Great first day
10.12.09 | simon | 
Email This Post
I’d like to thank everyone today for their donations. It’s been a steady stream of donations rolling in all day. Thanks heaps guys!
We’re over 5% of the way there, which is not bad at all for the first day. There are a number of media opportunities coming up over the next week or so that should spread the campaign to a wider audience. I’ll be sure to outline them here or on Twitter as and when they occur.
Our target is $10,000 for the initial ad run. That works out at approximately $900 per ad-on-a-bus, so we’ve nearly got one ad sorted…let’s go!
173 Responses to “Great first day”
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 » Show All
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 » Show All
March 18th, 2010 at 6:48 am
On Close-Up Richard Dawkins said so much that was either supposition or simply not true. I’m not sure what planet he was speaking from but clearly not the same one that I live on – nor was he talking about a (Christian) religion I follow. I don’t know a lot of things, so I don’t talk about them. It was very clear from his mannerisms and body talk, (and this was said of his talk in Wellington), that he is some place deep within, a very angry man.
And yet again, supposition: do you really know what Mark Sainsbury can remember. JA were heroes of mine, and I respect Grace’s opinion.
God Bless.
March 18th, 2010 at 11:40 am
Br Graham-Michael,
Can you provide an example of something that is “simply not true” that he said on the show?
March 21st, 2010 at 3:53 pm
i guess he was thinking about things like virgin births and ressurections, which clearly cant’happen
March 21st, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Hey Bob, you need to be more broad minded. Closed minds have been the curse of civilisation. You need to think outside the square, be more inclusive, positive and a lot less deterministic.
March 21st, 2010 at 6:00 pm
I think Bob was right, and would like to add the talking Serpent.
Religion is such a source of closed minds so i dont understand BC’s point.
March 21st, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Bob – exactly! I am not sure I understand BC’s point either. However, any closed mind is a worry – religious or non-religious. Scientific – or not scientific.
Richard Dawkins simply doesn’t know what he talking about, so at the end of the day all he achieved was a holiday in NZ courtesy of the Int’ Arts Fest. Lucky him.
I know nothing about science – so I keep my mouth shut and leave the subject to scientists: and when it comes to medical science I know I have to trust them.
March 21st, 2010 at 6:38 pm
hello br graham-michael.i assume the br in your name stands for brother? if so i guess that meansyour views are as tainted and one sided as richards. i am not an atheist myself but as i side with grace slick i suppose that makes me an agnostic. i do try to keep an open mind about most things but religion takes up very little of my mind space. you either believe or you don’t, so arguments and conversations on the topic are pointless. but when a book like the bible was written about 300 years after the life of the character we call jesus, and allowing for all kinds of interpretations (and mis-interpretations,of course) during translations, one has to wonder how much creedence can be attributed to this tome. we have enough trouble with communications and translations now, with the different interpretation limitations the various languages place on us, without being dogmatic about the “facts”contained in this book.
the only anger i was aware of in richards interview was that of parents assuming their children would be of the same religious persuasion as themselves, and not letting them choose their path for themselves. i have to agree with that, in the same way parents shouldn’t assume their kids will be of the same political mind as themselves, or any other issue for that matter.
cheers – bob
March 21st, 2010 at 6:42 pm
hey bc. you want ma to be broadminded about virgin births and resurrection? gimme a break
March 21st, 2010 at 7:49 pm
Literalism seems to characterise both anti-religionists and religionists alike. Blind leading the blind, unable to discern differing genre of ancient literature.
March 21st, 2010 at 8:04 pm
I dont know any of my Athiests friends who take the bible literally.
That wouldn’t be rational.
March 21st, 2010 at 8:12 pm
Talking serpent?!
March 23rd, 2010 at 6:36 pm
Author: bob
Comment:
hello br graham-michael.i assume the br in your name stands for brother?
Correct.
if so i guess that meansyour views are as tainted and one sided as richards.
Why should they be tainted ( an odd word ) or one sided. I have an open mind. That’s why I choose to be a Catholic Christian, as opposed to Buddhist, or Hindu, or any other faith. I have looked at them, very carefully, as well as the idea of having no religious faith at all.
i am not an atheist myself but as i side with grace slick i suppose that makes me an agnostic. i do try to keep an open mind about most things but religion takes up very little of my mind space.
Your free choice.
you either believe or you don’t, so arguments and conversations on the topic are pointless. but when a book like the bible was written about 300 years
Sorry to correct you, not written 300 years ago, but collected in its present form.
after the life of the character we call jesus, and allowing for all kinds of interpretations (and mis-interpretations,of course) during translations,
Correct. A significant worry for all Christians
one has to wonder how much creedence can be attributed to this tome. we have enough trouble with communications and translations now, with the different interpretation limitations the various languages place on us, without being dogmatic about the “facts”contained in this book.
I’m sorry – I wasn’t aware I was being dogmatic. Anyone who knows me be horrified at such a suggestion
the only anger i was aware of in richards interview was that of parents assuming their children would be of the same religious persuasion as themselves, and not letting them choose their path for themselves. i have to agree with that, in the same way parents shouldn’t assume their kids will be of the same political mind as themselves, or any other issue for that matter.
I think at the end of the day such thinking is of a quite tiny minority – and there are extremists in every walk of life. I can fully understand such anger, though at the end of the day anger achieves nothing, least of all the anger that has been bottled up for several decades.
Cheers,
Graham
March 23rd, 2010 at 6:42 pm
The above had been written several days ago, but for some odd IT reason that I, as a non scientist/non techno person, cannot understand, it went to Simon.
Allow me to simply add: peace and justice – all that Jesus wanted to bring to earth – and what 99.9999999% of the world’s population desire. I do not believe Richard Dawkins does your cause any good by being so vitriolic, and yes – angry. Little peace in that approach.
What I admire all ‘non-believers’ for is there right to publicly declare their feelings in a just and peaceful manner. This is the freedom many people laid down their lives for.
March 24th, 2010 at 9:51 pm
yes bc. talking serpent. right up there with the talking burning bush. and by the way, bc was a favorite comic strip of mine.
March 24th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
hey there again brother graham-michael. i think what really amuses me about religion, is that every one thinks that they are right and have the key to heaven, whatever ones notion of that might be. it doesn’t matter which one one chooses either, be it budhism, islam, hindu, jewish, witch doctor etc. the various branches of christianity don’t get along either. the northern ireland situation is a religious battle, as is the situation in bosnia. the liverpool/everton situation is the same. when i was in england in1998 i learned the animosity between st.helens and wigan is also of a religious nature. so from the crusades to the modern day religion seems to be at the root of societys problems and more people have been killed in the name of religion than from any other cause.
beats me how you can be a believer
cheers – bob
March 25th, 2010 at 6:53 am
Bob – you are of course correct, almost! While others might ( and how do they know ) think they are right, but I wouldn’t in a million years suggest I am right, not do I have the keys to heaven. The latter ‘notion’ would take more space to explain than this blog site can provide.
Various traditions of Christianity don’t get on for precisely the reasons you suggest – most will be saying ‘they’ have it right. Sad, very sad. I think you will find the vast majority of Christians do not think that way – only the fanatics, who are of there in every walk of life.
As to N Ireland – there is a mix of both faith and politics there – the very thing Jesus said not to do. Don’t get me going on the crusades – it’s one of those blemishes in history that truly gets my back up.
As to how I can be a believer, probably in much the same way that you have the belief that you cannot.
March 25th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
The religious hatred and violence Bob cites is based on human values and attitudes and not Christian teaching. It is not restricted to religion, it manifests itself in all human activity.
About being right or wrong. We all operate on thinking we know the right thing to do. All biological activity does. What bothers is when others impose their views and don’t just share them!
As far as choosing the right religion is concerned, there is a common fallacy regarding there being no differences between the religions.
Quite obviously if Christian teaching is right about there being a personal god then Buddhism is wrong, for it doesn’t recognise there being such a god. Christianity teaches Jesus Christ is the Son of God, whereas Islam teaches him only to be a prophet. So to say all religions are the same is like saying airplanes and cars are the same because they both have wheels.
Unsurprisingly, Atheists object to being lumped into any homogenous grouping, as do religious people.
In critiquing unusual phenomena mentioned in the Bible (talking serpents, bushes and the like) you may have to seek out references to the genre in which those passages are written. Such ancient literature is not easy to understand from our post-enlightenment position that has a hard time dealing with anything but literal understandings and attitudes. This position has come to us through our scientific based culture. Fundamental Christianity grew from within the same culture. The philosophical basis on which science predicates its analysis of the universe, does not take kindly to one off events. That’s why in court cases evidence presented may or may not be able to be tested, but is weighed in the balance before a verdict is arrived at. And such is life.
We need to think carefully, wild assumptions are futile.
March 25th, 2010 at 6:08 pm
BC – I couldn’t agree more. So succinctly put.
March 25th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
Rob – I don’t know any of my Christian friends who take the Bible literally.
March 25th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
@Graham: No Christians do, it’s all about picking and choosing what you’re most prepared to abide by.
March 25th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
“I don’t know any of my Christian friends who take the Bible literally.”
You should get out more then, there are plenty of Christian nutters out their who believe the bible in it’s literal sense. Take young earth creationist Kent Hovind for instance.
Can you also explain Fred Phelps! He is convinced his Christianity is right and yours is wrong.
Lets end religion, let people believe in their god or gods, but lets stop them being herded like sheeple into groups where a minister fleeces them, and brain washes them.
Religion is for people who can’t think for themselves, and a handy way for men in frocks to live off the meagre offerings of poor peasants.
The pope lives in finery that the vast majority of his sheeple couldn’t even dream about, he doesn’t even feel a twinge of guilt about taking money from some family that can barely feed themselves. These poor people really believe that god will deliver them from their suffering, but of course that never happens.
March 25th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
The talking serpent is essential to the concept of original Sin. You can redefine and interpret religous texts all you want, but that doesnt make it true.
I am unsubcribing to this thread, as believers will never convince non believers on here that there is a god without evidence, and non believers wont convince a beliver who has been indoctrinated with one of many religions that have mutated over thousands of years that their isnt.
There probably is no god, now stop worrying and enjoy life.
March 25th, 2010 at 11:36 pm
indoctrination and closed minds are universal, not confined to religious folk!
Thinking is definitely part of Christian living
March 25th, 2010 at 11:42 pm
@BC
Sadly it is only the priest or minister who is allowed to do the thinking, and shape the minds of the sheeple.
Rationalists free their minds of the fairy tales in old books and allow NEW discoveries to shape their thoughts.
March 25th, 2010 at 11:48 pm
indoctrination and closed minds are universal, not confined to religious folk!
Thinking is definitely part of Christian living. What some don’t like is that Christians think about the relationship between God, the universe and the human condition. And it’s done through artists, philosophers, scientists and theologians (as well as thinking Joe Bloggs) who happen to be Christian. And it’s true theology has ‘mutated’ and is not fixed in stone. After all that’s what all the Christian thinking is about.
There’s definitely no mindlessness among my friends who teach at University and wrestle with the challenges of current scientific understanding of our world (including God questions). Questions that befuddle the most literate of scientists and are by far way more unusual than talking serpents or burning bushes.
No worries, Bob, about moving on. Only be challenged to get to some Science/ Faith interchanges. If you are net surfing the net I’m sure you’ll come across them.
Peter, you speak with such authority. From where do you get your knowledge of the future? Institutional wealth is universal and not the monopoly of the church. Your lifestyle probably impinges on the lifestyle of some poor Chinese worker, so you could think about it carefully while tapping away of your imported keyboard. You’re not the only one who sees the hypocrisy of the church. But there is a need to differentiate the appearance and the essence of things. You know, the baby and bath water syndrome.
You sound that you are convinced about your views as Fred Phelps does about his!
Take care that you don’t try to take the speck out of your brother’s eye while you have a log in your own. (just a funny line from JC). Take care.
March 26th, 2010 at 6:34 am
Pete says: Sadly it is only the priest or minister who is allowed to do the thinking, and shape the minds of the sheep.
This kind of nonsense does you no credit. There are a few sects – and maybe just the odd one or two ultra conservative priests in the main stream churches (and not just Christianity) – that would behave as such, but to make such sweeping statements is such utter nonsense. And that goes too for literal interpretations of the Bible. My friends are spread over every continent, so you see, I do get out more – perhaps I have chosen them wisely.
I notice once again it is the Catholic tradition that comes in for a bashing. What really is the problem you have with us? I notice too that just about all the Christian responses on this site are respectful of the atheists’ points of view – may not agree with them, but then that’s freedom of opinion, isn’t it?
I hope you have a good day.
March 26th, 2010 at 6:38 am
And it’s true theology has ‘mutated’ and is not fixed in stone. After all that’s what all the Christian thinking is about.
BC – nice expression!
March 26th, 2010 at 7:27 am
Catholicism is one of humanities greatest crimes, wars fought to spread the faith, missionaries on a convert or kill campaign during the age of exploration and discovery, the inquisition, and that’s just the past, now we have child abuse, and worse still, the covering up of widespread abuse to protect the church.
The Catholic church used similar techniques to the Mafia, fear, intimidation and murder, but at least the priests had nice frocks.
The Catholic church preys upon the uneducated and weak, it is losing it’s grip in the western world as more people have access to education, but it has moved it’s attention and controlling to third world countries where education is still basic and not to everyone.
Religion is about control, and for many years the only people who could read a bible were priests, until the first translation came out, which took some of that control away, now it is education that threatens the church. Now people are smarter and question the church, which of course it doesn’t like, they can’t hang heretics anymore!
The Catholic church is an evil controlling organisation that will go the same way as it’s soul mate, the Mafia, no more will the catholic church extort money out of people with threats of everlasting damnation in the fires of hell, because smart people know that hell doesn’t exist.
March 26th, 2010 at 7:54 am
@ Pete Knight– I could start this post with something like “you are confusing the power of god with the corruption of man”… but then I would be taking the p*ss…
I totally agree with your post.. any interesting book on the Catholic (C) Church is called Double Cross, The Code of The Catholic Church by David Rannan. It covers the history, dogma and strategies of the Church and then goes onto how some of its teachings and policies have caused death and suffering.
To those who disagree with Petes post…
There probably is no God, so stop worring and enjoy life.
March 26th, 2010 at 8:14 am
Peter, what’s the point of making mindless generalisations? It doesn’t do the atheist cause any good. Your statement is plainly misrepresentation.
I have no problem recognising the often-pagan catholic church and its terrible heritage. But again that argument is only against behaviour that even Christian theology does not support. Every human endeavour is corrupted – including the church – that’s part of the Christian message. So what’s the point you’re attempting to make?
As far as worrying. I have no worrries and am living life. So, what am I supposed to be worried about? The fact I debate the existence of God is not because I’m worried, it’s because I rejoice in creation.
Rob – Unfortunately, Hell already exists in some parts of the world!