If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
edit to add: - Yeah and another 16.7k in giftaid!
As a matter of interest, why would the Humanist Society be a charity - and, specifically, why should this advertising on a bus receive gift aid?
I'm not complaining - just asking.
Same reason churches are
Are all churches charities? I can understand if they actively raise money to help the poor etc ... does the Humanist Society do this too?
I cant say that ive noticed them yet though!
Churches certainly have charitable status. Effectively at least. And while religions may help the poor, the aim of religions such as Christianity and Islam is and always has been the advancement of religious ideas. Charity work is just one medium of doing that, but the Charity Commission actually accepts "The Advancement of Religious Ideas" as a valid mission aim for a charity.
The BHA are there to represent the interests of non-religious people, (specifically humanists) in the UK. They do this by providing education resources that focus on a non-religious viewpoint, setting up lectures, representing the interests of non-religious people in government, and providing services such as non-religious wedding and funeral ceremonies. There ultimate aim is to get rid of the privilage of religious beliefs in society. Of the nearly £709k they raised last year, £694k went on charitable activities as defined by the Charity Commission, so yes, they do do charity work, but I don't think they're involved in helping the poor or anything like that. I think they do act as a resource for people to know which charities aren't religious organisations though, which of course is most of them. There are obvious reasons why a non-religious person would be dubious about donating to certain religious charities, as I'm sure you'll appreciate.
Thank you for that reply! :thumb:
Oh whatever dude...
I don't care what religion people follow tbh... I just don't want to see condescending posters everywhere saying my perception of reality is wrong or that I am in some way less happy than another group of people.
Just like atheists don't want to see condescending posters telling us our perception of reality is wrong and that we are not only less happy than another group of people, but that we are also living lives that are fundamentally wrong, for which we will be punished for all eternity. However no one has ever started a thread about those or shown any objection to them before; they are just accepted as normal, as are the people you get on Oxford street preaching, etc. It may seem like a "they've done it so now we're going to" attitude to you, but in actual fact I believe it is simply giving a different perspective, sparking debate and representing the views of many millions of people who usually keep silent. And personally I don't think there is anything wrong with that, we live in a society with freedom of speech, and I personally I am quite happy to have my views represented in this way.
If nothing else the debate it has sparked has been fantastic, and as someone else said earlier even if it makes one person go away and examine their own beliefs and thoughts about gods and religion, then they have done a good job.
I'd like to see that kind of thing in the private sphere tbh... I'd like to see an end to religion in school assemblies, religious schools and charitable status for religious organisations.
Yes, an alternative perspective needs to be provided, but I don't see the point in anybody pushing their beliefs on you in the first place.
It is completely an "eye for an eye" approach that has been shown by the posters, I think it's a bit childish... However, it's their right to free expression and I guess that a comparison could be made between being told how to think by smug atheists and by a smug fashion industry.
Meh.... I hate people.
:yeees:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jxo81Ok9Urk&NR=1
Small group of MPs demand that the campaign be stopped immediately as it is 'offensive' to Christian and Muslims
What about the fucking evangelical thundering we have been subjected to for years? It's okay to offend agnostics and atheists, but not religious folk then?
Twats :rolleyes:
Christian Voice reports the campaign to the ASA for 'breaking rules on substantiation and truthfulness', cos God clearly exists.
Deluded, hypocritical wankers
Is there a more vile group in the UK than this lot? I cannot think of many...
Christian bus driver 'refuses to operate bus with atheist adverts'
I wonder if the same courtesy would be extended to a non-believing bus driver who refused to drive a bus bearing the nauseating, god-bothering offensive bullshit posted by Christian groups... :rolleyes:
So 3 cheers to the campaign. They must be doing something right.
But all the people calling for it to be banned are even more stupid
I'm not saying the other side are any better (didn't I say that in my post?) but it reeks of another arrogant atheist 'we are more intelligent than you' stunt. It's not they're offended by the other ideas, it's the partisan support of their OWN idea (whether that be atheist, theist, or whatever) that people carry along with.
I mean nobody goes on about how in some legal book somewhere it says you can shoot a welshman with a crossbow do they? As soon as it's religion people just get really funny about it. It's got to the point where people are religiously fervent about being atheist almost.
So like I said, it's a bit like a circus act to me.. one bunch of zealots preaching to another bunch of zealots preaching to another bunch of zealots preaching to....
- has the decency to admit they cannot certain by the inclusion of the word 'probably', as opposed to the religious lot who have always mantained their claims are the full and undeniable truth
- do not threaten others with an eternity of pain and suffering if they don't subscribe to their beliefs
Let us remind ourselves that this campaign was prompted by the rather disturbing proliferation of religious advertisements in public places. Something that was not permitted until a few years ago, and that has extended like the plague since the law was changed in that respect. I'm happy for the atheist campaign to disappear- if all religious messages are taken down permanently as well.
Otherwise- fuck 'em.
Anyway, they raised nearly £150k when their initial target was £5k, so they're running one with another slogan in a few months. Anyone got any ideas? I personally like Stephen Fry's, "Religion - Shit It!"
I respect anyone's right to make themselves heard, to convince others to think the way they do. I don't think that right extends to offensive or upsetting campaigns tho (I'm not a Londoner so never saw the religious campaign).
I would say if you're saying someone is going to hell that's upsetting. Especially for kids who might take it too literally.
No more faith schools.
There's no such thing as a Marxist child, there's no such thing as a Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Hindu etc child
Religion: For consenting adults in private.
Religions: They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.
What? I did.
I just said it was stupid
Like I said (not sure where the misinterpretation came from) - I think everyone has the right to free speech and bus advertising wherever they like. I don't believe that that should be offensive like the religious ones were apparently (I didn't see them).
I also think massive posters of vivisection aren't appropriate, and so on and so forth.
Still, I was saying the bus stunt was a bit daft, like a circus act, and that many atheists defending it are not a-theist [without religion], but are actually anti-theist [against religion] and have rallied together in an equally daft cult of sorts. It's just partisan ideology.
At the end of the day if that's what Londoner's want to do fair play to them, just I can't see the point in having a fight over bug slogans with 'my idea is righter than yours'.
I think being an atheist and anti "theist" are pretty much the same thing. If you believe in science, rationality, logic, then anything that completely contradicts all of those things, is taught in schools to your children, and is treated with (undue) respect in many aspects of our lives is going to be an offense on the beliefs of the atheist. If something contradicts everything you believe, and will have an effect on everything to state policy, laws, regulations in the workplace, education, then you want to hit back and defend your views, not just sit back and go "oh thats okay, lets all let people believe whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone" etc.
To say it is just mud slinging, "my idea is better than yours" kind of misses the point I think in that the message is trying to promote the logical, factual/evidential basis upon which atheism rests. Perhaps it will even make people consider alternative points of view that they would never have thought about before, e.g. rather than seeing the xian posters and thinking "oh yeah faith is a good thing it makes you moral" they will go away and think about humanity and morality WITHOUT the need for positing gods. Since humanism/atheism is not really taught in schools or is often considered to be a lazy/arrogant point of view, it might be interesting to get people to consider it a bit more themselves, go away and look up what atheists actually think and why they think it, rather than just having vague notions of being xian or whatever themselves because they were christened even though they never go to church/pray/read the bible/do anything else they themselves would consider someone of that religion to do. Sitting on the fence and being "tolerant" and "respectful" of things that do not really deserve respect is not conducive to change.
Anyway I'm sure all of this has been said earlier in the thread, and the controversy just proves the point really and promotes the campaign even more, which can only be a good thing in my opinion. And Stephen Green can just keep talking and making even more of an arse of himself!
The problem with anti-theists is the same problem as with religious fundamentalists, in that they are not happy for people to grow their own ideas - they just want people to believe their idea.
FWIW, there is no proof there is NO God, so I don't know what factual proof atheism rests on
The reason I take broadly this line is I have seen very well the ugly side of anti-theism. It is largely about feeling superior and being able to put others down. Something I don't like in any shape whether it be from religionists, antitheists, university students or whatever.
Not that I'd complain if some bearded nutter issued a fatwa against Pollyanna, of course.