Messages

Maybe a short one quoting and showing youtube's policy, laws on the matter and telling the extantdodo story with videos protesting his ban.

Maybe an episode on the ''super health trend'' in general, al the things that are done just to be ''healthy'' (im talking about extreem ''leaves only diets'', expensive ''healthy yoghurt drinks'', avoiding any enjoyment in eating).

Maybe an episode on the overreaction that comes when something gets the ''label'''terorisme? The goverment suspending civel rights for basicly nothing?

maybe material for a small bogosity episode?

it's easier to ban everybody that they get a complaint about, and then deal with complaints about bans, becaus there are lots more ban requests than people appealing against a ban, espacially if its not permanently. And leaving a person banned for 2 months to long is better for them than leaving a person spreading video's they can get sued for for 2 months to long.

I think not sewing VFX was a good decision of TF, he's just a kid who doesnt know any better. People like Kent Hovind know their lying, and do it out of greed, they deserve to go down hard.

Extantdodo has been suspended again, the fourth time ive heard, so here is a tread just to keep track of wrongfully banned people by false claims made by bogosity proposers in general (will be mainly extantdodo probably).

That's a red herring. Radical or non-radical muslims have nothing to do with this particular issue. The message on the bus isn't aimed at the religious. It's aimed at those who DON'T believe in god(s). If religious people don't like the message, they can just choose not to look at it. Just like we atheists do every time we're faced with scriptural billboards. We shouldn't pander to people because of how they might react to a message that was never intended for them. The religious have had it their way for far too long. We have a right to express ourselves in the same media that they do.

And those groups are free to have that conversation, but in this situation it's not about them. It's about people who don't believe in any gods getting to feel a bit of solidarity with like minded people. If we're told we must respect the rights of free speech for religion, then they must respect our right to the same thing. Why is it every time we atheists try to get our message out there, we're called antagonists? Yet the religious groups can promote their messages and don't care if they antagonise us. Every time I hear, 'You can't be moral without god' I'm deeply offended, but nobody suggests that religious people should not express themselves just because we might take offence. It's time they extended us the same courtesy.

Dam, almost forgot I was on a forum with smart people here . I believe that such a message would have a better effect in places with radical religon and free speech (US as number 1 on the list), becaus thats the place with the most misconceptions about atheism and a place where smart people who are (radical) religous just becaus they dont know another way. A atheism debate there would open up atheism as real possibility (or at least take some steps in that direction). In England is (as far as a Dutchman can judge) atheism already a real possibility, Im just saying that a debate there might do more harm than good for the ''atheism cause''. So yes, we have a right to express ourselves, but we're dealing with a system that has survived for thousends of years, a bit of caution when deciding a way of approach is wise, becaus this is the time atheism can really stand up, we cant afford to waste the chance.

Do you know how many muslims live in London? Apparently not.

Do you know how few of them are radical? If you get the discussion atheism or islam, you might leave them with the choice between radical islam and atheism, and then we are going to have a real problem. In english islam, the discussion should go between radical and non-radical islam, becaus non-radical islam isnt a problem (just as non-radical christianity).

If you talk to the ones who've actually quit, that's what they say.

Now your forgetting something, those people that can quit will say that, as the complete group that has the mental strengt or mental imunity (not the right word, but you get my point) will belong to that group. But on some people, the drugs just have a bigger effect, they will still be addicted, and will be to far away in the gutter or already dead to talk to you about it. Even with the less adictive siggarets, there are people who havent smoked for 20-30 years and still feel the urge for a sigaret at stressfull times.

Humans also have (as I understand) an relativly unusually lang ''generation-time'', it takes about 20 years to get a new generation, so evolution moves slower on us.

Message from the netherlans here, dont envie us, were just as stupid. We are thinking of criminalizing softdrugs, as our policy is almost more stupid than the war on drugs (and it takes some effort to beat the americans at this kinds of things). We now have the policy that a store owner with a lisence may sell the drugs, but a person can only have very litle on him, and there are limets on how much you may sell and how much you may have in stock. You also may grow some yourself, in very VERY limited amounts. So the legal way isnt profitable and we now have the situation with an illegal back door and a legal front door.

I think London isnt the place for atheistic messages, you just give the extreem christinas more of a stage. America, and specificly the south should be a place for this kind of messages.