Well, you could replace attack with counter attack and give a bit of credence to both.
But not too much to either.

“the parents were aware but because the ethos of the school is to be inclusive of all religions and that christianity is about being tolerant of other beliefs (this ethos is sign posted in the school) they were dismayed”

Well, I agree it is unacceptable, but that is a risk that parents take (and should be aware) when they put their children in such schools, even if the school promises to be secular. Hence, I don’t see a parallel between this and putting ads in buses. I am not fond of faith-based schools or charities as a principle.

“Religious triumphalism all over the place, but one atheist comment is a problem?”

You sound like this fellow I met a few days ago (in one of those Church events my wife drags me to), who told me with certainty that atheists have won all over (look at TV, media… everything glorifies…), and that Christian values are being under heavy attack from secular forces. Now, Don, who should I believe?

An illuminating discussion between comrades, I hope.

Of course.

@45 the parents were aware but because the ethos of the school is to be inclusive of all religions and that christianity is about being tolerant of other beliefs (this ethos is sign posted in the school) they were dismayed

Amen to that! I actually became agnostic due to the general appallingness of religious people around me rather than because of the badness of the religion itself.

I have to say though, it is often people’s hypocrisy that messes religion up – it is not always religion itself that is to blame.

But WHO CARES? I’m hardly a believer!

Happy Birthday to Ariane , my own is coming up in a while.

Incidentally, has anyone here pledged towards the bus?

The respect is of course reciprocated.

Ben

Heh.

Hopefully.

I think the pair of you are like peas in a pod.

Obviously the fact that I think you are both brilliant commentators might mean I’m a trifle biased.

Heh,

An illuminating discussion between comrades, I hope.

Ben

Advertisers don’t usually suggest how crap a product is in the copy. You only find that out after ‘purchase’.

You would hide your children from any reference to the possible non-existence of a deity?

Ben

“So, you believe that the worst that this advert could do is cause some children to to challenge their beliefs…is that wrong? You yourself have stated that you are glad – as I am – to live in a society where in one is free to have a religious belief or none.”

Responsible parenting means you control external influences to your children. You also teach them what you believe is the best for them. I believe children benefit from believing in a higher-being, in meditating and praying. I certainly cannot control advertisement in buses with messages so crude as the one proposed. And I certainly wouldn’t let my children’s beliefs be influenced by it. Let them sort out and choose their paths when they are older and more mature. But at least they have something to hang on to in times of need. Mind you, this is not a religious vs atheist debate: it is about responsible advertisement. I have said before that I would hate any religious advertisement that is explicit, crude and divisive.

“if you are a friend of Jesus, you are a friend of mine”

It is a C of E primary school in London that also takes in children from other religions.

Is this divisive or feasible given it is a C of E school?

*facepalm*

I DEMAND the deletion of this post. It OFFENDS me!

In amusment,

Ben

“Kids that are thought by parents and religious leaders about their religion, and then see these type of advertisements.”

So, you believe that the worst that this advert could do is cause some children to to challenge their beliefs…is that wrong?

You yourself have stated that you are glad – as I am – to live in a society where in one is free to have a religious belief or none.

“I would be totally clueless if a vague quote from the Koran, Rig Veda or the Torah was put in an ad without any context. ”

This advert does have context. It challenges the reader as to their faith by invoking the return of Christ.

“Now, you didn’t answer my question. And I will ask again. If your ex-Christian Church out an ad like: “God exists. So, non-believers will probably burn in hell”, would you find this gratuitously offensive or not?”

Curses, my futile plan to avoid your argument-savaging gambit has fallen at the first hurdle. Never mind, pressing ever onwards..

- I wouldn’t, I’d find it to be a ludicrous appeal to fear, but I think that you mean ‘would atheists/agnostics find it gratuitously offensive’.

- The message of the advert is this, you have just phrased it more crudely:

It invokes the separation of those who have faith from those who have none, and we are then linked to a site that describes the penalty for the faithless as being “everlasting separation from God and then you spend all eternity in torment in hell.”

- Your argument assumes that any promotion of atheistic belief is offensive, as an atheistic belief entirely constitutes the belief that there is no deity.

- Your argument assumes that the threat of eternal
suffering is an intimidating as the concept of atheism. This cannot be directly refuted, but I would argue against it.

This advert would certainly not encourage open debate and understanding, but I have also said that neither would the proposed atheistic one. It is not, however, gratuitously offensive (though admittedly a little patronising in saying ’stop worrying.)

“You are right, it targets all of them.”

No, as the problem of explicitly targeting a faith is that – while not directly offensive – it bears the risk of being seen as encouragement to undue discrimination (an extreme example is the entiretly of the Mail coverage of Islam). Targeting the concept of theism will not lead to such gratuitous discrimination.

Respectfully,

Ben