Comments on: Global TV calls Atheists ‘Fanatics’?

By: Gabriel

Gabriel — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:38:25 +0000

“He who experiences the unity of life sees his own Self in all beings, and all beings in his own Self, and looks on everything with an impartial eye.”

Buddha

By: SkepticaLynda

SkepticaLynda — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:15:42 +0000

Louis wrote: “Simply count the number of representatives interviewed on the atheist side versus those on the other side.”

I think it is interesting that on the theist side, Darryl only interviewed monotheists. How are Hindus handling the ads? Perhaps Darryl should have interviewed an atheist that was not in favor of the ads as well. We have certainly read some of their comments on this web site.

By: SkepticaLynda

SkepticaLynda — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:51:37 +0000

Moto,
Your assumptions about my having read the article before commenting are incorrect.
Chris did use a question mark in the headline (I noticed that) and I did read his commentary. He wrote: “It’s hard to say whether they are stating they don’t want to see fanatics target their buses with ads, calling atheists fanatics…”. I disagree with Chris on this. It was rather clear to me, and my husband, that Darryl was talking about religious fanatics who might do damage to the buses, NOT atheists.
It is best to avoid using inflammatory suggestions when desiring to keep a discussion on a rational and civil level. Chris did his readers a disservice by implanting uncertainty in the minds of the viewers before they had an opportunity to watch the video for themselves.
I hope this clarifies my response for you, Moto.

By: SkepticaLynda

SkepticaLynda — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:15:49 +0000

M,
I stand corrected. Up until now, all I had seen were pictures of buses with the banner containing no web addresses. That’s great if the address is there.
Only a statement of philosophy coming from an individual or an organization can be rightly considered a “coming out of the closet”. For example, a statement on a bus such as “Homosexuality is natural and normal” doesn’t out anyone. One has to state “I am a homosexual” or be outted by someone else to be out of the closet.
When I wear my t-shirt with “There’s probably no god” written across the front then I will be making a statement for myself and “out of the closet”, as it were.

By: Mark X

Mark X — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 04:48:13 +0000

Mitchell D,

“Personally I do not consider it morally correct for such people to have to see this harassing ad in their public transit system. Nor is it correct to advertise religion at all. I believe people should be free to believe in what they choose without being influenced by outside sources.”

Why?

Why is it immoral to try to convince someone of your point of view? Assuming you are not being completely obnoxious about it, of course. You might just give someone a better way to think about X. Or they might counter with some argument that convinces you that your ideas about X are wrong.

Where’s the problem with that? That along the way someone might just have their feelings hurt? That they might have to consider a long held idea of theirs in new way?

(As for your belief that people should be free from “being influenced by outside sources”, you must realize that by posting your ideas to a blog for the world to read, you are opening up the possibility that you might influence someone to your way of thinking. Careful with that! Someone might get hurt.)

By: Louis

Louis — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:46:27 +0000

What less would you expect from the trash TV that is 16×9? Virtually every sentence out of Konynenbelt’s mouth was some kind of lame pun. The show is mindless drivel. It certainly isn’t news or journalism of any kind. Simply count the number of representatives interviewed on the atheist side versus those on the other side. I wouldn’t worry about the reaction from the kind of viewership that is watching that garbage.

By: Moto

Moto — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:13:48 +0000

@SkepticaLynda – Chris didn’t say that Global called atheists “fanatics”, if you actually took the time to read the article you would have seen that.

Take notice to the fact that he put a question mark on the end of the title… “Global TV calls Atheists ‘Fanatics’?” I think that Chris would agree that no one called atheists fanatics, although it wasn’t entirely clear in the video clip. Chris said that he thinks they were calling the “bomb strapping lunatics” fanatics, read the last few paragraphs of the post.

Before you articulate big long responses Lynda, perhaps read the article first because Chris clarified and justified the title. Many atheists on a bunch of groups thought that they were calling atheist fanatics, the Halifax Atheist Group thought so but it’s not true, just read the post Chris typed up.

By: Mitchell D.

Mitchell D. — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:48:48 +0000

I cannot believe how practiced the author is at blowing a simple statement out of proportion. I was particularly impressed with the section in which the author of this article thought the video was speaking about ‘fanatics’ strapping themselves with bombs and targeting buses in Halifax. I would just like to say I am an apatheist and I do not like to be associated with atheists who skew and distort others comments on the issue. Also I must say something about the following quote. “I guess that asking people to stop worrying and enjoy their lives is ballsy”. Just a quick point; the ad does NOT ASK, BUT TELLS people who practice religion to stop worrying and enjoy life. Maybe not all religious people worry about the existence of god, and are perfectly content to believe in the existence of an all powerful deity. Personally I do not consider it morally correct for such people to have to see this harassing ad in their public transit system. Nor is it correct to advertise religion at all. I believe people should be free to believe in what they choose without being influenced by outside sources. Only in a perfect world I suppose.

By: Jeff K.

Jeff K. — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:25:41 +0000

Tulse,

I think we’ve got a real diction problem going here.
“refute” involves proof.
“ridicule” is not “to correct”
“fight” is not “to discuss”
“ignore” is not “I hope they know what a logical fallacy can do — oh crap, they don’t!”

By: Hal

Hal — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:04:42 +0000

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=7423&uid=43994941863

We need to change our ad to read “There is no god” If the theists can say for certainty that there is, then we can say there isn’t!

I was really offended to see that sign!

It read:

GOD DOES EXIST
NOT A PROBABLITY
A SURE THING
PROOF HERE

Besides not being able to spell correctly, I didn’t see the proof. Where is it?

Proof that Sarnia Ontario is backwards and needs the bus ads too!