You don't have to be okay with it, but how does not being okay with it help you or them?
I have read parts of each of the books. Admittedly, I should read them in full to fully debate anything about them. But I found their tone off-putting enough that I didn't finish it.
As to The Sun they print interviews in full - as in the full question followed by the full answer. Not little snippet quotes, but the person's full thought. So it was not out of context, it was the transcript.
Of course how they present themselves doesn't have to do with the argument itself, but like I said, I have no problem with the argument. I was an atheist for a long time and I respect the atheist position. I also respect people who feel they have a connection with a god(s) and have no problem with it whatsoever as long as they don't attempt to infringe on my rights to not have a religion or to obtain birth control, etc.
If you'd rather not talk about this, that is okay, but I do wonder why things like this bus give people pleasure. To me it seems more intended to provoke people than to cause happiness or help people. There is a place for provocation, of course, but I'm wondering what end the provocation is meant to achieve here.
With provocation like PETA's I can at least usually see a larger end goal - to make people aware that animals are suffering and hopefully cause them to look into it and perhaps change their opinions and lifestyles. But here I'm not certain that I see an end goal worth the provocation.
It's free speech, for sure. And I'm for free speech. And the atheist viewpoint is certainly underrepresented in our culture, so maybe that's reason enough. But it doesn't delight me and it actually seems about as presumptuous to me as someone telling me that I need to be saved. It's like "thank you, bus, but I can think for myself."
no subject
I have read parts of each of the books. Admittedly, I should read them in full to fully debate anything about them. But I found their tone off-putting enough that I didn't finish it.
As to The Sun they print interviews in full - as in the full question followed by the full answer. Not little snippet quotes, but the person's full thought. So it was not out of context, it was the transcript.
Of course how they present themselves doesn't have to do with the argument itself, but like I said, I have no problem with the argument. I was an atheist for a long time and I respect the atheist position. I also respect people who feel they have a connection with a god(s) and have no problem with it whatsoever as long as they don't attempt to infringe on my rights to not have a religion or to obtain birth control, etc.
If you'd rather not talk about this, that is okay, but I do wonder why things like this bus give people pleasure. To me it seems more intended to provoke people than to cause happiness or help people. There is a place for provocation, of course, but I'm wondering what end the provocation is meant to achieve here.
With provocation like PETA's I can at least usually see a larger end goal - to make people aware that animals are suffering and hopefully cause them to look into it and perhaps change their opinions and lifestyles. But here I'm not certain that I see an end goal worth the provocation.
It's free speech, for sure. And I'm for free speech. And the atheist viewpoint is certainly underrepresented in our culture, so maybe that's reason enough. But it doesn't delight me and it actually seems about as presumptuous to me as someone telling me that I need to be saved. It's like "thank you, bus, but I can think for myself."