There's probably no God

[Tannhauser]

At the end of the day atheism isn't meant to be all fun and smiles - but it's not true to say all atheists are resigned to a life of miserable despair either.

 

Yeah, I agree with that. I guess what I'm commenting on is this false assumption that Christianity is such a bad choice, because it's making people miserable compared to the joyfullife of the atheist.

 

Personally I'd say there's something quite sad about living a seemingly happy but ultimately deluded life, but it depends how you look at it I guess.

 

Is happiness reason enough to make something worth believing in? Is it wrong to face facts and sometimes think wow, things are not all roses? I'd say no on both fronts, it's healthy isn't it?

 

That's a very profound question. Camus said that the majority of human activity is designed to distract us from the awful truth that we will inevitably die and that life is meaningless. We fill it full of useless, trivial 'stuff' and activity to avoid thinking ourselves to death. I think there's some truth in that. so I see most atheist's lives, including mine, are already filled with silliness and delusion that all this pointless frenetic activity is for[/i something.

 

That aside, is it really a bleak truth vs. false happiness dilemma? A lot of Christians have taken 'Pascal's wager' . Here the idea is that you can never know for sure whether God exists or not. Your options in the face of this uncertainty are to be atheist or christian. If you choose Christianity and you're wrong - i.e. you just die and that's it - you haven't really lost that much as a result. Christianity teaches that we should try to follow certain ethical principles, put other people first and encourage others to follow that same system. And pray, which if you don't believe, you could say is just listening to your heart and your conscience. Most modern Christians don't seem to be living as penitents on their knees.

 

By contrast, if, as atheists, you and I have got it wrong, we're both f**ked.

 

If it's ok to preach religion and build churches, it must be ok to at least voice alternative viewpoints, or we're not giving fair and unbiased freedom of speech. This messages can't do any harm.

 

Agreed. Except that I think atheism is probably a majority belief in the UK, so sticking a sign up on a bus about it is a bit like advertising that the world is round.

 

If it's going to cause people to slip into miserable despair, those people probably need a lot of help anyway.

 

An atheists perspective might be a bit more brutal, but conversely it brings hope and happiness in other forms.

 

I can see that atheism has its upside, but I think that the implication in the slogans that if only Christians would stop worrying about God, they would have be better off shows a grave misunderstanding of the implications of atheism.

 

Everyone is entitled to believe what they want, but at the same time it should be ok to raise awareness that it's ok to question those beliefs. Religion and atheism are two opposing extremes of course, being agnostic is of course a much more diplomatic position.

 

I would imagine that the overwhelming majority of Christians in the UK are just fine with questioning faith -they've grown pin a largely secular society. I can't comment on other religions, particularly Islam, because I don't know enough about them.

 

I think Dawkins makes some good points but gets some bad press. I suspect he only comes across so strong/extremist himself because he has such a battle with institutionalised establishments and entrenched beliefs, sometimes you have to go a little extreme in the other direction to be heard from the other end of the spectrum I guess.

 

On this one, I really do think you're wrong. I don't think it's a case of 'bad press' - Dawkins has found his new career in picking fights with any religious group. Comments comparing religion to smallpox - a diseased state to be stamped out aren't cases of the press manipulating his words - he says stuff like that all the time.

[Tannhauser]

We're all the same, it's unfair to say that aethiests can't have anything to live for or look forward to, because they get enjoyment from the experience, regardless of whether it all gets remembered by the next evolutionary generation of the universe or not. The whole thing about looking down on the 'deluded' religious types is because it seems that they give up some of their wordly excitement in favour of believing in a post-life party of some kind, and they work towards that instead of enjoying what they've got here and now.

 

I'm not sure I understand all of your points, but I'll pick up on this one.

 

 

I would agree that atheists have the upper hand when it comes to experiencing guilt-free pleasures of the moment. And though I don't think most modern Christians deny themselves that much, there is a difference.

 

But I think that as a culture, over the last forty years, the idea of self-denial and 'purity' has become an anathema to most people. We are brought up to believe that the highest goals for life are to enjoy yourself as much as possible, indulge yourself as much as possible, experience as much as possible, restrict yourself as little as possible and so on.

 

Further, our culture teaches us to ridicule anyone who doesn't pursue these goals. Devoting yourself to anything other than socialising is regarded with suspicion and dismay: "Get a life" or "you need to get out more" sum this up, because it implies that the real business of life is to spend as much time as possible in contact with other people (preferably in a pub, if you really want to establish yourself as a member of the human race).

 

As an aside, I see this shift in culture to be the ultimate triumph of marketing. Business hates the thought of a contemplative life of denial, because if you embrace that you ain't buying anything.

 

What I'm saying is that self-denial for an ideal is largely out of favour and we find it incredibly hard to see it as a positive choice that someone in their right mind would prefer. On a smaller scale, as a lifetime tee-totaller, I run up against this all the time: "What you've never been drunk?" "Well, no, and you've never, as an adult, been a lifetime tee-totaller"

 

For me, the sacrifice of the 'here and now' for the pursuit of an ideal, Christian or otherwise, is what sets us apart from animals. It's the most interesting thing that humans do.

 

 

BTW, I'm not saying that atheists have nothing to live for or look forward to. As an atheist, I have to try to create my own meaning, or at least to convince myself of the illusion of that. But I think the Christians have the jump on us when it comes to purpose.

[Lbm]

Cliff, have you read any (and I'm sure you have) Anthony de Mello and/or Eckhart Tolle books?

[Tannhauser]

Part of the process of growing up and becoming an adult is the ability to differentiate the real from the imaginary, the factual from the make believe. Whilst it's still good to dream, as adults we should acquire and master the ability to distinguish the real from make believe, fact from fiction and treat them appropriately in every day life and when forming the (hopefully) responsible decisions we have to make.

 

Oh, I think adult life is full of convenient fictions and fantasies that go largely unchallenged. "You're unique", "Dad was a special person", "I don't care what people think", "I've got a good sense of humour", "I live life to the full", "I'm significantly different from the average person in respects x, y, z", "I'll always love you", "I could never do something like that", " People make their own luck", "my lifestyle doesn't hurt anyone".

 

Or this one: "Science is an entirely objective, value-free system that arrives at conclusions purely on the basis of verifiable observation, using inductive and deductive logic" Sounds like a fairy story to me.

 

Psst, last one is a joke. Sort of.

[Tannhauser]

Cliff, have you read any (and I'm sure you have) Anthony de Mello and/or Eckhart Tolle books?

 

Sorry, I've never heard of either of them, let alone read their stuff. Just had a quick Google, though.

 

I find it hard to read books by spiritual guru types, because despite all the posts above, they often aren't empirical or logical enough for me . I might give Eckhart Tolle a go.

[tbourner]

Thinking about Pascal's wager, will I go to hell just cos I'm not a Christian? I've probably lived a more morally correct life (so far) than quite a few apparently religious people, do they get in the door first just because of that tick in the religion box?

 

I see it as a guide, not to be taken literally. I actually do believe in a creator, and I do more or less follow the rules (but for my own reasons, not cos I'm threatened), I just don't like the way it's put forward, so I choose to class myself as something else. So what's going to happen to me at the end of it all if it turns out there is a god waiting for me?

[Konrad]

Thinking about Pascal's wager, will I go to hell just cos I'm not a Christian? I've probably lived a more morally correct life (so far) than quite a few apparently religious people, do they get in the door first just because of that tick in the religion box?

 

I see it as a guide, not to be taken literally. I actually do believe in a creator, and I do more or less follow the rules (but for my own reasons, not cos I'm threatened), I just don't like the way it's put forward, so I choose to class myself as something else. So what's going to happen to me at the end of it all if it turns out there is a god waiting for me?

 

If you would have quick look in christian 10 rules given aparrently by God, you would see, that those are not that hard to follow and any morally "straight" person following them already no matter they are christians or not. I do think, that reason, why some of us are "religious" is need to belong to some social group and religious ones are happen to be big and well estabilished . Modern Christianity is not based on fear, it's based on knowledge and humans morals, fear (under God's name) was tool to control uneducated masses and gave England her empire Now fear is tool of most extreme fanatics at Middle East (you would think they learn on someone elses mistakes), but it's not relevant to our discussion so I will skip it

[Tannhauser]

Thinking about Pascal's wager, will I go to hell just cos I'm not a Christian? I've probably lived a more morally correct life (so far) than quite a few apparently religious people, do they get in the door first just because of that tick in the religion box?

 

I see it as a guide, not to be taken literally. I actually do believe in a creator, and I do more or less follow the rules (but for my own reasons, not cos I'm threatened), I just don't like the way it's put forward, so I choose to class myself as something else. So what's going to happen to me at the end of it all if it turns out there is a god waiting for me?

 

As it was originally envisaged by Pascal, yes, you'd burn for rejecting Jesus.

 

I don't know what a modern non-fundamentalist Christian would say. I think they normally try to play the Hell aspect down as it puts off the punters.

 

I *think* that the New Testament is supposed to be a break from the old style God, who punishes all and sundry. Having said that, if you turn your back on God, he still won't let you be with him. So I think that sadly, despite your moral life, you won't get to Heaven. I think you've got to do more than just be good to join the club, you have to pay your subs too. That's the least attractive component of Christianity to me.

 

Maybe you can persuade St.Peter to forgive you by blaming it on Chilli .

[tbourner]

How about a death bed repentance? Will that do?

[Tannhauser]

How about a death bed repentance? Will that do?

 

There's an interesting one. One of the criticisms of the doctrine of repentance and forgiveness is that we could all live immoral, godless lives, secure in the knowledge that a deathbed confession will secure passage to heaven.

 

I believe the Christian response is to say that God is wise to such tricks and sees clear to the truths of the human heart. So I guess He sees if your repentance is sincere or a ploy and deals with you accordingly.

[imi]

OK, so you distinguish between (a) that you can directly verify by your own senses as proof which is thereforefact and (b) that which has only been related to you, which can at best be belief (if I understand you).

 

This leads you into all sorts of problems. There are many things which you presumably regard as fact, which you can't verify using your own senses: the existence of atoms,for example. So you can't verify atoms as fact any more or less than God (or gods). Alternatively, you could say that the existence of atoms is only a belief, just as much as a belief in God.

 

 

OK, but scientists can verify the existence of atoms, right? But now you're no further forward, because you're still accepting second-hand information that you can't directly verify. If you say 'the scientist has a proof, but I can't see it for myself', then that's an article of faith as much as trusting a priest.

 

Now, I've got a science degree and though I could tell you in outline about the evidence for atoms, I couldn't interpret the original papers - my Maths isn't good enough. So my belief in atoms comes down largely to a faith in experts who have told me that there are such things.

 

Good post.....

[chilli]

Hey, I'm back - I'm just too busy these days!

 

Tannhauser - you make some good and valid points. I agree with what you say, broadly speaking but with some caveats.

 

Believing in something for fear of the consequences, a true catch-22 - personally I find it entirely illogical, if there was a God, why would he operate in such a way. Ok so it's not for me to reason why, the way of the lord is beyond comprehension by man and so on However, cynically speaking, as a man made meme, it works brilliantly to get people hooked in

 

Science itself is perfectly objective (as a pure subject) - what interferes with that is politics and human nature. The two things should be understood on their own terms.

 

So that leads on to the observation that human adults are not perfect and delude themselves about many things, not just religion. Absolutely, so very true. But, that's no justification, that still doesn't make it any more right. Humans do all sorts of things that are less than ideal, you can't use it to justify more of the same.

 

Death bed repentance, that just about sums up the inconsistent, self promoting aspects found in many religions.

 

And finally, being religious or having faith is not an automatic route to moral high ground people assume it to be - atheists are equally moral. Many staunch theologians are capable of turning a moral blind eye when it suits them. The church in this country has lost mostly all of it's power. Historically (and as seen in other countries) religion, as with any mass/mob behaviour can lead to terrifying (some would say evil!) behaviour. We in this country are well insulated from that, but it's never that far away. Try going to the bible belt and tell people you're an atheist (don't preach), whilst operating within the 10 commandments (probably) you won't be shown an example led (or set by) by "God"!

 

PS: feel free to blame me for anything I may be full of sh1te, but I "believe" in what I say

 

Edit: Coming back on myself (!) I realise the discussion is dangerously close to mixing up belief (in God) with Religion (which so often happens). So, for that reason I'll clarify my perspective.

 

God - believe in it if you want, why not have your personal beliefs, you're entitled believe what you want. For me, I'm happy to admit I'm as much Agnostic as Atheist, even though I'm science and logic through and through. I'm happy to say I might sit on the fence to some extent because if there's one thing I do know, that's that I don't (and will never) know enough to answer that with 100% certainty (as sad as that makes me feel).

 

Religion - hmmmm, well when you're done picking one "right way" over another and have lived your life according to (in my belief) entirely man made rules - then I hope it makes you a better person, but never use it as an excuse not to think for yourself, to follow mob mentality, to wage holy wars and so on.

 

As they say, do and believe what you like, so long as it doesn't harm anyone else!

[Max Headroom]

There is no god, there is nothing after we die. That is it finito!! We all live in the hope that there is something better than this life!! Well there isn't!! Make the best of it while you can.

[Lbm]

There is no god, there is nothing after we die. That is it finito!! We all live in the hope that there is something better than this life!! Well there isn't!! Make the best of it while you can.

 

Could I interest you in a bendy-bus sir?

[chilli]

there is no God, but later several may turn up at once

 

as was pointed out in a twisted joke on tv earlier - perhaps the real purpose of the add is to make suicide bombers think twice before getting on board :s

[Tannhauser]

Believing in something for fear of the consequences, a true catch-22 - personally I find it entirely illogical, if there was a God, why would he operate in such a way. Ok so it's not for me to reason why, the way of the lord is beyond comprehension by man and so on However, cynically speaking, as a man made meme, it works brilliantly to get people hooked in

 

I would think that, in many places, fear of damnation has all but died off as a motive for belief. Maybe not in the Bible belt admittedly, but most modern Christians aren't big on damnation. But in the past, yeah.

 

Memes, eh? Someone's been reading his Dawkins.

 

Science itself is perfectly objective (as a pure subject) - what interferes with that is politics and human nature. The two things should be understood on their own terms.

 

Science is a human activity and a human product, so I'd say that it isn't possible to say there is a 'pure' form. Really that idea was destroyed once and forever by Thomas Kuhn in the 1970s. Science is only ever an activity practised by people - not robots -and human scientists do not, in reality, choose theories solely on the basis of logic.

 

That said, when it comes to investigating the physical world, it's a million times better than any other system.

 

So that leads on to the observation that human adults are not perfect and delude themselves about many things, not just religion. Absolutely, so very true. But, that's no justification, that still doesn't make it any more right. Humans do all sorts of things that are less than ideal, you can't use it to justify more of the same.

 

I feel this is a response to some comment of mine, but I'm not sure what, so I'll leave this one.

 

Death bed repentance, that just about sums up the inconsistent, self promoting aspects found in many religions.

 

I think, as I said, Christianity distinguishes between a cynical and a genuine repentance. So, according to their system, someone who lives an immoral life cynically, in the full knowledge that they can recant it all at the last minute,won't be rewarded.

 

However, I think the idea of universal redemption is Christianity's greatest (and most logical) contribution to our Western moral system, so I would have to disagree with you.

 

And finally, being religious or having faith is not an automatic route to moral high ground people assume it to be - atheists are equally moral. Many staunch theologians are capable of turning a moral blind eye when it suits them.

 

I totally agree, but I suspect so would a lot of Christians.

 

 

PS: feel free to blame me for anything I may be full of sh1te, but I "believe" in what I say

 

OK. I went to the new Cabot Centre in Bristol today and didn't think it was that great. I'm blaming you, and I think you should refund my Park and Ride fare (£2.50)

 

God - believe in it if you want, why not have your personal beliefs, you're entitled believe what you want. For me, I'm happy to admit I'm as much Agnostic as Atheist, even though I'm science and logic through and through. I'm happy to say I might sit on the fence to some extent because if there's one thing I do know, that's that I don't (and will never) know enough to answer that with 100% certainty (as sad as that makes me feel).

 

Religion - hmmmm, well when you're done picking one "right way" over another and have lived your life according to (in my belief) entirely man made rules - then I hope it makes you a better person, but never use it as an excuse not to think for yourself, to follow mob mentality, to wage holy wars and so on.

 

Now that's an interesting difference between us. Like you, I think the existence of God is something we cannot know. But ultimately, I guess I trust my instincts: I'm not agnostic, I'm atheist. If I thought there was the slightest possibility of God, it would turn my life upside-down. I would have to figure out what my role in life was. And I guess I'd start by studying religion, because those would be the best guidelines I had.

[Max Headroom]

Could I interest you in a bendy-bus sir?

 

I've never seen one

[chilli]

Memes, eh? Someone's been reading his Dawkins.

 

Yes, I freely admit that. Forgetting the issues people have with his take on religion, he's actually written some good stuff!

 

Science is a human activity and a human product, so I'd say that it isn't possible to say there is a 'pure' form. Really that idea was destroyed once and forever by Thomas Kuhn in the 1970s. Science is only ever an activity practised by people - not robots -and human scientists do not, in reality, choose theories solely on the basis of logic.

 

That said, when it comes to investigating the physical world, it's a million times better than any other system.

 

 

Ok, so there's no such thing as "perfect" in the real world, but science itself without the influence of human greed and politics is about as objective as we can get.

 

Also, more of science is being automated by machines, whilst not free from politics - a machine could operate using scientific principles entirely objectively (like say a space telescope looking for quasars or some such thing). Therefore it's not science that's wrong, it's human nature, that was my point.

 

 

I feel this is a response to some comment of mine, but I'm not sure what, so I'll leave this one.

 

 

ahhh yes. The point was specifically in response to...

 

Oh, I think adult life is full of convenient fictions and fantasies that go largely unchallenged. "You're unique", "Dad was a special person", "I don't care what people think", "I've got a good sense of humour", "I live life to the full", "I'm significantly different from the average person in respects x, y, z", "I'll always love you", "I could never do something like that", " People make their own luck", "my lifestyle doesn't hurt anyone".

 

 

which in return was a response to my differentiation between children and adults and the interpretation of "delusion".

 

I don't personally subscribe to your explanation, for the reasons given in my last response to that - whilst I totally agree humans are a terrible bag of self delusion and contradiction for all sorts of other reasons!

 

 

I think, as I said, Christianity distinguishes between a cynical and a genuine repentance. So, according to their system, someone who lives an immoral life cynically, in the full knowledge that they can recant it all at the last minute,won't be rewarded.

 

 

*cynic mode on* How very convenient for it *cynic mode off*

 

 

However, I think the idea of universal redemption is Christianity's greatest (and most logical) contribution to our Western moral system, so I would have to disagree with you.

 

 

Can you elaborate, I'm not sure I follow you to that conclusion.

 

I totally agree, but I suspect so would a lot of Christians.

 

I'm sure they would, my point was why is it so often the case then that morals crop up whenever anyone questions religion

 

 

OK. I went to the new Cabot Centre in Bristol today and didn't think it was that great. I'm blaming you, and I think you should refund my Park and Ride fare (£2.50)

 

 

Blame me, I'll just repent (and mean it, honest gov) just before it's too late

 

 

Now that's an interesting difference between us. Like you, I think the existence of God is something we cannot know. But ultimately, I guess I trust my instincts: I'm not agnostic, I'm atheist. If I thought there was the slightest possibility of God, it would turn my life upside-down. I would have to figure out what my role in life was. And I guess I'd start by studying religion, because those would be the best guidelines I had.

 

 

I used to be strong atheist through and through, to a large extent I still am, but instincts aside I know I can't possibly ever know the answer for sure - therefore I have to concede the agnostic point of view is the logical one - although my head tells me god doesn't exists, therefore I'm an atheist (without concrete proof)!

[Tannhauser]

Can you elaborate, I'm not sure I follow you to that conclusion.

 

OK, as I understand it, Christianity says that (a) redemption is available to all, though it may not be easy to achieve* (b) forgiveness has to be a guiding principle in human affairs.

 

To me, these principles are based in sound logic and can be applied at an international level. Take the Northern Ireland conflict (yeah, I know, Catholics and Protestants, blah blah). I don't want to oversimplify a very complex situation, but they had been locked in this cycle of vengeance and reprisal for decades. They only managed to end it by setting the past aside. And why that may not imply forgiveness exactly, there was at least a recognition that vengeance had to be left behind There had to be a willingness to see the enemy as a human being and to put violence aside, which is another Christian idea and very different from the Judaism that preceded it.

 

Ghandhi showed that it is possible to oppose the mightiest empire on the planet through peaceful means and summed up the flaws of an 'old testament' morality when he said, "an eye for an eye...only leaves half the world blind".

 

So, in both examples, the moral system they made the most progress with is very much 'New Testament' as opposed to 'Old Testament' morality.

 

At an individual level, Christianity recognises the possibility of change in individuals. For example, I am a completely different person to the one I was at eighteen. There is almost nothing I recognise about that person I was. If I had committed some major crime at eighteen, and was still in jail at my current age of forty six, then the state would be punishing someone who really no longer exists. Despite the fact that a lot of people on the BBs would lock perps up and throw away the key, I bet there are also a fair few who have done things in the past that they now can't quite believe. So the judicial system - flawed though it is - recognises that forgiveness and redemption are possible.

 

I think in the Christian moral system, and in those twin concepts, there's the recognition that the guy who lives down the road isn't fundamentally that different from us. The things we don't like about him are largely the result of environmental factors. I think experimental Psychology has demonstrated this over and over and put the Christian idea that "there but for the grace of God go I" onto a scientific footing.

 

* As an aside, the reason I took the name Tannhauser is because my favourite piece of music is the 'Pilgrim's chorus' from Wagner's opera 'Tannhauser'. In the opera, Tannhauser has had such a wanton life that he seeks redemption and forgiveness from the Pope. The Pope tells him that he will be forgiven when his staff sprouts new leaves (i.e. he's f**ked, it's not going to happen). But as Tannhauser returns, exhausted and dying, the Pope's staff does bloom, reminding us that it's not for the earthly representatives of God to judge us..

[michael]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7832647.stm

 

A Christian bus driver has refused to drive a bus with an atheist slogan proclaiming "There's probably no God".

 

Ron Heather, from Southampton, Hampshire, responded with "shock" and "horror" at the message and walked out of his shift on Saturday in protest.

 

First Bus said it would do everything in its power to ensure Mr Heather does not have to drive the buses.

 

Buses across Britain started displaying atheist messages in an advertising campaign launched earlier this month.

 

Mr Heather told BBC Radio Solent: "I was just about to board and there it was staring me in the face, my first reaction was shock horror.

 

"I felt that I could not drive that bus, I told my managers and they said they haven't got another one and I thought I better go home, so I did.

 

"I think it was the starkness of this advert which implied there was no God."

 

When he returned to work on Monday he was called into a meeting with managers and agreed to go back to work with the promise he would only have to drive the buses if there were no others available.

 

First Bus said in a statement: "As a company we understand Mr Heather's views regarding the atheist bus advert and we are doing what we can to accommodate his request not to drive the buses concerned."

 

It added: "As an organisation we don't endorse any of the products or sentiments advertised on our buses.

 

"The content of this advert has been approved by the Advertising Standards Agency and therefore it is capable of being posted on static sites or anywhere else."

 

The advertising campaign is backed by the British Humanist Association and prominent atheist, Professor Richard Dawkins.

 

Hanne Stinson, chief executive of the British Humanist Association, said: "I have difficulty understanding why people with particular religious beliefs find the expression of a different sort of beliefs to be offensive.

 

"I can't understand why some people seem to have a different attitude when it comes to atheists."

 

Pressure group Christian Voice has questioned the campaign's effectiveness but the Methodist Church said it would be a "good thing if it gets people to engage with the deepest questions of life" and suggested it showed there was a "continued interest in God".

 

The advertisements run on 200 bendy buses in London and 600 vehicles in England, Scotland and Wales.

[Animal]

I'm surprised he isn't sueing for some jumped-up claim of emotional distress, discrimination or whatever crap a money grabbing lawyer can think of.

 

P.S. There is no god, Satan killed him.

[Konrad]

It says PROBABLY Mr. "I will get a day off to sit in pub" Heather. How thick people can be?

[ivan]

I wonder if a christian driver refusing to drive a bus with an advert for another religion would get treated so sympathetically? How about a Muslim driver and an advert for a christian church?

 

 

See, I couldn't see either of those scenarios happening - but I bet they will now someone's started the bandwagon rolling.

[Carl_S]

Wow this is fun, and yet so serious and sad.

 

The poor driver who did not want to drive his bus becuase he was shocked at the slogan. Of course he was! To drive it he would 1) Be aligning himself with satan 2) Questioning his own world view, and the comfort he had derived from believing in God.

 

Poor geezer! And all he wants to is go to work and earn a decent crust from driving his bus.

 

This was nothing about religion, and I am sure he would have been OK, or at least more comfortable about an advert proclaiming the Islamic faith, for instance.

 

This was about God, and his shock was complete. It is almost like being told you do not exist. He entertained the thought, and he must have seen what a Godless world must be like, and scared him sh!tless. Poor guy.

 

And yet the Advertising standards authority approved the adverts. It's a tough call, but I think they made the right decision. I do not like Dawkins atheism, but admire his energy and learnedness.

 

Oh, and Chilli, in the 100th post in this thread, I enjoyed the bit about children having to give up fantasy eventually as a basis on which to make decisions as they progress into adult life.

 

But as even as adults how much are we really living life and how much is fantasy? It will vary for each of us, and I argue that small amounts of it are OK. But it's when, as you rightly point out, that when decisions are based on it that there is a potential for danger. But isn't life a risky business anyway? To be aware of why you are making a descision, whether it's in fantasy or not, must be a powerful thing.

 

I would say that the adults need fantasy of religion or a religion replacement to cope with the struggle of daily life.

 

Football is such a replacement, which I feel has increased in popularity proportionate to the church's decline in popularity. And football, unlike religion, is definitely a force for good.

[michael]

Carl S, as requested in other threads I'd appreciate it if you didn't involve yourself in any topics I've started.

 

Thanks.