Atheism Goes Commercial with Bus Ads

[Silverfuck]

I opened up the internet this morning and saw this on my homepage: Link (http://ca.lifestyle.yahoo.com/family-relationships/articles/archive/cp/home_family-atheist_transit_ads_proposed_for_toronto_could_rol l_into_other_canadian_cities)

An excerpt from the article:
TORONTO - The eyes of atheist and humanist groups across Canada are on Toronto, where a group is proposing to plaster ads that question the existence of God on the city's transit buses.

The Toronto-based Freethought Association of Canada wants to buy bus ads that say: "There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

The message comes from a campaign recently rolled out in the United Kingdom, sparking similar campaigns in Washington, D.C. and the Spanish cities of Barcelona and Madrid.

...

Atheist, humanists and agnostics should have the same opportunities to voice their opinions as people of faith, without discrimination, Erasmus said.

I'm kind of divided on this. While I agree that atheists should have just as much freedom to express their views as anyone of any faith, it also strikes me as hypocritical; one of the biggest criticisms about organized religion atheists seem to have is how religion is often shoved down people's throats, but isn't spoon-feeding atheism to people just as irritating and ignorant as someone handing you a Jesus pamphlet? Furthermore, people tend to be extremely secure in their beliefs, as is the nature of faith, and I really doubt anyone's going to reconsider their entire spiritual outlook based on something they saw on the side of a bus.

Either way, I'm really curious to hear what some of you folks think. Do you think it's a good idea, a way of making a statement? Is it about time? Or do you think it's stupid and both a financial and spiritual waste?

[Angry Blue Bird of Death]

This is is why I hate Atheists, always shoving their "gods not real" in everyones face.

[Slave of the Beast]

While I agree that atheists should have just as much freedom to express their views as anyone of any faith, it also strikes me as hypocritical; one of the biggest criticisms about organized religion atheists seem to have is how religion is often shoved down people's throats, but isn't spoon-feeding atheism to people just as irritating and ignorant as someone handing you a Jesus pamphlet?

Heh, the trans-faith ethic of reciprocity is a bitch. To quote Big J:

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12

And given the way the Church has been swinging it's dick over the last millenium, that's a whole lot of reciprocation heading their way.

[Monkmaster]

Well, it's certainly better than going door to door. I hope us atheists won't sink to that level.
It'd be nicer if people could just have some doubt in the possibility of a divine creator. Maybe these bus ads will spark the thought.

[Rust]

Furthermore, people tend to be extremely secure in their beliefs, as is the nature of faith, and I really doubt anyone's going to reconsider their entire spiritual outlook based on something they saw on the side of a bus.

I don't think that spontaneous-conversion is what they are going for with the bus ads. They want to let people know they are people out there - other groups - with their beliefs.

It sounds silly but you'll see plenty of atheist organizations, or skeptical groups that get plenty of mail from people expressing how glad they are to finally find a group that welcomes their non-belief or skepticism.

[Silverfuck]

Heh, the trans-faith ethic of reciprocity is a bitch. To quote Big J:

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12

And given the way the Church has been swinging it's dick over the last millenium, that's a whole lot of reciprocation heading their way.

I was under the impression that ethic of reciprocity was more about giving out what you want to receive back, not getting revenge on people who have wronged you and feeling that it's justified?

[CountDown2Chaos]

I was under the impression that ethic of reciprocity was more about giving out what you want to receive back, not getting revenge on people who have wronged you and feeling that it's justified?

It just sounds like karma really, wrong, right, doesn't matter, that action will come back eventually. Simple law of physics at that, "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction."

[Silverfuck]

It just sounds like karma really, wrong, right, doesn't matter, that action will come back eventually. Simple law of physics at that, "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction."

Well sort of. Except that both karma and the theory in physics of an equal and opposite reaction to everything imply some underlying order or equilibrium that can be disturbed, and what Slave of the Beast is talking about is conscious and willful, and an act of man rather than of the universe or of the laws of physics.

[Cliche Guevara]

religious people know deep down that no rational free thinking person could believe in god as they preach it. and to try and argue that (but it can be done google william lane craig or rabbi david wolpe) is a very steep uphill, and athiest pretty much have it easy.

and christianity can be very well argued(im not sayin it makes it true), but its tough, which is why these groups want to shut down any body from thinking too hard on the subject in the first place, because they know its a losing battle. If christianity could be defended as effortlessly as atheism, these ads would welcomed with open arms because the church would love nothing more than to strengthen their ideals by shitting on the atheist

a bit off topic but this is a very good debate. although i have to give it to sam harris. http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/158899/Does-God-Exist-A-Debate-Between-Sam-Harris-and-Rabbi-David-Wolpe.html

[Slave of the Beast]

... what Slave of the Beast is talking about is conscious and willful, and an act of man rather than of the universe or of the laws of physics.

Physics doesn't give a flying fuck about human ethics, so yes, conscious and willful are integral parts of ethical blowback.

[Killface]

So some atheists want to spread the word, what's the big deal? Maybe that add helped show some kid that atheism isn't as taboo as his evangelical parents make it out to be. Maybe that add made somebody think.

[Yggdrasil]

You see ads for churches and religious services, priests, and other miscellaneous things plastered everywhere. For pete's sake, one of my local TV stations airs some evangelical whackjob every Sunday at 11:00AM. It's NBC. Absurd, these people are allowed to buy airtime.

But, since these people have the right to buy adspace, airtime, etc etc, people of other persuasions should be allowed to do so as well. What's all of this talk about karma? An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth :mad:

I don't mean to sound vulgar or angry; I'm not. I just don't like people being able to prance around with rights while depriving them from me.

[Obbe]

I can think of much better messages to plaster on public transportation, then that.

How about "Don't worry, be happy"?

Do they honestly think theist will begin to consider their message, while trying not to choke on the atheist-dick being shoved down their throats?

[pengd0t]

I can think of much better messages to plaster on public transportation, then that.
How about "Don't worry, be happy"?
That is what they're saying. I would think that living life thinking that there is a spiteful kill-you-for-telling-a-lie old man in the sky who watches everything you do with a critical eye is an inherently worrisome existance.


I read an article about that when they started doing this. It seemed a little weird to me too, but their reasoning they gave was more about countering the "UR GOIN TO HELL!" messages that get posted everywhere with their own positive messages.

All the signs that I've seen are positive. No "LOL CHRISTIANS R DUM" kinds of stuff. Just, "There's probably no god, now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

I saw a Douglas Adam one that said "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without believing that there are fairies at the bottom of it?"

I still think it's kind of silly, but I'd much rather see that than one of the "HELLLL!!!" ones.

[Obbe]

That is what they're saying.

That and more:

I would think that living life thinking that there is a spiteful kill-you-for-telling-a-lie old man in the sky who watches everything you do with a critical eye is an inherently worrisome existance.

They, like you, seemed to have assumed this is the only definition of God and that it applies to all theists. It assumes these people are not already content.

Why do they have to say anything about God at all? They are taking a positive message, and making it negative by including the bit about God. Would it really matter if people believe in God, or believe there is no God, or don't even want to think about the issue, if everyone didn't worry about it and were just content?

I read an article about that when they started doing this. It seemed a little weird to me too, but their reasoning they gave was more about countering the "UR GOIN TO HELL!" messages that get posted everywhere with their own positive messages.

All the signs that I've seen are positive. No "LOL CHRISTIANS R DUM" kinds of stuff. Just, "There's probably no god, now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

I saw a Douglas Adam one that said "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without believing that there are fairies at the bottom of it?"

I still think it's kind of silly, but I'd much rather see that than one of the "HELLLL!!!" ones.

It isn't like I condone those messages either. Religious people need to shut up and keep their opinions about something which is supposedly unknowable to themselves, as well.

However, I think this group should take their own message to heart. They really don't know if God does or does not exist, so why not stop worrying about it and be happy?

[Ambient]

I dont see the issue.

[pengd0t]

They, like you, seemed to have assumed this is the only definition of God and that it applies to all theists. It assumes these people are not already content.


My own thoughts have nothing to do with this. The whole point I was making was that it was a way to combat the fire and brimstone sort of things you normally see and give it a friendlier positive spin. I wasn't making a case against all theology with that, and I don't believe that the ads are either. The medium is much too simple for that.

The main point is probably to give atheism a nicer feeling. Most of the people I meet who call themselves atheists are obnoxious assholes. Having Richard Dawkins as a figurehead certainly isn't helping them on that front.


And I don't think that taking the agnostic stance on the subject, as the signs do, is negative at all. "There's probably no god" is both exactly right, and completely meaningless... for if one doesn't refer to an old man in the sky watching what you do as god, then it's open to mean just about anything else you please.

I might say, "it will probably rain tomorrow." But that doesn't mean I'm making a negative statement. However, all of those of the religion of having picnics on Wednesdays will find that to be heretical and very negative and offensive.

[Obbe]

And I don't think that taking the agnostic stance on the subject, as the signs do, is negative at all. "There's probably no god" is both exactly right, and completely meaningless... for if one doesn't refer to an old man in the sky watching what you do as god, then it's open to mean just about anything else you please.

Saying there's probably no God is defiantly an atheist statement; an agnostic would state he doesn't know. Since "God" is open to interpretation, how is saying there probably is no God exactly right in any way?

Sure it is negative statement. To any theist, this is saying "You are probably wrong" to them. It also asserts that their worries are caused by their belief in God. That's not negative?

Even an agnostic statement, such as "We don't know anything about God, so let's not worry and just be happy" would piss of certain extreme theists and atheists alike.

Why even bring God into the picture? Leaving it at "Don't worry, be happy" doesn't have some hidden agenda to propagate a certain viewpoint. It doesn't make anyone feel like they are wrong, or are making mistakes. It allows everyone to believe whatever makes them happy, be that believing in some old man in the sky, or that all is one, or that such beliefs are irrational.

Again, the same goes for the religious. They don't need to be shoving their crap down other people's throats either.

I might say, "it will probably rain tomorrow." But that doesn't mean I'm making a negative statement. However, all of those of the religion of having picnics on Wednesdays will find that to be heretical and very negative and offensive.

Yeah, so why say it, since you do not have a clue about this forecast? Just to piss those people off?

Why not just say "always be prepared" instead? Which would help everyone, and offend nobody.

[harry_hardcore_hoedown]

I think it's pretty clear that the Freethough Association of Canada just wanted to stir up some controversy.

[Obbe]

The ad's have hit my city now. Stirring up lot's of controversy in the news.

[PirateJoe]

Ha! How many times have you seen religious billboards and bus ads? Stuff advertising unitarian churches and "jesus loves you" and "No one but almighty god could have created this universe", and nobody bats an eye! But heaven forbid an athiest take out an ad on a bus. Suddenly it's a controversy when someone with a different view voices their opinion. Just goes to show you how pervasive the cancer of religion is in our society.

[Obbe]

Ha! How many times have you seen religious billboards and bus ads? Stuff advertising unitarian churches and "jesus loves you" and "No one but almighty god could have created this universe", and nobody bats an eye! But heaven forbid an athiest take out an ad on a bus. Suddenly it's a controversy when someone with a different view voices their opinion. Just goes to show you how pervasive the cancer of religion is in our society.

Really, do you expect the religious community to welcome these ad's with open arms and smiles? How could the FAC not realize it would create controversy?

Of course they aren't so blind, they realized the shit storm this would cause when they started the project; it's probably why they started the project. They want to stair up some shit, wake people up or whatever.

That's great, but the message "there probably is no God" isn't really any different then messages like "jesus loves you". To say nobody bats an eye to the religious communities ad's is such an understatement; what do you think these atheist ad's are in retaliation of? I would say plenty of people are opposed to those type of messages, the people who belong to other religions, or atheists like the ones paying for these ads.

Why even bring God into the picture? That's a question both these groups should be answering. The answer is to propagate their opinion. To tell everyone else what the "truth" is and that any other opinion is "wrong".

And that doesn't really help anyone, or bring humanity together in anyway. It just alienates everyone, pisses everyone off, get's us all against each other. Both groups, the religious and the atheists, could leave God out of the picture and think up some much better messages plaster over public transportation.

[The Jitterskull]

"There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."
Wouldn't that be agnostic'ish?
An atheist would say "There is no God, deal with it", but that quote gives a probability of a God by mathematical induction.

[Obbe]

An agnostic statement would be along the lines of "We don't know anything about God..."

"There probably is no God..." Is defiantly an atheist statement.

[PirateJoe]

Really, do you expect the religious community to welcome these ad's with open arms and smiles?

No, I don't, but just because they're predictable doesn't mean they're right.


Of course they aren't so blind, they realized the shit storm this would cause when they started the project; it's probably why they started the project. They want to stair up some shit, wake people up or whatever.


Most likely. However, I'm guessing the reason they wanted to stir up shit was to underscore the differences in how people view religion vs atheism in this country.


That's great, but the message "there probably is no God" isn't really any different then messages like "jesus loves you". To say nobody bats an eye to the religious communities ad's is such an understatement; what do you think these atheist ad's are in retaliation of? I would say plenty of people are opposed to those type of messages, the people who belong to other religions, or atheists like the ones paying for these ads.

When's the last time you heard ANYONE complain about religious advertising outside of internet forums? And they certainly don't garner media attention, or lawsuits from athiest organizations.


Why even bring God into the picture? That's a question both these groups should be answering. The answer is to propagate their opinion. To tell everyone else what the "truth" is and that any other opinion is "wrong".

1. Lack of belief in god is one of, nay, the tenet of atheism. You really expect an athiest organization to take out an ad on a bus and not say something about there being no god?

2. Well in a perfect world you'd be right, however, we don't live in one of those.


And that doesn't really help anyone, or bring humanity together in anyway. It just alienates everyone, pisses everyone off, get's us all against each other. Both groups, the religious and the atheists, could leave God out of the picture and think up some much better messages plaster over public transportation.

I bet the civil rights movement pissed a lot of people off, and alienated a bunch of people too. But funny thing about that...

Not that I think this issue is on par with the civil rights movement, but if the reason you don't agree with this is cause it pisses a bunch of people off (a group of people who are guilty of doing the exact same thing), well then you better start disagreeing with a lot of stuff. Cause people get pissed off easily. And will probably get pissed off that you think they shouldn't be getting pissed off.

But really, the world-community-fostering abilities of these ads is not the problem. (or at the very least, not what I take issue with, even in the case of the religious ads). The problem is that there should even be controversy in the first place. It is ONLY on the news because it is a minority opinion. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with any intrinsic property of the ad, only the fact that certain religious organizations can't stand a little competition in the "answers to life" department.

basically, it is this:
I'm kind of divided on this. While I agree that atheists should have just as much freedom to express their views as anyone of any faith, it also strikes me as hypocritical; one of the biggest criticisms about organized religion atheists seem to have is how religion is often shoved down people's throats, but isn't spoon-feeding atheism to people just as irritating and ignorant as someone handing you a Jesus pamphlet?

mentality that I take offense at. Why in the hell should anyone be divided over this issue? It is simply a group of people expressing their opinion through bus advertisements. And I know that it is not the 'shoving down the throat' aspect of the ads because if it were, then people would get all bitchy about religious billboards too (as well as political advertisements, and host of others), but they don't. Its only because its atheism.

[Obbe]

No, I don't, but just because they're predictable doesn't mean they're right.

...I never said that they were. :confused:

Most likely. However, I'm guessing the reason they wanted to stir up shit was to underscore the differences in how people view religion vs atheism in this country.

Like I said, that's great. What a noble cause.

On the other hand, the people who pay for ad's like "jesus loves you" might just want to save people from eternal damnation, or something like that. They probably think that's a noble cause too.

Both groups are trying to do something that they think would help others. However, neither of them really know anything about God.

When's the last time you heard ANYONE complain about religious advertising outside of internet forums? And they certainly don't garner media attention, or lawsuits from athiest organizations.

I can't even remember a time. But I also can't remember ever hearing anyone openly complaining about these atheist bus ads outside of the Letters to the Editor section of the paper.

Anyway, I can't remember anyone complaining about religious advertising, probably because I live in a multicultural city that's probably a Christian majority. That's the community. Here on this board, the majority of the community is atheist according to the poll.

If the population of my city was an atheist majority I would probably hear people complain about religious advertising if it showed up. It would create controversy in the media. I'm sure I would never here anyone complain about atheist ad's though, except on christian internet boards.

So what's your point? The reaction to the message is dependent on the majority opinion of the community? Yeah, it is. The messages "jesus loves you" and "there probably is no God" are still the same. The people paying for them want to propagate their opinion and this will piss people off and cause alienation, whether it is intended or not.

1. Lack of belief in god is one of, nay, the tenet of atheism. You really expect an athiest organization to take out an ad on a bus and not say something about there being no god?

Of course not, and neither would I expect religious communities to take out ad's and say nothing about a God.

Although maybe both groups should, because what they're doing isn't helping the community. They both could help the community without forcing their opinion on it.

2. Well in a perfect world you'd be right, however, we don't live in one of those.

Thus the bus ad's and this controversy they create.

I disagree with reality not being perfect, though.

I bet the civil rights movement pissed a lot of people off, and alienated a bunch of people too. But funny thing about that...

Not that I think this issue is on par with the civil rights movement, but if the reason you don't agree with this is cause it pisses a bunch of people off (a group of people who are guilty of doing the exact same thing), well then you better start disagreeing with a lot of stuff. Cause people get pissed off easily. And will probably get pissed off that you think they shouldn't be getting pissed off.

It's not that I think people shouldn't be getting pissed off. It's that I think people shouldn't piss each other off. That's been my message this entire thread.

Neither group knows anything about God, despite what they might believe. They should both just shut up about God, and try to spread more helpful messages.

But really, the world-community-fostering abilities of these ads is not the problem. (or at the very least, not what I take issue with, even in the case of the religious ads). The problem is that there should even be controversy in the first place. It is ONLY on the news because it is a minority opinion. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with any intrinsic property of the ad, only the fact that certain religious organizations can't stand a little competition in the "answers to life" department.

basically, it is this:


mentality that I take offense at. Why in the hell should anyone be divided over this issue? It is simply a group of people expressing their opinion through bus advertisements. And I know that it is not the 'shoving down the throat' aspect of the ads because if it were, then people would get all bitchy about religious billboards too (as well as political advertisements, and host of others), but they don't. Its only because its atheism.

Maybe it's only because its atheism to a devout christian, or other very religious person. But like I was saying earlier, that has to do with the community the message is presented to.

It isn't "only because it's atheism" in my eyes. That's not what I am saying. It's the 'shoving down the throat' aspect because neither group knows anything about God. Both groups would help the community more if they just left God out of their messages. All they are doing right now is alienating each other.

If instead they were bringing everyone together, and we lived in a more loving community rather then one where nobody trusts anyone and everyone is in competition instead of cooperation; then maybe we would be able to express our opinions freely without other people getting pissed off about it.

[Rocko]

I'm all for it, it's about time the atheists were granted the same right to plaster their shit all over the place as the Christians have been doing for bloody ever.

[PirateJoe]

It isn't "only because it's atheism" in my eyes. That's not what I am saying. It's the 'shoving down the throat' aspect because neither group knows anything about God. Both groups would help the community more if they just left God out of their messages. All they are doing right now is alienating each other.

If instead they were bringing everyone together, and we lived in a more loving community rather then one where nobody trusts anyone and everyone is in competition instead of cooperation; then maybe we would be able to express our opinions freely without other people getting pissed off about it.

Okay, I have a feeling we're talking about two different things. I will agree with you, that in an ideal world, neither side would plaster their shit everywhere. Alienation, brotherhood, etc, etc, yay for that.

However

My issue is that when the people who are doing the throat-stuffing are religious, its socially acceptable, but when it's an atheist organization, Oh Noes! How dare they! And that double standard kinda chaps my ass.

I'm all for it, it's about time the atheists were granted the same right to plaster their shit all over the place as the Christians have been doing for bloody ever.

Basically this.

[BrokeProphet]

that double standard kinda chaps my ass.

Agree.

One standard will do just fine.

[Obbe]

My issue is that when the people who are doing the throat-stuffing are religious, its socially acceptable, but when it's an atheist organization, Oh Noes! How dare they! And that double standard kinda chaps my ass.

So basically, your issue is that you want an eye for an eye? You want to gouge out the worlds eyes?

Seriously, I understand where you are coming from. But you understand why one is socially acceptable and one is not, right? It's majority rule.

Tough. I know this group just wants "revenge" or whatever. That doesn't make it okay though. Both sides could, and should, put up signs that help humanity and have nothing to do with God.

I realize that's not likely. So what? So it's alright to alienate each other like this?

No, I don't think so.

[Ambient]

So basically, your issue is that you want an eye for an eye? You want to gouge out the world's eyes?

Seriously, I understand where you are coming from. But you understand why one is socially acceptable and one is not, right? It's majority rule.

Tough. I know this group just wants "revenge" or whatever. That doesn't make it okay though. Both sides could, and should, put up signs that help humanity and have nothing to do with God.

I realize that's not likely. So what? So it's alright to alienate each other like this?

No, I don't think so.

This is true. Its majority rules under a democracy mate. And if you think the constitution is gonna save your ass say hello to mr amendment :))))))))))

[Revvy]

If it makes people think and discuss, then there's no problem imo.

Better than finding out there's 50% off the latest consumer product.

[Ambient]

If it makes people think and discuss, then there's no problem imo.

Better than finding out there's 50% off the latest consumer product.

Also very true!!!

[PirateJoe]

I realize that's not likely. So what? So it's alright to alienate each other like this?

No, I don't think so.

Alienation is not the issue here, why do you insist on bringing it up? A million and one things us humans do on earth leads to alienation, the least of all being philosophical bus advertisements. Alienation is completely outside the scope of this issue.


Seriously, I understand where you are coming from. But you understand why one is socially acceptable and one is not, right? It's majority rule.



So just because I have an opinion thats different from the majority, I'm supposed to keep my mouth shut over the triviality of alienating my religious brethren?


Tough. I know this group just wants "revenge" or whatever. That doesn't make it okay though. Both sides could, and should, put up signs that help humanity and have nothing to do with God.

Alright well you call up the pope and I'll call up the FAC and we should have this sorted out by sundown.

[skinny love]

we need more ads like that in america. religion is everywhere here and atheists and non religious types deserve to speak freely too. growing up in an extremely pious and christian town, i always felt isolated as an agnostic. these ads remind everyone of the presence and importance of diversity and free expression.

[Jeff Gatherer]

this whole campaign is a stupid idea. Nobody wants to hear a controversial comment when they're trying to get to work in the morning. This will make atheists seem like arrogant jerks

[Obbe]

Alienation is not the issue here, why do you insist on bringing it up? A million and one things us humans do on earth leads to alienation, the least of all being philosophical bus advertisements. Alienation is completely outside the scope of this issue.

How is it not entirely the issue?

You're pissed off about this "double-standard", well what do you think is creating it??

Do you think people would be throat-fucking each other with god-related advertisements if their community was loving and cooperative instead of fearful and competitive?

So just because I have an opinion thats different from the majority, I'm supposed to keep my mouth shut over the triviality of alienating my religious brethren?

That's not what I said. I was just saying, that's why you don't hear so much controversy over "jesus loves you" ad's. Because there is more of those people then your people.

I am not saying only the atheists should keep their mouths shut. I am saying everyone could and should advertise helpful messages without throat-fucking each other about God.

And yeah, that's unlikely. So what? So were lot's of things.

Alright well you call up the pope and I'll call up the FAC and we should have this sorted out by sundown.

Like I said, that's not likely.

That doesn't make it alright to want an eye for an eye.

[Lord_BTY]

Damn sell-out freethinkers...

Now I gotta find a new line of thought...

How bout random, casually organized, local religious movements?

They're still pretty underground...

MWAH XXXX

[harry_hardcore_hoedown]

this whole campaign is a stupid idea. Nobody wants to hear a controversial comment when they're trying to get to work in the morning. This will make atheists seem like arrogant jerks

This. They're not propagating some coherent and logical argument to support disbelief in a god, just telling theists that they're probably wrong. It won't cause anybody to evaluate their beliefs critically, just piss a lot of people off.

[Godfather89]

"The eyes of atheist and humanist groups"

Well its pretty clear it has some type of religious following. Hypocrites, just like there evangelical christian counter-parts. Its pretty priceless, those seeking for the truth now dont have to worry about looking at these religious followed philosophy groups. There not real philosophers, because philosophers have this wise position called being detached from one idea for too long. These people are hypocrites they follow what they follow what now seems to be like a religion. Humanism is the new religion of our age, but its just that it has the horizontal but no vertical position at all. It seems that their point of view would lack depth and are very superficial.

Now this doesn't mean all atheists, one of my closest friends is an atheist... But he doesn't boast about it or try and convert people to humanism. Ironically I have to take the George Carlin position for these religious atheists "Leave thy religion to thy self." When I explained my position of God and Metaphysical issues to him he for lack of better words "was interested" but still chose not to believe. Thats why he is my friend, he believes he does not arrogantly claim that he "knows" their is no god. On top of that our are morals and actions are within the same ballpark. So dont think I am bashing Atheists here just some of them. Kind of like the same way you bash the wanna-be's and the "be's" I see "pop atheism" merely as a fad that humanity is going through.


To represent this fad let me give a story, I live on Long Island and love it when I was in middle school, there was a fad to "hate" Long Island. I never understood a fad a stupid as that, and continued lovin Long Island. Now everyone is grown up and more mature some even love Long Island as well (despite high property taxes). Exchange Long Island for God and inflate this story so it encompasses the western world. Humanity is being very immature right now, but in time we will grow up. Again, im not implying atheists are immature rather this popularization of the belief is nothing short of a fad.

[Ambient]

"The eyes of atheist and humanist groups"

Well its pretty clear it has some type of religious following. Hypocrites, just like there evangelical christian counter-parts. Its pretty priceless, those seeking for the truth now dont have to worry about looking at these religious followed philosophy groups. There not real philosophers, because philosophers have this wise position called being detached from one idea for too long. These people are hypocrites they follow what they follow what now seems to be like a religion. Humanism is the new religion of our age, but its just that it has the horizontal but no vertical position at all. It seems that their point of view would lack depth and are very superficial.

Now this doesn't mean all atheists, one of my closest friends is an atheist... But he doesn't boast about it or try and convert people to humanism. Ironically I have to take the George Carlin position for these religious atheists "Leave thy religion to thy self." When I explained my position of God and Metaphysical issues to him he for lack of better words "was interested" but still chose not to believe. Thats why he is my friend, he believes he does not arrogantly claim that he "knows" their is no god. On top of that our are morals and actions are within the same ballpark. So dont think I am bashing Atheists here just some of them. Kind of like the same way you bash the wanna-be's and the "be's" I see "pop atheism" merely as a fad that humanity is going through.


To represent this fad let me give a story, I live on Long Island and love it when I was in middle school, there was a fad to "hate" Long Island. I never understood a fad a stupid as that, and continued lovin Long Island. Now everyone is grown up and more mature some even love Long Island as well (despite high property taxes). Exchange Long Island for God and inflate this story so it encompasses the western world. Humanity is being very immature right now, but in time we will grow up. Again, im not implying atheists are immature rather this popularization of the belief is nothing short of a fad.

+1 Fucking 1.

Evangelical Christianss> Evangelical Atheists

An uninformed choice is always an arbitrary choice, including only using knowledge from natural science.

[Sydney-Floyd]

As an atheist, I show much hate for the hypocrisy and ignorance of many other atheists, who think its cool and clever to be acting the git and making a bad name for atheism.
Don't think that every atheist wants to go around destroying religion. I do not beleive in a higher power, a god, deity or any other supernatural force or entity. I simply beleive in me.

It does sadden me greatly to see that the destructive forces of stereotypical atheism are at it again, by shoving our ideas down people throats, we're becoming our own greatest enemy.

+1 Fucking 1.

Evangelical Christianss> Evangelical Atheists

An uninformed choice is always an arbitrary choice, including only using knowledge from natural science.

I disagree, Evangelical Christians = Evangelical Atheists. I agree in the post quoted in yours, in that they both follow the same argument patterns and practise outrageous amounts of hypocrisy.

[Ambient]

As an atheist, I show much hate for the hypocrisy and ignorance of many other atheists, who think its cool and clever to be acting the git and making a bad name for atheism.
Don't think that every atheist wants to go around destroying religion. I do not beleive in a higher power, a god, deity or any other supernatural force or entity. I simply beleive in me.

It does sadden me greatly to see that the destructive forces of stereotypical atheism are at it again, by shoving our ideas down people throats, we're becoming our own greatest enemy.



I disagree, Evangelical Christians = Evangelical Atheists. I agree in the post quoted in yours, in that they both follow the same argument patterns and practise outrageous amounts of hypocrisy.

Well actually i highly doubt that. Their are no order for living for any Athiest; and Atheist must draw that knowledge from other non-deistic sources.

A Theist in particular a Christian follow Deism which is synonymous with Dharma or "The orders of God"- God's will.

This means there is an immense burden to practice what they preach.

Athiest also have to be geneous (sp) but the burden on them is far greater, they only have to not believe in God. That is their single order.

A christian has thousands of orders to live up to; but i dont expect them to fulfill all of those because no-human is perfect and i dont see lack of perfection as hypocrisy. I hate it when people expect people particularly buy into this myth that Christians are expected to be perfect and live perfectly according to the doctrine.

If this were the case there would be no church or religion existing.

I dont see a Christians failure to follow jesus teachings as hypocritical. When they implore a doctrine specifically opposite to that of Christ then it is hypocrosy.

But to argue the same arguments and burden to live according to doctrine exist for Atheists and Christians- stupid.

My ontology behind favoring Christians over Atheists is because from my experience Christians are more spiritually engaged than Atheists; that is all.

(No Atheism is not in contradiction with spirituality, only with God which is not a fundamental concept to apply meaning or purpose or significance to existance- as is the definition of spirituality, however i have experienced a co-relation between Atheism and a lack of spiritual engagement, which makes sense).

[harry_hardcore_hoedown]

+1 Fucking 1.

Evangelical Christianss> Evangelical Atheists

An uninformed choice is always an arbitrary choice, including only using knowledge from natural science.

I don't think you quite understand the definition of science. Natural science is the only type of science because science is, by definition the study of nature.

[harry_hardcore_hoedown]

Athiest also have to be geneous (sp) but the burden on them is far greater, they only have to not believe in God. That is their single order.

A christian has thousands of orders to live up to; but i dont expect them to fulfill all of those because no-human is perfect and i dont see lack of perfection as hypocrisy. I hate it when people expect people particularly buy into this myth that Christians are expected to be perfect and live perfectly according to the doctrine.

What you're saying here is that Christians are by default better than atheists because they have an entire ideology based on their theistic beliefs.

[Ambient]

^^

Dear harry; if you should ever find yourself at a University i extend to you a humble invite to come and check out "Social Science"; it comes under Liberal Arts/Humanities.

Yes i favour those who are spiritually engaged, that is my ethnographic bias, i stick to it and im entitled to it. Life is not all about being right or wrong or having knowledge; sometimes i like to have a nice interesting chat with someone about the mysteries of life without any of the bullshit that comes with having to source every single simple sentence made.

Finally; many denominations of science exist however natural science would have you believe otherwise for obvious reasons.

I cant believe you've never heard of social science; although spiritual science i can believe. You may have heard of this social science called "Psychology"; this is a social science that sticks and slings to the scientific method like an infant to a nipple; yet ultimately it deals with subjective reality like all social sciences. Other social sciences use the scientific method however not as much; all of them value empirical evidence and the degree with which social scientists have to justify their claims is absolutely stringent, tight ass and anal (arguably more so than a natural scientist).

You see any form of science has a content of context; therefore science consists of two fundamental features (mentioned previously) which define science to be what it is.

The content is drawn from the context and investigated using the scientific method (formulated into; so the content is "content formulated into a [scientific]method derived from the context")(Observation, Hypothesis, Experiment, Data, Discussion, Conclusion). This is sometimes modified slightly (i.e. background research) and is often used for academic report style writing (again slightly modified).

Believe it or not you can actually verify aspects of your life using self-verification which in essence can follow the scientific method. This is the context for spiritual science and self-realization. Because you are a spiritual being; that is a fact, therefore spiritual science should be applied to the spiritual aspects of your life.

For example

Observation- I have a body, but at the same time i seem to have capabilities beyond being "just this body".

Research Question; What/Who am I? (am i a body)

Experiment: I will chop off my hand and see if i still remain "who i am (material subtleties (mind, intelligence, ego)and senses (touch, taste, sound, touch, taste, sight)as well as symptoms of the soul (imagination, creativity, initiative, personality etc).

Data: 99.9% of "Who i am" remained.

Discussion:Therefore i can say part of me is my material body, but on the whole i am not this body, because everything remained intact besides my hand. (this experiment could also be done with the brain if you want to take it to an extreme or take research further).

Conclusion: I am not this material body; although it is part of me.

Welcome to the wonderful world of science!

[harry_hardcore_hoedown]

Dear harry; if you should ever find yourself at a University i extend to you a humble invite to come and check out "Social Science"; it comes under Liberal Arts/Humanities.

I have been to many-a-university and briefly studied several social sciences - psychology, economics, linguistics, anthropology, history.

I cant believe you've never heard of social science

Yes, I've head of social science, amazingly. Many people don't consider social sciences to be real sciences. Even if you do, they investigate human nature and the nature of society - components of the natural universe. What I can't believe is that you don't understand either "nature" or "science" mean.

although spiritual science i can believe.

If you want to 'study' that mumbo jumbo, go right ahead, but realize that it's, by definition, not science.

You may have heard of this social science called "Psychology"; this is a social science that sticks and slings to the scientific method like an infant to a nipple; yet ultimately it deals with subjective reality like all social sciences.

That's right - it adheres to the scientific method - its observations can be measured, quantified, repeated, and used to establish theories.

Other social sciences use the scientific method however not as much; all of them value empirical evidence and the degree with which social scientists have to justify their claims is absolutely stringent, tight ass and anal (arguably more so than a natural scientist).

General rules are much more difficult to establish within social sciences since there is the element of human consciousness to consider - the number of relevant variables is increased by this and generalizations are more difficult to support, so theories tend to be more specific. This is all quite irrelevant though, since the subject was whether or not science can be applied to something existing outside of physical reality.

Believe it or not you can actually verify aspects of your life using self-verification which in essence can follow the scientific method. This is the context for spiritual science and self-realization. Because you are a spiritual being; that is a fact, therefore spiritual science should be applied to the spiritual aspects of your life.

I am a spiritual being am I? It would be nice if you could provide some evidence that my existence transcends physical reality. Everything you posted after this relates to your consciousness - the product of physical and chemical processes occuring in your brain.

[dontcallmeinsane]

:facepalm: These extremist atheists are just as bad as the Christians.

[Rust]

Conclusion: I am not this material body; although it is part of me.

Welcome to the wonderful world of science!

How the hell does your silly experiment allow you to make that ridiculous conclusion? That's tantamount to saying that if I steal the hubcaps from my car and it still works then that car must have a spirit... :rolleyes:

You keep your creativity, your mind, your thoughts, your senses, your personality, etc. because these things are not controlled in your hand - just like the function of my car (i.e. moving) isn't controlled by mere hubcaps.

[Rust]

:facepalm: These extremist atheists are just as bad as the Christians.

Putting an ad on a bus is being extremist now?

Exaggerate much?

[EveFailed]

People are flipping out over this bus advertisement.

I think it's safe to say that the buyers of this ad have successfully ruffled some feathers. Talk about money well spent!

CLEVER MARKETING FTW.

[EveFailed]

While I agree that atheists should have just as much freedom to express their views as anyone of any faith, it also strikes me as hypocritical; one of the biggest criticisms about organized religion atheists seem to have is how religion is often shoved down people's throats, but isn't spoon-feeding atheism to people just as irritating and ignorant as someone handing you a Jesus pamphlet?

Irritating, yes - but in a *tit-for-tat* manner that has previously been tiptoed around for centuries. While non-believers have existed alongside the religious, their voices were often muted and their freedom of expression stifled by those who liked to play the Religious Tolerance card whenever someone spoke out against organized religion.

This ad is testament to the new generation of non-believers who aren't going to be muted and and have their opinions stifled. If the Church of God is going to have billboards on our highways suggesting to children that they'll be damned without believing in God, then the secular movement is going to have similar advertisements that suggest to children: "Relax, it's alright. The devil is a metaphor".

If the public are going to be spoon-fed noxious slop, then it stands to reason that it must be followed by an Rx that helps it goes down easier.

[Cytosine]

Observation- I have a body, but at the same time i seem to have capabilities beyond being "just this body".

Research Question; What/Who am I? (am i a body)

Experiment: I will chop off my hand and see if i still remain "who i am (material subtleties (mind, intelligence, ego)and senses (touch, taste, sound, touch, taste, sight)as well as symptoms of the soul (imagination, creativity, initiative, personality etc).

Data: 99.9% of "Who i am" remained.

Discussion:Therefore i can say part of me is my material body, but on the whole i am not this body, because everything remained intact besides my hand. (this experiment could also be done with the brain if you want to take it to an extreme or take research further).

Conclusion: I am not this material body; although it is part of me.

Welcome to the wonderful world of science!

hay guiz can i hastry?

Observation- I have a brain. Sometimes, on mushrooms or LSD, I seem to have qualities beyond this brain.

Research Question; What/Who am I? Am I a brain floating in a vat of chemicals called a "skull"?

Experiment: I will shoot myself in the head.

Data: HNNNNNNNNNGGFHGHGHGHGJHHG

Discussion:HNNNNGHFDFFGSFSFDSFDFDFDFD *ded*

Conclusion: *still dead*

Welcome to the world of semantics and inane ass-babble.

The fact that theists are all "OMG PUSHY MILITANT ATHEISTS TRYIN TO TAKE AWAY PEEPLE'S BEELEAVES" is funny. Because I don't give a shit what you believe. I really just want you to leave me the fuck alone.

Those bus ads make you feel uncomfortable? Good. I hope you realize that's the discomfort I feel every time one of you assholes starts blathering on about what you and J.C. were talking about last night, or whatever personification of the divine you choose to worship.

And heaven forbid I actually say I don't believe in any of that shit - because then you'll start acting passive aggressive or you'll go "LOLZ DEN Y U BELIEVE IN NUTING?".

Now it's our turn. Atheists are out there. In Canada, there's a lot of us. We don't want to convert you, and we don't want to be converted by you. WE want our beliefs to be ACTUALLY RESPECTED. Hell, that ad is pretty goddamn respectful compared to what I would write.

Some people think the world would be a better place if everyone was the same religion, or if religion ceased to exist altogether. While I don't necessarily disagree that an atheist world may be a better one, I know it's not a possibility.

You know what'll make the world a better place? If everyone, atheist and theist alike, pulled their heads out of their asses and realized these metaphysical questions are POINTLESS and the belief that "I'm right, and those who are wrong should think like I do" is the ACTUAL VIRUS. We have more in common than we realize, and we should just live and let live.

tl;dr stay the fuck off my lawn.

[Village Idiot]

This same argument goes with vegetarians and PETA. I hate PETA but I respect vegetarians. And I know more vegetarians that hate PETA than ones that agree with them.
I'm an atheist but I love religion. Anyone that questions a religion is absolutely fine. Anyone that has to boast about their beliefs and attempt to undermine others is completely wrong and childish.
I'm never drinking this early again.

[Ambient]

Spirituality is defined as the ability to place significance or purpose (or lack thereof) onto experiences.

This is a cultural universal because of every human's subjective nature.

Whether its from the brain, or the soul that is debatable; the fact that our subjective nature is there is undeniable and if you look at the definition of spirituality i have just given it does not contain this "divine" connotation necessarily; it also depends what you would consider divine which i would say is complete virtue.

Or are you about to argue some humans do not have the ability to place value on experiences?

Science is great, but when people think because of natural science there is no need to embrace their spiritual nature (because somehow we dont need it anymore that is when i start to get aggravated).

The only difference between a robot and a human is spirituality.

[Rust]

Spirituality is defined as that according to who/what? Killallthewhiteman420's Compendium of Self-Serving Definitions ?

Who, besides vegetables, doesn't have the ability to put significance on experiences?

You're creating a ridiculous strawman and backtracking on your claim. If you go ahead and read your own post you can see clearly how you were attempting to present a case for the immaterial existing (e.g. "therefore i can say part of me is my material body, but on the whole i am not this body, " and "as well as symptoms of the soul ") which is what actually fits with the definition of spirituality (e.g. having to deal with the incorporeal, the immaterial, the divine, the soul, the spirit, etc.). That case failed. Your little "experiment" didn't support what you claimed it supported.

[Resign the King]

Spirituality is defined as the ability to place significance or purpose (or lack thereof) onto experiences.


No it isn't spirituality is to have interest in the spirit.

[Ambient]

No it isn't spirituality is to have interest in the spirit.

This all comes down to definition.

My definition of spirit is the values placed on experience "itself".

So spirituality is the process of abstraction/ social construction of an object which itself has no spiritual value or "virtue/vice". When a nature of virtue or vice is placed an the objective portion of reality; subjective reality is experienced.

My definition of spiritual fits in largely with "subjective"; although i disagree with the connotation that subjectivity is fallacious.

I do believe i have still kept to the essence of the word ( all words are abstractions of reality, its the meaning of the word that counts).

Traditionally that which is "of God" is that which is spiritual and vice versa.

Then we have to define or re-define God, especially divinity.

Now believe it or not the Abraham conception is not the only one in existence. For instance Jainism believes in "Right Knowledge, Right View, Right Conduct" and believes God/Divinity is within all of us; but not in the externalization of God.

To me divinity is simply goodness.

So when i say spirituality i am simply saying human quest for goodness; surely that is something you can appreciate?

You could say i treat traditional definitions more metaphorically. That does not detract from the goal.

[dontcallmeinsane]

Putting an ad on a bus is being extremist now?

Exaggerate much?

Yeah i guess that was an exaggeration.

[Mutant Funk Drink]

This is is why I hate Atheists, always shoving their "gods not real" in everyones face.

I hate religion for shoving their "god is real! is this a christian household? praise allah! just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not real....." in everyones' faces. It's about time we eliminate religion once and for all.

[Resign the King]

This all comes down to definition.

My definition of spirit is the values placed on experience "itself".

So spirituality is the process of abstraction/ social construction of an object which itself has no spiritual value or "virtue/vice". When a nature of virtue or vice is placed an the objective portion of reality; subjective reality is experienced.

My definition of spiritual fits in largely with "subjective"; although i disagree with the connotation that subjectivity is fallacious.

I do believe i have still kept to the essence of the word ( all words are abstractions of reality, its the meaning of the word that counts).

Traditionally that which is "of God" is that which is spiritual and vice versa.

Then we have to define or re-define God, especially divinity.

Now believe it or not the Abraham conception is not the only one in existence. For instance Jainism believes in "Right Knowledge, Right View, Right Conduct" and believes God/Divinity is within all of us; but not in the externalization of God.

To me divinity is simply goodness.

So when i say spirituality i am simply saying human quest for goodness; surely that is something you can appreciate?

You could say i treat traditional definitions more metaphorically. That does not detract from the goal.

Then you should be careful to state that it's your definition, rather than saying it's the definition. Your personal definition of spirituality is not clear at all.

"When a nature of virtue or vice is placed an the objective portion of reality; subjective reality is experienced."

So you're saying value comes before experience? That spirit is the subjective experience which arises out of giving the value of virtue or vice to objective reality? That spirit is a subjective search for goodness? Non of this is very clear.

Also I would like to point out your earlier argument about applying the scientific method to yourself to prove that the self is immaterial doesn't work at all, all you can conclude is that consciousness doesn't originate in your hand. If you were to destroy your whole body and consciousness remained then you would have proven something to yourself.

[refugee]

should we let the ignorant remain ignorant and let millions DIE for some bullshit that is "spoon-fed" around the world?
Freedom of Speech 100%

[Ambient]

Aha but; their is almost never one definition for one thing! That is why we are all quarreling, because we all disagree on definition even when we may be talking about the same topic/goal.

Let me make myself more clear

"When a nature of virtue or vice is placed an the objective portion of reality; subjective reality is experienced."

Reality exists whether their is consciousness to experience it or not, because according to my definition of reality there is one single reality.

So we can see Reality or the universe itself is objective. I am basing this on the knowledge that approximately 99.9 % is unconscious because objectivity lacks consciousness; that is how i define "objective". Similarly anything with consciousness is "subjective". I would argue that humans have marginal potency; because they have the potential to be both although when we are consciousness and body. (the only thing which can be pure consciousness that i know of would be God, although God's existence is debatable). This is also operating on the premise that there is no intelligent alien life forms outside earth.

So, one reality exists; but two potentials- objective + subjective. These potentials/portions of reality are simply ways of interpreting/experiencing reality. Although according to my definition objective lacks consciousness so it is material. This means something which is objective cannot perceive reality although it is a part of reality. The subjective operates on the premise of the objective, because subjective experience is experience of reality (99.9% objective, the rest subjective). According to this understanding subjective nature can experience both objective nature and subjective nature, because subjective nature means "to experience reality (which is defined previously).

By no means do we create or invent reality when we experience.

Experience of reality is subjective; and by its very nature causes reality to be experienced and understood as virtue or vice ( or good and evil). I for one see subjective experience divided into passion, ignorance and goodness. This is a value judgment.

Value comes from experience, that is what i was trying to say.

Im tired, i may answer the rest later.

[Obbe]

If the public are going to be spoon-fed noxious slop, then it stands to reason that it must be followed by an Rx that helps it goes down easier.

And this medicine is what? More spoon-fed noxious slop?

That could be called a vaccine. And vaccines are only temporary; eventually the illness mutates and starts making people sick again.

If we are really going to cure the world, maybe we should just stop sticking our noses in this slop. Maybe we should just stop spoon-feeding each other this crap.

[The Iron Fist]

I haven't read all the posts up until now, but I'd just like to remind people that since atheism is not a religion or faith (but a lack thereof), atheists do not speak with one voice. They're far more diverse than religious groups, and so could have even more varied opinions on this. Personally I'm cool with the ads (except, perhaps, the "probably" qualification), but others may feel differently.

[PirateJoe]

Reality exists whether their is consciousness to experience it or not, because according to my definition of reality there is one single reality.

So we can see Reality or the universe itself is objective. I

Don't you see the error of modeling an objective universe with subjective tools? :confused:

[Ambient]

Don't you see the error of modeling an objective universe with subjective tools? :confused:

Yes i do.

Natural science does a great job at assessing the "natural" (lets say material/objective world, its the same thing in the context).

But we are both subjective and objective being's; it is our subjective nature that makes us unique and i believe something to also be embraced and explored.

I say be grateful for your subjective nature; if we were not a subjective being we would never have had the ingenuity, imagination, initiative and creativity to develop technology and advance it to a level that would be productive to scientific endeavors.

The Religous man is grateful for his subjective nature; the secular man is proud of his objective nature.

I say both have merit; but ultimately as human being's ourselves our subjective nature is far superior.

It is well known that our mind is imperfect and can let us down; i dont believe logic is perfect or infallible (and i think many Atheist cling to logic as if it were a God).

To live we need logic, philosophy and revelation. That will give a more complete perspective.

For example let us say that i am obese.

Most people these days know being overweight/fat/obese is unhealthy but continue to do it anyway. So it is logical not to live this way! But how many people still live this way?

These people need philosophy and revelation to realize the truth held by logic.

I see there being 4 key steps to "viewpoint".

Duplication- Knowledge is either created intrinsically or passed on from another source (its arguable either way under one reality its all experience of the same reality so it is ultimately the same thing). This is arguably the most objective step (this knowledge could be an empirical fact, but fallacious opinions can still be based on empirical facts to use an extreme example).

Understanding- I see this as our logical mind stepping in and giving it a go.

Contemplation- This is philosophy and sometimes philsoscia(sp).

Realization- Revelation.

I see someone who is realized as better than some who is contemplated who is better than someone who understands and someone who understands knowledge as better than simply having knowledge.

That is my argument for my favor or subjective nature and the circumstantial rejection of logic.

[Ambient]

Spirituality is defined as that according to who/what? Killallthewhiteman420's Compendium of Self-Serving Definitions ?



I have found that in essence spirituality is about placing significance on ones actions.

If you look at any religion ultimately this is their fundamental goal.

I have the ability to know reality and make abstractions about it; including information i have "created". Creativity is one of humanities greatest assets despite how you may try and negatively connotate it.

[BrokeProphet]

I have the ability to know reality and make abstractions about it; including information i have "created".

Information you have created, gives you the ability to KNOW reality and make abstractions?

This little insight explains a lot about your pattern of ignorant posts.

[Rust]

I have the ability to know reality and make abstractions about it; including information i have "created". Creativity is one of humanities greatest assets despite how you may try and negatively connotate it.

I'm not putting a negative connotation on creativity; I didn't even mention the concept! Stop putting words in my mouth.

Creativity is wonderful. Using your creativity to pull definitions out of thin air to justify your silly beliefs, however, is not.

Even if we ignore how you just pulled that definition of "spirituality" out of your ass, and accept spirituality being defined as "the ability to place significance or purpose (or lack thereof) onto experiences" the question still stands: Who, besides vegetables, doesn't have the ability to put significance on experiences? Your definition of spirituality dissolves any importance the word might have. Everyone has that ability. What an useless definition.

[Resign the King]

Reality exists whether their is consciousness to experience it or not, because according to my definition of reality there is one single reality.

So we can see Reality or the universe itself is objective. I am basing this on the knowledge that approximately 99.9 % is unconscious because objectivity lacks consciousness; that is how i define "objective". Similarly anything with consciousness is "subjective". I would argue that humans have marginal potency; because they have the potential to be both although when we are consciousness and body. (the only thing which can be pure consciousness that i know of would be God, although God's existence is debatable). This is also operating on the premise that there is no intelligent alien life forms outside earth.

So, one reality exists; but two potentials- objective + subjective. These potentials/portions of reality are simply ways of interpreting/experiencing reality. Although according to my definition objective lacks consciousness so it is material. This means something which is objective cannot perceive reality although it is a part of reality. The subjective operates on the premise of the objective, because subjective experience is experience of reality (99.9% objective, the rest subjective). According to this understanding subjective nature can experience both objective nature and subjective nature, because subjective nature means "to experience reality (which is defined previously).

By no means do we create or invent reality when we experience.

Experience of reality is subjective; and by its very nature causes reality to be experienced and understood as virtue or vice ( or good and evil). I for one see subjective experience divided into passion, ignorance and goodness. This is a value judgment.

Value comes from experience, that is what i was trying to say.

Im tired, i may answer the rest later.

Objective reality is unknowable since we can only experience our subjective reality. I assume there is such a thing as an outside objective reality. However we can only know the subjective.

This is a matter of perspective. Humans can only know subjective experience, and objective reality is outside of any one specific perception, but includes all the different perceptions of objects. It's the objects outside of perception and all the ways they have been perceived subjectively, because that's the reality of it in a whole. Objective reality would include rather than be apart from all the subjective experience, there isn't an actual separation between them.

All we ever experience is subjective and if such a thing as objectivity exists it includes our subjectivity. This is because objective reality is reality in it's 'true' form and the true form of reality includes subjectivity, it includes me perceiving something in a such and such a way stemming from how it actually is, and the 'actually is' includes my stemming from the actually is, which seems paradoxical. But there would be no way for objective reality to be the most real state unless it contained all the subjective experiences.

In other words we experience outside reality, and at the same time we are this outside reality. It's a matter of perspective on the one hand the subjective self experiences objective reality through the senses and doesn't actually experience objective reality as it really is and can only know the subjective experience. And on the other objective reality experiences nothing being objective and includes everything including all the subjective experiences.

Thats what I think anyway and as far as mind and matter goes I don't know, but I think it's an error to assign objectivity only to that which doesn't experience. Objectivity to be truly objective -as in the most truthful representation of reality- has to include the subjective.

[Killface]

People are flipping out over this bus advertisement.

I think it's safe to say that the buyers of this ad have successfully ruffled some feathers. Talk about money well spent!

CLEVER MARKETING FTW.

QFT

It seems the adds got allot of people talking in the media. Whether they think it's a bad thing or not, they are only spreading the message more by talking about it.

I don't think it's a bad thing that atheists are becoming more vocal, maybe it'll open up the minds of some youth with evangelical parents. Those kids are our future and shouldn't feel ashamed for questioning their beliefs.

[Godfather89]

As an atheist, I show much hate for the hypocrisy and ignorance of many other atheists, who think its cool and clever to be acting the git and making a bad name for atheism.
Don't think that every atheist wants to go around destroying religion. I do not beleive in a higher power, a god, deity or any other supernatural force or entity. I simply beleive in me.

It does sadden me greatly to see that the destructive forces of stereotypical atheism are at it again, by shoving our ideas down people throats, we're becoming our own greatest enemy.

I disagree, Evangelical Christians = Evangelical Atheists. I agree in the post quoted in yours, in that they both follow the same argument patterns and practice outrageous amounts of hypocrisy.

You see I can be your friend, your mind is not conformed to the group think of pop atheism. You agree that evangelism is still evangelism regardless of who is doing the evangelizing.

[Obbe]

Of course most thoughtful people won't be offended by simple bus ad's. But preaching is preaching and it leads to trouble.

[BrokeProphet]

Reality exists whether their is consciousness to experience it or not.

Prove it.

Stop scrunching up your primitive brow....you simply cannot.

-----------

What happened to your experiment?

So many people handed that lump of dog shit back to you, along with your intellectual ass, and you don't acknowledge how incorrect you were.

This continues to happen when you open your mouth. You say something completely baseless and/or stupid, and when pointed out to you, you don't acknowledge it.

I am just wondering if you actually block that shit out, or hope everyone forgets how stupid you were just a few posts ago.

[Phinehas]

This is is why I hate Atheists, always shoving their "gods not real" in everyones face.

This.

[Obbe]

So, it looks like the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada is planning to run pro-God advertisements in response to the atheist ads paid for by the Freethought Association of Canada.

Apparently my city, Calgary, has been one of the few to not censor the atheist ads. I wonder what direction this will take next.

[hitnrun]

When i saw one of these driving around i couldn't stop laughing, they hate religion being forced on people, yet they are forcing the absence of religion... So yes, i agree with you.

[Rust]

An ad in a bus is "forcing the absence of religion on you"? Are you fucking retarded?

[Jeff Gatherer]

An ad in a bus is "forcing the absence of religion on you"? Are you fucking retarded?

Its forcing a provocative message concerning religion/god. Either way, the entire idea is pointless

[Rust]

You think the idea is pointless? Who gives a shit?

The point was, and apparently you agree, that this is nothing close to "forcing the absence of religion" on anybody. Calling it that is ridiculous. Calling it "forcing a provocative message" is not much better either.

[Psynthetic]

I think it's a wonderful idea. I personally think atheists are even more ignorant than die hard religion freaks. But it's still nice to see people with alternative beliefs taking a stand and having their voices heard.

[Rust]

Furthermore, though I don't follow any specific religion, I think most atheists are stupid. I don't understand how one could honestly believe that when your physical body deteriorates and withers away, your consciousness just magically disappears as well.

Easily. Your "consciousness" is a direct result of your "physical body". The brain dies, so does your consciousness. There is no "magic" involved. In fact it's pretty much the absence of magical thinking.

If anyone one is using "magic" to explain consciousness, it's definitely not the atheists.

[Psynthetic]

:(

I edited my post specifically so I wouldn't end up in a pointless argument.

[Rust]

Too slow.

:violin_white:

[You were too slow on this too. "Asshole"? Nice.]

[Psynthetic]

Haha god damn, do you live in this thread? That last one was more just rewording a sentence, the asshole part was clearly a joke anyways.

[Rust]

Clearly.

[Killface]

When i saw one of these driving around i couldn't stop laughing, they hate religion being forced on people, yet they are forcing the absence of religion... So yes, i agree with you.

How exactly are they forcing the absence of religion on you? Do you feel obligated to stop believing in a god because others are voicing their opinion on it? It's not like they're saying, "stop believing in god or you'll burn forever and ever". They just want to spread their message and let people know that atheism isn't as taboo as their dogmatic parents/social groups make it out to be. And what's one of the most efficient ways of getting a message across to the masses? Advertisements.

[Candiru]

I don't think it's necessary to evangelize for atheism. I always thought everyone was born an atheist by default and then taught something supernatural to believe in.

[Ambient]

Objective reality is unknowable since we can only experience our subjective reality. I assume there is such a thing as an outside objective reality. However we can only know the subjective.

This is a matter of perspective. Humans can only know subjective experience, and objective reality is outside of any one specific perception, but includes all the different perceptions of objects. It's the objects outside of perception and all the ways they have been perceived subjectively, because that's the reality of it in a whole. Objective reality would include rather than be apart from all the subjective experience, there isn't an actual separation between them.

All we ever experience is subjective and if such a thing as objectivity exists it includes our subjectivity. This is because objective reality is reality in it's 'true' form and the true form of reality includes subjectivity, it includes me perceiving something in a such and such a way stemming from how it actually is, and the 'actually is' includes my stemming from the actually is, which seems paradoxical. But there would be no way for objective reality to be the most real state unless it contained all the subjective experiences.

In other words we experience outside reality, and at the same time we are this outside reality. It's a matter of perspective on the one hand the subjective self experiences objective reality through the senses and doesn't actually experience objective reality as it really is and can only know the subjective experience. And on the other objective reality experiences nothing being objective and includes everything including all the subjective experiences.

Thats what I think anyway and as far as mind and matter goes I don't know, but I think it's an error to assign objectivity only to that which doesn't experience. Objectivity to be truly objective -as in the most truthful representation of reality- has to include the subjective.

I salute you for making an effort. I can relate to alot of that.

[Ambient]

What happened to your experiment?

I will admit my "experiment" was wrong; i will admit that and im not afraid to admit that. I dont think im some religous prophet with absolutly true instructions from God.

Im just a regular guy trying to live my life rather than live an existance.

In saying that i dont think you nor i know if we are truely more than this body; unless you know what happens after death?

I myself have experienced death and been declared dead officially.

Of course; i over came that obstacle.

[Rust]

I myself have experienced death and been declared dead officially..

No, no you weren't. Official death is complete brain and/or cell death. There is absolutely no record of anyone coming back from actual death.

Either you're full of shit, or your doctor/nurse/whatever was mistaken.

[Raptor Ribs]

"lulz jesus sucks cock" would be funny to see on a bus.

[Irukanji]

It's more of a slap in the face to religious people. Their trying to figure out why you believe in something which obviously doesnt exist. Now, i'll probably get flamed for this, but i want you to prove to me that he/she/it exists. And something cannot be omnipresent.

And to "Rust", When you heart stops your officially dead. Thats why when people are driving and have a car accident because they had a heart attack(and it stops the heart), they cant be charged because a dead person cant commit a crime.

Easily. Your "consciousness" is a direct result of your "physical body". The brain dies, so does your consciousness. There is no "magic" involved. In fact it's pretty much the absence of magical thinking.

If anyone one is using "magic" to explain consciousness, it's definitely not the atheists.

True. +1 for this :0

[Rust]

And to "Rust", When you heart stops your officially dead. Thats why when people are driving and have a car accident because they had a heart attack(and it stops the heart), they cant be charged because a dead person cant commit a crime.


Wrong. That might be an old definition, sure, or one used in TV and movies, but the definition of death is used in health and legal matters is brain and/or cell death.

You are not charged if you have a car accident while having a heart attack not because you were dead, but because it wasn't your fault. Intent or negligence are big things in our judicial system - both are absent when you cause a car accident because of a heart attack.


"Historically, attempts to define the exact moment of a human's death have been problematic. Death was once defined as the cessation of heartbeat (cardiac arrest) and of breathing, but the development of CPR and prompt defibrillation have rendered that definition inadequate because breathing and heartbeat can sometimes be restarted. Events which were causally linked to death in the past no longer kill in all circumstances; without a functioning heart or lungs, life can sometimes be sustained with a combination of life support devices, organ transplants and artificial pacemakers.

Today, where a definition of the moment of death is required, doctors and coroners usually turn to "brain death" or "biological death"; people are considered dead when the electrical activity in their brain ceases. It is presumed that a stoppage of electrical activity indicates the end of consciousness. However, suspension of consciousness must be permanent, and not transient, as occurs during certain sleep stages, and especially a coma. In the case of sleep, EEGs can easily tell the difference.

The possession of brain activities, or ability to resume brain activity, is a necessary condition to legal personhood in the United States. "It appears that once brain death has been determined … no criminal or civil liability will result from disconnecting the life-support devices." (Dority v. Superior Court of San Bernardino County, 193 Cal.Rptr. 288, 291 (1983))"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death

Wikipedia for ease, but I can find other sources if you need them.

[Obbe]

Has anyone seen a response from religious communities yet?

I read about the Islamic community planning to run their own ad's, but I haven't seen them yet.

Then again, I have yet to see a single Atheist ad as well, even though this city is supposed to be one of the only ones in Canada that's not censoring them.

[Obbe]

A Calgary Islamic group will be also be exercising their right to free speech in response to the Canadian Free Thought Associations ad's, "There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." with their own ad's, "God cares for everyone, even those who think he doesn't exist."

The leader of the campaign said, "We have asked them (the atheist as sponsors) to sit down and talk rather then putting ads in the buses. We should have talked in a mature format rather then putting all this on the public. Unfortunately those people have decided to go ahead, and we will too."

Both ad's comply with Canadian advertising standards.

"Because they might be offensive to some people does not provide reason to disallow an ad," said a Calgary Transit representative.

That's basically from a story I copied out of the city's free newspaper, but shortened up a bit. What you guys think of that new ad going around?

[justanotherweirdo]

I myself have experienced death and been declared dead officially.

Of course; i over came that obstacle.

What did you experience while you were "dead"?

Easily. Your "consciousness" is a direct result of your "physical body". The brain dies, so does your consciousness. There is no "magic" involved. In fact it's pretty much the absence of magical thinking.


Do you think there is proof of this? (serious question, not being a douchebag)
Could you try and sum up why you believe this to be absolutely true? (out of curiousity)

[Ambient]

What did you experience while you were "dead"?

Nothing.

[justanotherweirdo]

Nothing.

So why do you believe there is consciousness after death? if you do? And was this nothing like, you have no memory whatsoever of the time when you were declared dead or, you remember experiencing 'nothing'?

[Ambient]

So why do you believe there is consciousness after death? if you do? And was this nothing like, you have no memory whatsoever of the time when you were declared dead or, you remember experiencing 'nothing'?

I explained this previously in the thread, but I will post again for your information.

Perhaps experience is not the technically accurate word, because experience means consciousness of objects and their significance. Technically speaking one cannot experience "nothing" or "nothingness" because "nothing" is not an existing phenomenon; everything that exists is "something".

Rather I did not "experience anything", twas a blackout situation. I could compare it the phenomenon of going to sleep and waking up. Although this process usually takes 6-12 hours in human beings; it gives the illusion of an instance. This is not to say their is no chemical or neurological activity in the mind or the body, just that I (in the loose sense of the word) have no conscious recollection of these happenings.

Indeed I have no memory or recollection of the events of my body and self during the blackout and death. I awoke when I was ressusitated/ressurected and had absolutly no idea what had happened; I was stunned to see all of these medical proffesionals around and a catheda in my thigh. I take it on good faith what they purported to me was a true recollection of events; as I have no means of verification.

P.S I never said "I believe consciousness exists after death".

[Ambient]

What if when we die, we have an NDE type experience which is caused by chemical and neurological activity in our brain, like the release of DMT, causing us to experience an afterlife which seems to last for an eternity, when in reality that final chemical activity happens for a few minutes tops, and consciousness dies with the brain. Since we can't fathom not existing and can't experience it when the brain dies, we experience an after life which actually doesn't exist. Or does it?

My oppinion on such matters as these is that ontologically these psychadelic phenomenon/experience such as dreams and drugs are no less ontologically real as the experience of the metaphysical universe; what you do have is a difference in significance.

For example it is a fact that dreams are limited to the realm of the mind, and the mind is limited to its knowledge/experience of the metaphysical universe. Therefore "dream state" is a limited experience compared to waking life; in which arguably we can come to realize life and all that that entails.

It can be seen that the untranscended mind can be the enemy of the self; the mind can be an incarciration. For instance let us say as a new born you where sourounded by drug abuse, your parents gave you sedatives to shut you up, they would beat you as a child, you grew up in the middle of a civil war, the military dictator government stole resources from the people and you where mal-nourished and under-educated. Perhaps this is unlikeley; but certainly this would be a hellish existence. If this is all the mind knows, and all the individual has experienced; then in a sense they are doomed to eternity in hell.

Then finally we come to the question; can the mind simulate an "eternal" existence in the bodily/physical "time" of a few minutes; my human rationality is questioning the possibility.

[Rust]

Do you think there is proof of this? (serious question, not being a douchebag)
Could you try and sum up why you believe this to be absolutely true? (out of curiousity)

Please follow the context of what I was responding to. I never claimed I had or that there was, absolute proof of this. He said "I don't understand how one could honestly believe that when your physical body deteriorates and withers away, your consciousness just magically disappears as well" and to that I answered that we can easily believe that since all evidence points to the absence of brain activity meaning the absence of conscious activity - we have no reason to believe that consciousness exists after brain death.

[justanotherweirdo]

Please follow the context of what I was responding to. I never claimed I had or that there was, absolute proof of this. He said "I don't understand how one could honestly believe that when your physical body deteriorates and withers away, your consciousness just magically disappears as well" and to that I answered that we can easily believe that since all evidence points to the absence of brain activity meaning the absence of conscious activity - we have no reason to believe that consciousness exists after brain death.

If after death you find that you're still conscious, will you ever trust that you're actually dead? Just a purely hypothetical scenario/question

[justanotherweirdo]

Then finally we come to the question; can the mind simulate an "eternal" existence in the bodily/physical "time" of a few minutes; my human rationality is questioning the possibility.

since we can't truly fathom not existing, we might just experience ourselves as always existing even if that experience is within a few minutes of objective time. You can experience time distortion even on cannabis, who knows what DMT, supposedly the most mind-altering drug, can do to your experience of time when you're dying.

[pie]

This is a hilarious situation. It appears religious folk are against the ads because it allows for critical thinking and could possibly divert people from religion. And all this after thousands of years of destroying ancient scriptures and books that predate jesus, which talk about prophets and gods 6000 years before who are identical to jesus based of astrotheology and serve as a prototype for our current religions.

[Rust]

If after death you find that you're still conscious, will you ever trust that you're actually dead? Just a purely hypothetical scenario/question

If I find myself still conscious, then death would take on a whole other meaning for me. If I'm conscious after brain death, then either the initial definition was wrong, or whatever phenomenon was occurring then (my consciousness after my "death") would be something that can still exist after death (i.e. life after death).

While sort of entertaining to consider hypothetically, in reality we have no reason to believe this is the case.

[justanotherweirdo]

While sort of entertaining to consider hypothetically, in reality we have no reason to believe this is the case.

until we die and find that we're still conscious :eek:
jk

also
since we can't truly fathom not existing, we might just experience ourselves as always existing even if that experience is within a few minutes of objective time. You can experience time distortion even on cannabis, who knows what DMT, supposedly the most mind-altering drug, can do to your experience of time when you're dying.

what do you think of this?

[Rust]

what do you think of this?

I don't really understand what you mean... That we may enter a perpetual trip when we're dying, where we believe we're still conscious?

[justanotherweirdo]

I don't really understand what you mean... That we may enter a perpetual trip when we're dying, where we believe we're still conscious?

basically. Except while we're believing we're still conscious, the brain isn't dead yet. Our experience of still being conscious seems to go on for an eternity, but objectivley a few minutes go by.

[Rust]

basically.

Well then reality doesn't care what your brain is thinking of. While you're in that hypothetical trip, time will still be passing,, your brain will still be dying, and your consciousness will still be ending. Unless of course, dualism is true... but we still don't have good reason to believe it is.

[justanotherweirdo]

Well then reality doesn't care what your brain is thinking of. While you're in that hypothetical trip, time will still be passing,, your brain will still be dying, and your consciousness will still be ending. Unless of course, dualism is true... but we still don't have good reason to believe it is.

in this hypothetical situation time still goes by and your brain still dies. But you still have the exact same experience you would have if you really did survive death and there was an eternity ahead of you. Since you can't experience not existing, after you're dead to the world, all you experience is that trip. You can't experience not existing, which is why the trip would seem to last for an eternity. Whether or not its a good or a bad trip could be subject to chance, which is a scary thought. Or it could actually be heavily influenced by whether or not you were a good person, like only enough good deeds could influence your overall mindset during life in the way needed to make your eternal trip a positive one.

For this scenario to actually happen, I'd say dualism would have to be true, in the sense that your mind would actually be capable of experiencing an eternity even if objective time is lasting for a duration while you're experiencing eternity.

[Rust]

So then essentially you are presupposing dualism, and continued consciousness after death and are merely suggesting that consciousness would take the form of a trip? Again, sort of interesting but still not anywhere close to substantiated.

No offense, but I'm not the right person to speak of in hypothetical, unrealistic and un-empirical terms. I like my discussions with as much evidence as I can get them.

[justanotherweirdo]

for anyone else following my scenario, lets take the trip out of the scenario. Even without the celestial or hellish afterlife trip, you still can't experience not existing. So wouldn't those last moments of existance before you stop existing be the experience of eternity? Whatever you might experience in those last moments. During your life, you're always in the present moment whether you're aware of it or not, and you experience everything in the world changing and passing you by, so you're not experiencing eternity. Once you're dead to the world though, you haven't got that frame of reference (changing external environment), and your moment begins from when you aren't perceiving an extrernal environment anymore, but seeing as you can't experience not existing (dead) does this moment end?

[Mathematics]

The atheist bus campaign has been around in London for a while, organised by the lovely Ariane Sherine. Dawkins has also been involved, and while he initially found the message ("There's probably no god") too soft, he has since come round to the idea as he finds it upbeat and funny.

I find it quite funny how a prominent Canadian philosopher has recently appeared in the media describing the campaign as “pathetic”, scoffing “putting things on buses, as though that's going to make people somehow change their view about God, the universe, the meaning of life and so on”, while actually lending publicity to the campaign and wildly missing the point.

The point isn’t “spoon-feeding atheism” as the OP suggested, but to get people talking and help awareness of the fact that there are a growing number of people who aren’t willing to bow down to the old fashioned childish certainties of organised religion. In particular, I hope it helps people fleeing religious persecution and maybe helps them abandon their beliefs without the worry of consequences they may have been indoctrinated with as children.

It’s strange how several self proclaimed spiritualists on this board are quick to attack the campaign when they probably have just as much belief in a personal god as the atheists! The message (“There is probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life”) is referring to a god that punishes you for who you sleep with, or what you wear, or if you go to church or not. It’s referring to the god of the organised religions, who will send you to hell for being a homosexual or for going out in public with your legs exposed. If you don’t believe in that god, an imagery god that was written about in weird documents of questionable morality centuries ago, then why not embrace the atheist campaign as taking a step towards educating people about the childish silliness of the mainstream religions?

I think it's well overdue and hopefully an indication of the rising number of people subscribing to reason and enlightenment.

[Σnigma]

Bus ads are better than, say, a couple of fucking wars. I'll take banners over the Crusades any day.

[Jack]

The busses here have adverts for Islam and Scientology. :hrmph:
*Moves to Toronto*

[ants in my poptarts]

No offense, but I'm not the right person to speak of in hypothetical, unrealistic and un-empirical terms. I like my discussions with as much evidence as I can get them.

lol that was smart talk for "go away"

[Angry Blue Bird of Death]

Whether you like Christianity or not, it has kept countries like America and England strong.

Not until recently has the Europe and North America been invaded by multiculturalism, I don't think a strong Christian country would be such push overs to let it happen.

[ants in my poptarts]

Whether you like Christianity or not, it has kept countries like America and England strong.

Do you have any support for that at all?

[Angry Blue Bird of Death]

Do you have any support for that at all?

Yes. You're a nigger.

[JustAnotherAsshole]

I agree. If Mormons, Methodists and Scientologists are allowed to have and actively put out TV, bus, subway, radio and billboard ads promoting their way of life, I see it as absolute horseshit that the people on the other half of the argument are expected not to.

[ants in my poptarts]

Yes. You're a nigger.

So your going to show how much smarter you are than me by making baseless claims and calling me a nigger? Good luck.

[Rust]

lol that was smart talk for "go away"

Pretty much. :D

[JustAnotherAsshole]

Do you have any support for that at all?


Yes. You're a nigger.

This is familiar..
:rolleyes:

[LiquidIce]

Whether you like Christianity or not, it has kept countries like America and England strong.

Not until recently has the Europe and North America been invaded by multiculturalism, I don't think a strong Christian country would be such push overs to let it happen.

Yep, look at Poland. One of the last few truly chrisitan countries left in Europe. Sure, we don't have any niggers, sand niggers or even money, but hey, we manage. We even have jokes about muslim terrorist:
Why can't terrorists leave a suitcase-bomb at the airport?
It would get stolen.
- or:
Why can't muslims make terrorist attacks?
We don't have anything worth attacking/they'd get beat the fuck up by the locals.

.

:(

[ants in my poptarts]

Why can't muslims make terrorist attacks?
they'd get beat the fuck up by the locals.

That's a terrible joke. But the kind that's funny because of how awful it is.

[Obbe]

A local Islamic group has there own ad they're running in response to the Atheist ads:

"God cares for everyone, even those who think he doesn't exist."

[LiquidIce]

That's a terrible joke. But the kind that's funny because of how awful it is.

Sorry, it's funnier if you knew a bit of the culture, because it refers to the regional version of chavs which more often than not decide to use violence against people of different race. This includes hurling pavement stones at two black students in my town a few years back or besieging a 'black culture' restaurant last year.