course it is based in science or anything empirical and they resent dogma.

If anyone is motivated by hatred it is the religious fundamentalists, not the athiests.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Care to back up anything, even one fact in your statement with empirical data?


What do you need me to back up exactly?

The fact that you exist, and you depend on the universe to exist, and that universe gives you life, and that universe was responsible for your creation? Or that people believe all that to be "God"?


Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
And the idea that most atheists don't know about religion is ludicrous. Many atheists have raed the Bible and the texts from many other religions or at the very least have a decent level of general knowledge on the subject.


Reading something, and having knowledge about that something, has NOTHING to do with actually understanding what was read, or what they know.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   
The adverts are a GOOD thing.. the point is visibility and desensitization of Atheism.. more exposure = less fear of stigma. It's working.. The church is going to hell in a hand basket (no pun intended).. shrinking flock, endless payouts for kiddy fiddling (by the way stats show as many as 50% of priests are kiddy fiddlers). I just love watching the christians here lashing out I mean really.. would Jesus get mad at an Atheist or an advertisement? Would Jesus even spend time posting on a forum? No.. he would be out doing charity work not sitting here lashing out at Atheists. funny..



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


I amended my original statement. But in extension, religion is not synomous with belief in the supernatural no matter how much certain other people wish to pretend otherwise and the definition reflects that. But, I love to see the special cases you make for your particular favored belief and the lengths you go to to seperate it from those it finds it's self in conflict with *if you truly had a lack of belief you would not bother to call yourself an atheist, you know joining a group label that does consist of a group of like minds, you would not address the question at all*. It's telling in a way.


But as I said, believe as you wish. I would imagine you would also argue no blood has been shed in the name of atheism. And that is your right, but I would also argue you are sadly mistaken. I call it "abuse of quallifiers" especially in light the qualifiers are used in one special case only.


[edit on 22-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
What do you need me to back up exactly?

The fact that you exist, and you depend on the universe to exist, and that universe gives you life, and that universe was responsible for your creation? Or that people believe all that to be "God"?


You need to back up that it is god, not that someone believes it. You seem to think that some people believing that the universe is in itself god means that atheists are ignorant and blind because they used clouds on their advert. Not just clouds i know.

But that entire string of logic, and i use that word loosely, is that some religious people believe that the universe is itself God.



Originally posted by ALLis0NE

Reading something, and having knowledge about that something, has NOTHING to do with actually understanding what was read, or what they know.



So you're saying that they are not allowed to read something and decide for themselves how to interpret it, you are saying that they must read it and see it as you or others do. Wow.




Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
I amended my original statement. But in extension, religion is not synomous with belief in the supernatural no matter how much certain other people wish to pretend otherwise and the definition reflects that. But, I love to see the special cases you make for your particular favored belief and the lengths you go to to seperate it from those it finds it's self in conflict with *if you truly had a lack of belief you would not bother to call yourself an atheist, you know joining a group label that does consist of a group of like minds, you would not address the question at all*. It's telling in a way.


Well it's not that telling, atheist simply means a lack of belief, i have no belief and therefore i am an atheist. If the label didn't exist i would not invent it, it just happens to be there and is inescapable.


Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
But as I said, believe as you wish. I would imagine you would also argue no blood has been shed in the name of atheism. And that is your right, but I would also argue you sadly mistaken. I call it "abuse of quallifiers" especially in light the qualifiers are used in one special case only.




Oh dear if you want to get into that argument we can but lets start by saying that something done by an atheist does not mean it was done in the name of atheism.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by crowkey
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


The same kind of advertising campain was done in london a year or so ago. with adds on the tube and on the sides of buses. Its curious these people call them selves the Big Apple Coalition( i know you call NY the BA] but did not one bad snake tempt Eve with a big juicy apple.



Excellent poetic analogy.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by amazed
 





Actually marriage does not have it's roots in religion, it has it's roots in "contracts", meaning a business arrangement for the financial benefit of the families involved.


Do not assume too much. You have been indoctrinated well into TPTB view of the world. What you state is pure!!!! ignorance.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman before the eyes of God. All one has to do is stand before the one you wish to marry and state your intention to God. Or does your government enforce your Marriage! It was never defined as a CONTRACT (again ignorance!) before it was defined by God or did lawyers exist before religion.

Also, I suppose birth certificates existed before baptismal records.

SOMETIMES AAAAAAAAAAAAUUGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

DENY IGNORANCE AND LOSE YOUR PROGRAMMING

[edit on 10/22/2009 by endisnighe]



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Well it's not that telling, atheist simply means a lack of belief, i have no belief and therefore i am an atheist. If the label didn't exist i would not invent it, it just happens to be there and is inescapable.


Yes it is quite telling actually. I would call the dogged and vocifierous defense of someone claiming to be simply a individual for a grouping extremely telling. It does not matter what you claim you would or would not do if no such label existed because that does not reflect on the reality of the situation and is also a null argument as you cannot prove that is in fact what you would do. You identify with and defend the label while attempting to put it in a context that so that it sounds *semantically* above and beyond it's percieved opposite. By your actions alone you argue against your stated pretext.


Oh dear if you want to get into that argument we can but lets start by saying that something done by an atheist does not mean it was done in the name of atheism.


I would argue that purging "religious" people simply because they are "religious" very much doing something in the name of atheism. But also, everything done by a so called "religious" person is argued to be because of "religion". Hm. That excessive one-sided qualifier thing I hinted at earlier.

But most likely you think I am just some theist out to denigrate and slight your "non-belief" that you take so much action in defense of.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
You need to back up that it is god, not that someone believes it. You seem to think that some people believing that the universe is in itself god means that atheists are ignorant and blind because they used clouds on their advert. Not just clouds i know.


Ok, let me rephrase then... Most Atheist don't know the definition of God.

Let me show a definition from a dictionary to start:



GOD

1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler


1: The supreme or ultimate reality can be considered "the universe". If the universe contains all power (energy), wisdom, and goodness, and it was responsible for our creation, than it could be considered God.

2: the universe is in a state of existence so it could be considered a "being" just like you (definition of being). The universe has more than natural attributes since "unnatural" things and powers exist within it (if unnatural even exists). The universe is in control of our physical reality, and people worship it.

3: The universe is a "thing" of supreme value. It is all value that exists.

4: The universe IS all power and energy that exists, and it rules.


Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
But that entire string of logic, and i use that word loosely, is that some religious people believe that the universe is itself God.


To first prove God exists, you must clarify the definition of God.

It seems Atheist like you just don't have a clue about the definition, so you make up your own definition in your mind.

Since the definition is different with different religions, there is no way you could EVER prove that God doesn't exist, until you make your own definition of it.

So you Atheist are fighting a losing battle.



Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984


Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Reading something, and having knowledge about that something, has NOTHING to do with actually understanding what was read, or what they know.


So you're saying that they are not allowed to read something and decide for themselves how to interpret it, you are saying that they must read it and see it as you or others do. Wow.


No, I never said that. You just made that up in your own mind, and then thought that is what I meant which seems to be a pattern with Atheists. You also just proved my quote correct. Reread it again...

I said reading, and knowing something, doesn't mean you understand it.

Basically, what you just did was read what I said, you knew I said it, but you didn't understand what I said.

When someone writes something you are supposed to TRY to interpret the writing the way the writer meant you to interpret it. If you just make your own interpretation then that means you don't understand what was written.


[edit on 22-10-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 





your just lucky we haven't burnt all your churches to ground by now...


Excellent moral compass their, they are lucky you haven't burnt all their churches down. Would not happen to be one them burning some of them down?

Atheism is a religion, the zealots go around burning down churches and do everything they can to destroy all religions. Some might even say the followers are Satanists.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by amazed
 





Actually marriage does not have it's roots in religion, it has it's roots in "contracts", meaning a business arrangement for the financial benefit of the families involved.


Do not assume too much. You have been indoctrinated well into TPTB view of the world. What you state is pure!!!! ignorance.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman before the eyes of God. All one has to do is stand before the one you wish to marry and state your intention to God. Or does your government enforce your Marriage! It was never defined as a CONTRACT (again ignorance!) before it was defined by God or did lawyers exist before religion.

Also, I suppose birth certificates existed before baptismal records.

SOMETIMES AAAAAAAAAAAAUUGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

DENY IGNORANCE AND LOSE YOUR PROGRAMMING

[edit on 10/22/2009 by endisnighe]


Deny Ignorance?

Jebus shaves.

I think you need you read some more history before you toss the almighty yhwh around. People were getting married long before the invention of the hebrew invention of the one god...deny ignorance?

[edit on 22-10-2009 by MeltDowN]

[edit on 22-10-2009 by MeltDowN]



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by amazed
 





Actually marriage does not have it's roots in religion, it has it's roots in "contracts", meaning a business arrangement for the financial benefit of the families involved.


Do not assume too much. You have been indoctrinated well into TPTB view of the world. What you state is pure!!!! ignorance.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman before the eyes of God. All one has to do is stand before the one you wish to marry and state your intention to God. Or does your government enforce your Marriage! It was never defined as a CONTRACT (again ignorance!) before it was defined by God or did lawyers exist before religion.

Also, I suppose birth certificates existed before baptismal records.

SOMETIMES AAAAAAAAAAAAUUGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

DENY IGNORANCE AND LOSE YOUR PROGRAMMING

[edit on 10/22/2009 by endisnighe]


Sorry, but you are wrong.



History

The way in which a marriage is conducted has changed over time, as has the institution itself. Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage.[19]

One of the oldest known and recorded marriage laws is discerned from Hammurabi's Code, enacted during the Mesopotamian world (widely considered as the cradle of civilization). The legal institution of marriage and its rules and ramifications have changed over time depending on the culture or demographic of the time.[20]

Various cultures have had their own theories on the origin of marriage. One example may lie in a man's need for assurance as to paternity of his children. He might therefore be willing to pay a bride price or provide for a woman in exchange for exclusive sexual access.[21] Legitimacy is the consequence of this transaction rather than its motivation. In Comanche society, married women work harder, lose sexual freedom, and do not seem to obtain any benefit from marriage.[22] But nubile women are a source of jealousy and strife in the tribe, so they are given little choice other than to get married. "In almost all societies, access to women is institutionalized in some way so as to moderate the intensity of this competition."[23]


Source: Wikipedia Before you deride using Wikipedia as the source, feel free to click the link source, and check the sources used in the article itself. The Wiki statements are all generously sourced and thus, reliable.

Marriage predates recorded history, which massively predates Christianity and even monotheism itself.




top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join