View Single Post
Old 01-25-2009, 12:26 PM   #117
ShortNCuddlyAm
WWHALD
ShortNCuddlyAm ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ShortNCuddlyAm ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ShortNCuddlyAm ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ShortNCuddlyAm ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ShortNCuddlyAm ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ShortNCuddlyAm ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ShortNCuddlyAm ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ShortNCuddlyAm ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ShortNCuddlyAm ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ShortNCuddlyAm ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ShortNCuddlyAm ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
ShortNCuddlyAm's Avatar
 
Posts: 7,879
Karma: 337114
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Mitcham, Surrey, UK
Device: iPad. Selling my silver 505 here
Most of the religious adverts I've seen on public transport are a lot more firm in their stance that there is a god (The Quakers are the most memorable exception to this); whereas the atheist advert, by using the word "probably" allows for some doubt.

As for why that book was chosen, I very much doubt that it was chosen for anything other than commercial reasons.

As for the debate, I think it's been generated more by msmith's reaction to the excerpt and to Sony for including it on some devices than their question as to why Sony chose it.

I also find the comments that it is only offensive to Christians a little odd, as my understanding of the book is that its stance is that there almost certainly isn't a supernatural creator figure, not that the Christian god doesn't exist but others might. I'd've thought that people of any religion that believed in a god or gods could therefore take offence at it...
ShortNCuddlyAm is offline