View Full Version : Sponsor the Atheist Bus!
Fundraising for Atheist Bus Adverts (http://www.justgiving.com/atheistbus)
A feelgood story to warm the cockles :laugh4:
KukriKhan
10-22-2008, 13:04
With your help, we can brighten people's days on the way to work, help raise awareness of atheism in the UK, and hopefully encourage more people to come out as atheists. We can also counter the religious adverts which are currently running on London buses, and help people think for themselves.
Any examples/pix of those religious adverts that these humanist ones are aimed at?
-edit-
I found this: Guardian article from June (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/20/transport.religion) that quotes one such:
"When the son of man comes, will he find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8)
Kadagar_AV
10-22-2008, 13:05
That is just stupid! God DOES exist, it says so in a 2000 year old book revised numerous times!
The CofE (church of England) run quite a few advertising their 'Alpha Course' which is some introduction to xtianity. Their are a few muslim pride ones around too.
Hosakawa Tito
10-22-2008, 13:12
They need a :hippie: paint job and the Magic Bus (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK8xoOLCBR4&feature=related) theme song. :laugh4:
KukriKhan
10-22-2008, 13:16
Interesting Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buses_in_London) on London buses; seems they're a hybrid gov't/private outfit. With emphasis on "private", adverts for everything from cigarettes to atheism = OK. With emphasis on "gov't", maybe they've gotta be more discriminative.
At any rate, the advert cost seem a little pricey. :) Little chance of putting up one for "The .Org; where the elite meet to greet and..."
Kralizec
10-22-2008, 14:28
Jolly initiative. I think that lady in the guardian article might suffer from a persecution complex, though.
We have such advertisement in the Neth's to, except that they're at the bus stops instead on the verhicles.
Brilliant idea, brilliant goal in mind! I salute them.
LittleGrizzly
10-22-2008, 14:50
What a cool idea, and the fact that they have people not even living in the UK making donations shows some serious commitment...
Enlightenment, take 2, roll!
Interesting Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buses_in_London) on London buses; seems they're a hybrid gov't/private outfit. With emphasis on "private", adverts for everything from cigarettes to atheism = OK. With emphasis on "gov't", maybe they've gotta be more discriminative.
At any rate, the advert cost seem a little pricey. :) Little chance of putting up one for "The .Org; where the elite meet to greet and..."
Transport in this country is a prime example of what a rip off the private public partnerships have been. Private companies cherry pick the best public services for limited term contracts and proceed to squeeze all the value out of the assets before either unjustly getting another term, or merely moving on to some other juicy contract. Meanwhile the less profitable sections that created a broader 'transport service' wither on the vine.
So we end up with high use, high cost skeleton services with really poor general provision and big profits. Thanks John Major!
LittleGrizzly
10-22-2008, 15:47
The UK version of privatisation seems to involve more money and less service, it seems to constantly be a good idea to privatise something new as well, im almost adamant that years down the line i will be seeing the terrible effects of privitisation across the NHS and when its the labour goverment thats doing it theres just nothing we can do about it
I suppose i should just file my usual LD vote
KukriKhan
10-22-2008, 16:19
Transport in this country is a prime example of what a rip off the private public partnerships have been. Private companies cherry pick the best public services for limited term contracts and proceed to squeeze all the value out of the assets before either unjustly getting another term, or merely moving on to some other juicy contract. Meanwhile the less profitable sections that created a broader 'transport service' wither on the vine.
So we end up with high use, high cost skeleton services with really poor general provision and big profits. Thanks John Major!
I thought for sure you'd be thanking Herhonour, Ms. Maggie. :laugh4:
But I agree: public transport is so vital a requirement for any city with a population over 1,000, that it ought not ever be run with an eye toward profit, or even break-even. It's a public service. Like a postal service or military service.
Sadly, I usually can't get my fellow citizens over here to agree with me either.
LittleGrizzly
10-22-2008, 16:28
I think the transport system should be run at a loss in an effort to provide a quick and versatile service so that those of who don't own cars don't fall even further behind when it comes to getting jobs (and a whole host of other reasons from students to pensioners and overcrowded roads, it makes huge amounts of sense from almost any angle you take on it....)
Hell who knows, once you've got the quick versatile service up and running it could even turn a profit by proving itself a much closer competitor to the car and making people take the bus as a serious consideration..
(quickly back onto topic) So ahh atheist advertising on buses.... great....
atheotes
10-22-2008, 17:21
not sure if this is a good idea... as much as i like to rile religious people and hate religions, i dont think 'a tit for tat' approach is necessary... it might give way to militant atheism which might be no better than organized religion....
Rhyfelwyr
10-22-2008, 17:25
Its OK, this bus is just the continuation of the religious German buses, fulfilling the prophecy.
Also Scientologists would be proud of such as scam.
LittleGrizzly
10-22-2008, 18:05
For those of us that are grizzly maybe the last scottish not welsh poster could clarify what he means.... i haven't got a clue about german religious busses and im missing the scam part as well...
Rhyfelwyr
10-22-2008, 18:20
For those of us that are grizzly maybe the last scottish not welsh poster could clarify what he means.... i haven't got a clue about german religious busses and im missing the scam part as well...
You're right, they weren't German they were just London buses, no idea where I got that from. Its a scam cause they've got lots of money from donations.
LittleGrizzly
10-23-2008, 05:46
Its a scam cause they've got lots of money from donations.
Wouldn't that make religions, charity's and political campaigns all scams as well (the last one's half true) if they're keeping the money and not buying advertising on buses then its a scam, but if they're using the money as stated then the fact the money's donated doesn't make it anymore of a scam than your average weekly collection at church...
That is just stupid! God DOES exist, it says so in a 2000 year old book revised numerous times!
Very original. :juggle2:
AlexanderSextus
10-23-2008, 07:31
right... Atheism... Atheism is retarded. A human brain is about the size of a basketball (roughly, i realize that a basketball is a bit bigger) Humans are on a planet, which in the scale of the size of the universe, is about the size of a speck of dust, which means humans are like 1/1000 the size of a speck of dust. Imagine how small that makes the human brain.
How could we be so conceited as to think we're smart enough to know god doesnt exist?!
Not that i'm a fan of religion or anything, Religion's retarded as well.
“How could we be so conceited as to think we're smart enough to know god doesnt exist?!” For the same reason I know trolls and X-mass father don’t. I read stories about them however never have really met one of them. As such it isn’t THE proof they don’t exist, but it is a strong clue.:beam:
HoreTore
10-23-2008, 08:26
But I agree: public transport is so vital a requirement for any city with a population over 1,000, that it ought not ever be run with an eye toward profit, or even break-even. It's a public service. Like a postal service or military service.
I just realized I love you, Kukri.
Too busy sponsoring the global warming private jet.
But I am off to a more stimulating thread now.
AlexanderSextus
10-23-2008, 09:00
“How could we be so conceited as to think we're smart enough to know god doesnt exist?!” For the same reason I know trolls and X-mass father don’t. I read stories about them however never have really met one of them. As such it isn’t THE proof they don’t exist, but it is a strong clue.:beam:
You cant compare the concept of a deity that created the universe to santa or trolls. We have traversed the globe and found no evidence of their existence. we can therefore say conclusively that they dont. However, being a dot on a speck in the universe hardly gives you the authority to claim god doesnt exist.
I've never seen Dark matter, but does that mean dark matter doesnt exist? Some people say it doesnt exist, some people say it does, but theres no way to know, because we cant detect it. Same with god.
Atheism is a negative position. It is extremely hard to prove a negative position. Atheism is illogical because it is illogical for humans to say there is no evidence for god, because no human can know all evidences or all activities in known creation. Its impossible to say that.
Since there is no evidence to date for the Atheistic position, Atheists must hold to their position, There is No God, By conviction. Another word for conviction is Faith... This exposes the hole in the Atheist argument that Believing in god by faith is not a logical basis of belief. Atheists are doing the same thing. Atheists get around this by simply by casting possible evidence for god into a hazy light.
If you were to say that there is a POSSIBILITY, that god doesnt exist, that's much better. There is ABSOLUTELY a possibility that god doesnt exist.
you cannot say that god doesnt exist because you are standing on a weak, and illogical foundation.
It is better to say that you dont see any convincing evidence of gods existence. However, lack of convincing evidence does not prove the atheistic position.
You cant compare the concept of a deity that created the universe to santa or trolls. We have traversed the globe and found no evidence of their existence. we can therefore say conclusively that they dont. However, being a dot on a speck in the universe hardly gives you the authority to claim god doesnt exist.
...
It is better to say that you dont see any convincing evidence of gods existence. However, lack of convincing evidence does not prove the atheistic position.
That's why the bus says there "probably" isn't a god, so stop worrying and enjoy yourselves :idea2:
pevergreen
10-23-2008, 10:52
At any rate, the advert cost seem a little pricey. :) Little chance of putting up one for "The .Org; where the elite meet to greet and..."
"The .Org; where the elite meet to greet and...'bate
debate that is."
Hosakawa Tito
10-23-2008, 11:00
"The .Org; where the elite meet to greet and...'bate
demasterbate that is."
Fixed.~;)
I know Asia doesn't exist because I've never seen it.
CountArach
10-23-2008, 12:37
Its a scam cause they've got lots of money from donations.
Wouldn't that make religions, charity's and political campaigns all scams as well
You mean... they aren't?:jawdrop:
pevergreen
10-23-2008, 12:45
You mean... they aren't?:jawdrop:
To quote the Chasers "Thank the lord for modern christianity!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRMmn1DNJi4
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-23-2008, 13:09
Love it, "There's probably no God" is sort of like, "You don't need a hard hat, you probably won't fall."
They could at least have pinned their colours to the mast properly.
Love the offensive Dawkins quote at the end as well.
LittleGrizzly
10-23-2008, 14:03
"There's probably no God" is sort of like, "You don't need a hard hat, you probably won't fall."
I think a better example would be there is probably no invisible purple dragon in my back garden which cannot be proven to be there through any tests we have, now obviously this doesn't proof the purple dragon isn't there, but i would feel pretty safe saying there's probably no purple dragon in my garden....
Rhyfelwyr
10-23-2008, 16:13
Its impossible to prove God exists and probably even make it look likely. Equally its impossible to prove He doesn't, although its similarly difficult to prove Santa or the tooth fairy don't exist.
At the end of the day, you know when He lets you know. That's all I can say from my experience.
AlexanderSextus
10-24-2008, 09:21
i do actually believe that god exists, as it seems ludicrous that the Big Bang happened by random chance... What if that immensly hot, unimaginably dense singularity did not explode and create the universe? if it was random chance, then there was actually a 50/50 chance that it wouldnt have happened and we would not exist. But, it didn't, so i am compelled to believe that there was at least a SOMETHING, that made it happen.
However, religion is retarded, especially because it simply will not acknowledge science. I believe that Evolution DID happen. BUT, it seems silly to me that natural selection happened by random chance.... if it did, why didnt humans evolve big arms that stick out of our foreheads so they could grab fruit off of trees, or sharp retractable bone-blades on our elbows to kill prey? Because, IMHO, Evolution was not random, it was guided by SOMETHING; call it God, call it OM, call it Tao, whatever, it doesnt matter.
“I know Asia doesn't exist because I've never seen it.” No Asian live in Germany?"
No family/relatives/friends went there? Are you not having access to TV for pictures and reportage?
I would happily believe in a God if I got some nice pictures of him, his speeches, pictures of Heaven, interview for some “bienheureux” living in Paradise or from Archangels Gabriel or the fallen one, the Light Holder better known under the AKA of Lucifer.
Nothing is even close to that.
“Atheism is a negative position. It is extremely hard to prove a negative position. Atheism is illogical because it is illogical for humans to say there is no evidence for god, because no human can know all evidences or all activities in known creation. Its impossible to say that.” The best and most funny think I read for years. Thank you.
To believe that an ET created the world just for his own power is logical. Sure.
Who is the God of God? Who created God.
The Bible gives you the answer: At first was the Verb. Au début était le verbe. U poceti bilo je rec. Just words. God is a word.
I would happily believe in a God if I got some nice pictures of him, his speeches, pictures of Heaven, interview for some “bienheureux” living in Paradise or from Archangels Gabriel or the fallen one, the Light Holder better known under the AKA of Lucifer.
Nothing is even close to that..
Well, if you did get all that, then God would no longer be a matter of belief, but rather a matter of *fact*. If God ever becomes an empirical reality that can be weighed and measured, there will be absolutely no need for faith.
English assassin
10-24-2008, 16:57
At the end of the day, you know when He lets you know. That's all I can say from my experience.
That's fair enough. When he gets in touch I will change my mind. Until then I feel my £20 donation was well spent. :yes:
Anyway, There is a simple proof that God agrees he doesn't exist. A clear majority of the world's population would agree that any given god you care to mention doesn't exist. And as we all know, vox populi, vox dei. Therefore God agrees he doesn't exist.
QED.
Louis VI the Fat
10-24-2008, 17:19
This bus is a fun initiative. I would donate, but gods are not even important enough to me to name myself an atheist.
An atheist belongs to a religious world. He is defined, accordingly, by a world that spends its time postulating the existence of gods. Which I think is a complete waste of time. I don't not believe in god anymore than that I don't not believe that the moon is a missing 1934 disc-shaped zeppelin or that all Japanese are genetically engineered uber-groundhogs in rubber humanoid suits. If a lot of people would believe either, they'd call me an azeppelinist or an agroundhoggist. Which I really think I am not.
This bus is a fun initiative. I would donate, but gods are not even important enough to me to name myself an atheist.
An atheist belongs to a religious world. He is defined, accordingly, by a world that spends its time postulating the existence of gods. Which I think is a complete waste of time. I don't not believe in god anymore than that I don't not believe that the moon is a missing 1934 disc-shaped zeppelin or that all Japanese are genetically engineered uber-groundhogs in rubber humanoid suits. If a lot of people would believe either, they'd call me an azeppelinist or an agroundhoggist. Which I really think I am not.
What that clever Frenchman said. :smash:
Ironside
10-24-2008, 19:25
Well, if you did get all that, then God would no longer be a matter of belief, but rather a matter of *fact*. If God ever becomes an empirical reality that can be weighed and measured, there will be absolutely no need for faith.
Hmf, and you're completely forgetting all those perks that's supposed to come with faithfully praying to the gods, raging from the "please don't kill me or turn me into something hideious" to "power, power, power" or "healing and even resurrection". And making it very clear that this is the deal.
I'm pretty sure that even most diehard atheists would be very faithful and godfearing if a big hand came from the sky and started to fry disbelivers. And that's despite that it makes a god very, very real.
English assassin
10-24-2008, 21:50
This bus is a fun initiative. I would donate, but gods are not even important enough to me to name myself an atheist.
An atheist belongs to a religious world. He is defined, accordingly, by a world that spends its time postulating the existence of gods. Which I think is a complete waste of time. I don't not believe in god anymore than that I don't not believe that the moon is a missing 1934 disc-shaped zeppelin or that all Japanese are genetically engineered uber-groundhogs in rubber humanoid suits. If a lot of people would believe either, they'd call me an azeppelinist or an agroundhoggist. Which I really think I am not.
Category error. Belief in god is not god, and belief in god exists even if god does not. Other people's belief in god defines you as an atheist whether you like it or not. First rule of any oppressive belief system: you are whatever they say you are.
Hmf, and you're completely forgetting all those perks that's supposed to come with faithfully praying to the gods, raging from the "please don't kill me or turn me into something hideious" to "power, power, power" or "healing and even resurrection". And making it very clear that this is the deal.
I'm pretty sure that even most diehard atheists would be very faithful and godfearing if a big hand came from the sky and started to fry disbelivers. And that's despite that it makes a god very, very real.
Godfearing, sure, but faith will be gone. Empirical reality has no use for faith, at that point faith in God would be about as valuable as a belief that the Earth is round. While being correct, it does not require any kind of suspension of disbelief, any leap of faith to make that conclusion.
Ironside
10-24-2008, 23:23
Godfearing, sure, but faith will be gone. Empirical reality has no use for faith, at that point faith in God would be about as valuable as a belief that the Earth is round. While being correct, it does not require any kind of suspension of disbelief, any leap of faith to make that conclusion.
And why is this leap of faith so important? Particually considerering that Jesus is supposed to have been very obvious and physical with his wonders (curing sick, walking on water, creating food and bread out of nothing, see into the future, self-resurrection, I'm sure I missed some stuff).
Rhyfelwyr
10-24-2008, 23:56
And why is this leap of faith so important? Particually considerering that Jesus is supposed to have been very obvious and physical with his wonders (curing sick, walking on water, creating food and bread out of nothing, see into the future, self-resurrection, I'm sure I missed some stuff).
Because being born sinners people would reject God anyway, anything they see will not open their minds, save intervention from God Himself.
And why is this leap of faith so important? Particually considerering that Jesus is supposed to have been very obvious and physical with his wonders (curing sick, walking on water, creating food and bread out of nothing, see into the future, self-resurrection, I'm sure I missed some stuff).
Heck, I don't know. God somehow values it, I suppose. Another reason might be that God stays in the shadows so that his presence would not interfere with our freedom of choice, because like you said, if God fully revealed himself to the world, there would be no atheists and likely no sinners in general.
Rhyfelwyr
10-25-2008, 00:09
Heck, I don't know. God somehow values it, I suppose. Another reason might be that God stays in the shadows so that his presence would not interfere with our freedom of choice, because like you said, if God fully revealed himself to the world, there would be no atheists and likely no sinners in general.
He chooses us, without divine intervention we could never choose Him. Its basic scripture, but what we do not know is why some people are chosen.
Louis VI the Fat
10-25-2008, 00:30
He chooses us, without divine intervention we could never choose Him. Its basic scripture, but what we do not know is why some people are chosen.
There's probably no predestination.
Now stop worrying and enjoy your life like us Catholics do.
:beam:
Koga No Goshi
10-25-2008, 00:36
He chooses us, without divine intervention we could never choose Him. Its basic scripture, but what we do not know is why some people are chosen.
.... so people who just happen to be born in Christian families/countries are hand-picked, everyone else is screwed and not picked?
.... so people who just happen to be born in Christian families/countries are hand-picked, everyone else is screwed and not picked?
Of course not. Anyone can become a Christian at any time.
Koga No Goshi
10-25-2008, 01:00
Of course not. Anyone can become a Christian at any time.
What about all of the people born 500 years ago who never met a Christian, nor heard of Christianity? All coming to a nice slow broil by now?
What about all of the people born 500 years ago who never met a Christian, nor heard of Christianity? All coming to a nice slow broil by now?
Time will tell.
Alexanderofmacedon
10-25-2008, 04:50
You see, I don't believe in god 100%, but I don't like atheism either.
How can anyone be certain? The certainty is my main issue.
Incongruous
10-25-2008, 05:55
Mmmmm, I do love the smell of another Atheist thread, "It may lead to a more militant strain of Atheism", ha! God then you will al finally accept what your movement has really become, Richard, the Pope is your Father!
Thats right, give it a few decades and you will be sending us all off to the "advancement of individual thinking commune of Liverpool".
You see, I don't believe in god 100%, but I don't like atheism either.
How can anyone be certain? The certainty is my main issue.
One does not need any certainty; more than your certainty of uncertainty; to be labelled an atheist. Atheist could just as well be someone who do not care about religion. I do not claim to be certain that gods do not exist; I merely find the question irrelevant. And which religion should one believe in; how could one possibly be rational about that?
Mmmmm, I do love the smell of another Atheist thread, "It may lead to a more militant strain of Atheism", ha! God then you will al finally accept what your movement has really become, Richard, the Pope is your Father!
Thats right, give it a few decades and you will be sending us all off to the "advancement of individual thinking commune of Liverpool".
How many atheists on these boards are members of some sort of "atheist movement", and how many religious members are members of a church? Do a check.
InsaneApache
10-25-2008, 12:46
How many atheists on these boards are members of some sort of "atheist movement", and how many religious members are members of a church? Do a check.
I was baptised C of E, does that count? :clown:
Rhyfelwyr
10-25-2008, 14:17
There's probably no predestination.
Now stop worrying and enjoy your life like us Catholics do.
:beam:
Calvin will be spinning in his grave! The French gave us predestination as we know it, first through Bucer then Calvin. Of course, many of the French Calvinists came to Scotland - maybe I'm descended from them...
.... so people who just happen to be born in Christian families/countries are hand-picked, everyone else is screwed and not picked?
I think its likely that God's election is based upon something. One possibility is that He knows us before we are born (ie we exist before coming into this world), the other is that He bases His decisions upon how we would act through His foreknowledge. By chance I came across this verse last night, in Psalm 139:
15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
So yes, this world is all about playing out the inevitable. However, don't confuse predestination with double predestination. The reason I do not believe in double predestination is because the Bible never teaches that God actively predestines people to Hell, rather only some are elected to salvation. The question is - what is this election based upon?
I suppose thats all a bit theological for most people's liking here in the backroom, but I just wanted to clear that up.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-25-2008, 14:45
i do actually believe that god exists, as it seems ludicrous that the Big Bang happened by random chance... What if that immensly hot, unimaginably dense singularity did not explode and create the universe? if it was random chance, then there was actually a 50/50 chance that it wouldnt have happened and we would not exist. But, it didn't, so i am compelled to believe that there was at least a SOMETHING, that made it happen.
However, religion is retarded, especially because it simply will not acknowledge science. I believe that Evolution DID happen. BUT, it seems silly to me that natural selection happened by random chance.... if it did, why didnt humans evolve big arms that stick out of our foreheads so they could grab fruit off of trees, or sharp retractable bone-blades on our elbows to kill prey? Because, IMHO, Evolution was not random, it was guided by SOMETHING; call it God, call it OM, call it Tao, whatever, it doesnt matter.
"Religion is retarded"? I'm afraid you pretty much expounded the current doctrine of the Catholic, Anglican and Eastern Churches regarding Science. Not every christian is a ludite, in fact most of us aren't.
He chooses us, without divine intervention we could never choose Him. Its basic scripture, but what we do not know is why some people are chosen.
I would like to dispute this. You are speaking doctrine, not scripture. Many medieval theologins, and modern theologins have argued that the Devil has no power over us because God loves all his children and offers all a chance at salvation. To argue that we are chained by the Devil is to attribute deistic powers to a fallen angel whom god has cast out and who seeks to frustrate God by tempting man. If you want scriptural reference for this look to the book of Job. Even when God withdraws his protection for Job the Devil is only able to affect his body, not his spirit, and though Job rails against his fate he does not turn his face from God.
Calvin will be spinning in his grave! The French gave us predestination as we know it, first through Bucer then Calvin. Of course, many of the French Calvinists came to Scotland - maybe I'm descended from them...
I think its likely that God's election is based upon something. One possibility is that He knows us before we are born (ie we exist before coming into this world), the other is that He bases His decisions upon how we would act through His foreknowledge. By chance I came across this verse last night, in Psalm 139:
15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
So yes, this world is all about playing out the inevitable. However, don't confuse predestination with double predestination. The reason I do not believe in double predestination is because the Bible never teaches that God actively predestines people to Hell, rather only some are elected to salvation. The question is - what is this election based upon?
I suppose thats all a bit theological for most people's liking here in the backroom, but I just wanted to clear that up.
the traditional doctrine here I believe is that God has created some for salvation and others not. To talk of double predestination is double-speak because all men are destined for Hell, but for the Grace of God. The form that Grace takes is still, rightly, being debated. The doctrine of election says that because God has created all things it is for him to decide their fate. If he created you for salvation then you will be saved but if he created you for destruction then you have no right to complain because you have no purpose but to be destroyed.
Further, there is no way to tell who is who and no amount of prayer, good works and love of God will save you. It is an elegant and logical doctrine which seeks to explain why some believe and others do not whilst alos explaining how God chooses who to save or damn.
I don't believe a word of it and I don't believe it is supported by scripture.
Rhyfelwyr
10-25-2008, 15:01
Satan is powerful. Of course he is in no way a deity, he is far from sovereign and while his powers are far greater than that of a human it does not in any way make him a God. There can only be one God, otherwise He would not be sovereign as the Bible teaches.
According to scripture, Satan cannot read our minds. However, we are warned against his "fiery arrows". Such evil seeds are planted by Satan in our minds. By our own merits, it is impossible to overcome them. You have to let God be your shield against Satan, then you can beat them. However, without it stemming from God's intervention, we would be unable to accept God since we would be so engrossed in our sin. That is why God is sovereign in salvation.
It does not make sense to refute that salvation comes directly from God, otherwise as Koga pointed out how would some poeple be able to accept Him if they had no idea what Christianity was? Our fates are either sealed purely by God, or by our judgements before we came to this earth, with God enabling us to realise our fates in our lifetimes on earth.
Alexanderofmacedon
10-25-2008, 19:10
One does not need any certainty; more than your certainty of uncertainty; to be labelled an atheist. Atheist could just as well be someone who do not care about religion. I do not claim to be certain that gods do not exist; I merely find the question irrelevant. And which religion should one believe in; how could one possibly be rational about that?
To that I must I agree.
“Well, if you did get all that, then God would no longer be a matter of belief, but rather a matter of *fact*. If God ever becomes an empirical reality that can be weighed and measured, there will be absolutely no need for faith.” Yep. We speak of Faith and belief.
Does an atheist have a belief? No. It is the absence of belief which characterises an atheist. So the pretend that Atheism is a Religion is absolutely a manipulation. It is an opinion, a political movement if you want, but nothing to do with a belief.
As you point out, with proof you don’t need Faith.
“That's fair enough. When he gets in touch I will change my mind.” Well, first demand a proof of identity and read the small letters of the Contract: Too many gods pretend to be the only one (at least their representatives on Earth) so, clarify with him/her/it what are the terms and conditions.
Too many gods just vanished in History living their faithful without any alternatives… A little bit like ERON and the money of its employees’ pension schemes…
I don't believe a word of it and I don't believe it is supported by scripture.
Yep. Jesus said: "No one can come to the Father except through me", but did not delve into more specific details. Does that mean that salvation goes only to those who were christians in life? Could it be that upon death a person gets a chance to enroll in a fast-track "Know Thy Lord" crash course? It's possible. Jesus was very careful about what he said: no threats, no saber-rattling, all positive. Very much in line with what an omnibenevolent God should be. Good people cannot be damned, end of story. It flies in the face of logic and reason, and God is most certainly a reasonable and rational being. In fact, the whole doctrine of hell is rather debatable imho. I quite frankly cannot think of *any* offense a mortal human could commit that would warrant an eternal damnation. Eternal Damnation. That's pretty harsh. Who deserves it? Well, there is this used car salesman I know..... On a serious note, I do not think anybody would qualify.
Banquo's Ghost
10-26-2008, 10:39
It flies in the face of logic and reason, and God is most certainly a reasonable and rational being. In fact, the whole doctrine of hell is rather debatable imho. I quite frankly cannot think of *any* offense a mortal human could commit that would warrant an eternal damnation. Eternal Damnation. That's pretty harsh. Who deserves it? Well, there is this used car salesman I know..... On a serious note, I do not think anybody would qualify.
I've always seen this line of argument as a cop-out.
There's far more evidence in the Bible for a vengeful, petty, violent god and his judgements (often entirely arbitrary) leading to an eternal hellfire for the most minor of sins. Even Jesus talks at length about wheat and chaff and the fate that awaits the latter for merely ignoring the odd beggar.
If one believes in the Christian god, surely one has no choice but to believe in Hell, and that it is the destiny of anyone who messes up even a fraction without repenting - ie, all of us who don't believe (since we're hardly likely to ask for absolution). God is not love, but vengeance.
Rhyfelwyr
10-26-2008, 13:53
God would love everyone to come to Him. But they won't, some reject Him. And if they reject Him, then they reject Heaven, and ultimately go to the only alternative.
Of course, I'm not certain what exactly Hell is like, it could just be a place without God.
God does not send anyone to Hell out of vengeance. If he was vengeful for our trespasses then we'd all be going there.
Banquo's Ghost
10-26-2008, 14:23
Of course, I'm not certain what exactly Hell is like, it could just be a place without God.
It's pretty explicit in your favourite book:
Mark 9:43-48: And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched."
Luke 16:24: "And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame."
Matthew 25:41-46: Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
The punishments of Hell are very clearly stated, and by Jesus Himself. It's torment in fire. Even better, Jesus gets to watch:
Revelation 14:10-11: The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb.
And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
Now, if one wants to start quibbling about interpretation and allegory, be my guest - but then don't be surprised when someone calls you out on varying interpretations regarding morality and inconsistency.
Rhyfelwyr
10-26-2008, 18:33
First of all, this is an issue I'm not sure about. I had presumed Hell to be a place of physical torment, however having read some discussion on it I'm not so sure. As much as I don't want to spread false ideas, I will just mention some thoughts I have had on this, just as possibilities.
Mark 9:43-48: And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched."
OK, but this isn't very specific.
Luke 16:24: "And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame."
In this verse, the man sounds very calm for someone in a lot of physical pain. If he was really being burned alive would he be speaking like that? Asking for only his tongue to be cooled?
Matthew 25:41-46: Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
The punishment has everlasting effects, but the punishment in Hell does not (because you won't get eternal life, you'll be completely dead). For a start, Hell will be destoyed in the Lake of Fire. Revelations only specifically mentions the devil, the beast, and the false prophet suffering for ever in the lake of fire, for humans it is I think the second death, the end of their existence, in the (stereotypically perhaps) atheist sense.
Revelation 14:10-11: The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb.
And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
This is specific to those who worship the beast, and since it states they will suffer for ever this can't mean people because they die in the lake of fire.
These are just some thoughts, I'm not sure myself yet. :juggle:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-27-2008, 12:35
Satan is powerful. Of course he is in no way a deity, he is far from sovereign and while his powers are far greater than that of a human it does not in any way make him a God. There can only be one God, otherwise He would not be sovereign as the Bible teaches.
According to scripture, Satan cannot read our minds. However, we are warned against his "fiery arrows". Such evil seeds are planted by Satan in our minds. By our own merits, it is impossible to overcome them. You have to let God be your shield against Satan, then you can beat them. However, without it stemming from God's intervention, we would be unable to accept God since we would be so engrossed in our sin. That is why God is sovereign in salvation.
It does not make sense to refute that salvation comes directly from God, otherwise as Koga pointed out how would some poeple be able to accept Him if they had no idea what Christianity was? Our fates are either sealed purely by God, or by our judgements before we came to this earth, with God enabling us to realise our fates in our lifetimes on earth.
I didn't say salvation didn't come from God, but that's a tautology because EVERYTHING comes from God, including Satan. How are his powers greater than a man's? As I said, the book of Job makes it quite clear that Satan has NO power save that which God allows him and there is no evidence that he can directly affect our souls. He might torment us with visions, tempt us with decedance etc but he cannot take out souls or mark them. As to Sin, it is something within us but to say that we cannot overcome it on a day to day basis is not true.
What the bible says is that we can never fully overcome Sin, or sin for the atheists, because we aren't perfect. Since only a perfect man can enter heaven we can never enter heaven because even the least sin is enough to seperate us from God. The Passion is the action of God forgiving our sins but that most certainly does not remove a Christian from sin, Peter was a Christian but be still sinned when he denied God, Paul far from perfect even after his conversion and Acts makes it clear that the early Christians were traditional Jewsih racists until the vision given tto Peter and the conversion of Cornelius.
You might also want to explore the doctrine of "universal Salvation".
Duke of Gloucester
10-30-2008, 09:16
Isn't the message disappointing though? The first part: "There's probably no God" is an agnostic, not an atheist statement and "Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." is just feeble.
Some Christians claim that it is not possible to have a moral code without belief in a higher power. I am sure this is wrong but the message on the bus plays in to the hands of those who make the claim. Whether there is a God or not, there is plenty to worry about - just look at some of the threads on this board. What is the atheist perspective on these issues? It would be interesting to know.
Now, if one wants to start quibbling about interpretation and allegory, be my guest - but then don't be surprised when someone calls you out on varying interpretations regarding morality and inconsistency.
Well whether the two parables you quote are parables or allegory is crucial, isn't it? If they are parables then they have a single message and the details are just there to make the story more interesting and memorable. If they are allegories then every detail has meaning and is important. Sadly Jesus rarely left keys to his parables/allegories so you can decide for yourself. To me it seems pretty clear that these two are both parables rather than allegories and they have a similar message about the Christian response to suffering. Of course the book of Revelation is allegorical and weird and I would be cautious about drawing specific doctrine from it.
English assassin
10-31-2008, 23:08
Isn't the message disappointing though? The first part: "There's probably no God" is an agnostic, not an atheist statement and "Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." is just feeble.
First, "probably" avoids the claim that the atheists are taking a faith based position, just as bad as religion in telling people what to think, etc etc. Yes "There is absolutely no reason to believe in god" would e more accurate but its hardly punchy. Second it avoids regulatory problems about making claims in adverts you can't prove. No points giving the sky pilots an easy win at the ASA.
Why are you opposed to not worrying, and enjoying life :inquisitive:
Some Christians claim that it is not possible to have a moral code without belief in a higher power. I am sure this is wrong but the message on the bus plays in to the hands of those who make the claim. Whether there is a God or not, there is plenty to worry about - just look at some of the threads on this board. What is the atheist perspective on these issues? It would be interesting to know.
The atheist perspective is that as there is no god we have to apply our little grey cells and take responsibility for our own actions. This is not as easy or as comforting as looking up the answers in a big book but ultimately it is far more rewarding. As to whether the end results are better, well, reasonable people could perhaps differ on that. Both religious and secular philosophies have perpetrated outrages and also humane regimes. I rather agree with the view that evil people will do evil no matter what, but to make good people do evil you need religion, but someone's going to come along and mention the enlightenment if we aren't careful.
LittleGrizzly
11-01-2008, 13:21
but to make good people do evil you need religion
I would disagree with you there, i would say religion is one of the most effective ways to make a good man do evil things, but it is reachable through other means without religion as well, its probably alot of a harder sell with god's backing, but i think fear and propaganda are a very powerful combanation...
Though i agree with your basic point add religion to fear and propaganda and you can get almost anyone to do anything.
Duke of Gloucester
11-01-2008, 13:21
First, "probably" avoids the claim that the atheists are taking a faith based position, just as bad as religion in telling people what to think, etc etc. Yes "There is absolutely no reason to believe in god" would e more accurate but its hardly punchy. Second it avoids regulatory problems about making claims in adverts you can't prove. No points giving the sky pilots an easy win at the ASA.
Why are you opposed to not worrying, and enjoying life :inquisitive:
I thought that the whole point was that atheists wanted to take a faith based position. Why is this "bad"? Isn't the idea that faith based statements are bad essentially an agnostic position too. "There is absolutely know reason to believe in god" is just false. People who do believe in God have reasons - you might not think them convincing or even good reasons but your quote as well as being not punch enough is more vulnerable to challenge than stating there is no god.
Enjoying life is fine and part of the Christian message (see John 10:10) but it is not a good underlying philosophy for making every decision since it would encourage indifference and oppression in situations where your enjoyment "justified" this. Not worrying is also fine provided there is actually nothing to worry about. However a quick look at any newspaper shows this is not to be the case. The real point I am making is that all religions have a response to suffering and injustice. I think atheists have missed a chance to explain their perspective on these aspects of human existance.
The atheist perspective is that as there is no god we have to apply our little grey cells and take responsibility for our own actions. This is not as easy or as comforting as looking up the answers in a big book but ultimately it is far more rewarding.
Isn't this as bad a distortion of the faith perspective as those who claim that atheism leads to amorality? No religion absolves persons from responsibility for their actions and the "big book" of Christianity is often vague and contradictory. Religious people have the same little grey cellls as atheists and use them to the same extent.
I rather agree with the view that evil people will do evil no matter what, but to make good people do evil you need religion,
This is based on the false premise that people can be sorted in to good people and evil people. The uncomfortable truth is that all of us are capable of great good and great evil given the right circumstances. There are plenty of 20th Century examples of secular evil to give the lie to the idea that only religion can lead a group of people of evil and even more examples to show that relidion hardly insures against evil.
LittleGrizzly
11-01-2008, 13:33
I thought that the whole point was that atheists wanted to take a faith based position. Why is this "bad"? Isn't the idea that faith based statements are bad essentially an agnostic position too.
Not really, its more a lack of evidence indicating a lack of god, or its a null hypothesis...
My take on it is (borrowed heavily from a fat frenchman)....
I don't believe we are living inside the matrix, i see no proof that we are living in the matrix, apart from believers telling me to have faith and that it is true there is absolutely nothing that suggests any kind of matrix...
So if my atheism is a faith based positon... would that also make my view on a the matrix a faith based position... ?
to put the example in an even better way...
I look at my hand, there is no spot on my hand, there is no sensitive area of my hand which suggest a spot, infact i have tried using microscopes i have tried cutting into my hand to look under a few layers of skin, i have tried everything and there is absolutley no evidence for any kind of spot on my hand
By denying the exsistence of a spot on my hand am i taking up a faith based position or the one which is the obvious conclusion given lack of contradicting evidence ?
Duke of Gloucester
11-01-2008, 14:09
I don't believe we are living inside the matrix, i see no proof that we are living in the matrix, apart from believers telling me to have faith and that it is true there is absolutely nothing that suggests any kind of matrix...
"I require proof or convincing evidence before I believe something" is itself a faith-based perspective. Why is this perspective objectively the best way of viewing the universe?
to put the example in an even better way...
I look at my hand, there is no spot on my hand, there is no sensitive area of my hand which suggest a spot, infact i have tried using microscopes i have tried cutting into my hand to look under a few layers of skin, i have tried everything and there is absolutley no evidence for any kind of spot on my hand
By denying the exsistence of a spot on my hand am i taking up a faith based position or the one which is the obvious conclusion given lack of contradicting evidence ?
This is much worse than your matrix analogy. It only works if we know as much about how the universe works than we do about the back of our hands. We don't.
LittleGrizzly
11-01-2008, 14:26
"I require proof or convincing evidence before I believe something" is itself a faith-based perspective.
Asking for evidence to believe in something is not faith based at all, if i tell you were all going to die tomorrow but i have no proof i just know, are you taking a faith based perspective by assuming im wrong, are you taking a faith based perspective by looking at my lack of evidence and assuming i am wrong because i have none, or are you simply taking the sensible, obvious position that my lack of evidence means i am wrong
Why is this perspective objectively the best way of viewing the universe?
because this is the only way humans have got anywhere, we test things see the evidence of what works and what doesn't, what is true and what is not, humans would have got nowhere without critical thinking, it is essentially what marks humans apart from animals.
This is much worse than your matrix analogy. It only works if we know as much about how the universe works than we do about the back of our hands. We don't.
Ok, lets go back to the matrix analogy, are you telling me that your disbelief that we are living in the matrix is a faith based perspective, because in my opinion it is just logical and sensible to say we aren't living in the matrix, what do you think ?
Duke of Gloucester
11-01-2008, 15:31
Asking for evidence to believe in something is not faith based at all, if i tell you were all going to die tomorrow but i have no proof i just know, are you taking a faith based perspective by assuming im wrong, are you taking a faith based perspective by looking at my lack of evidence and assuming i am wrong because i have none, or are you simply taking the sensible, obvious position that my lack of evidence means i am wrong
It depends what you are saying. If you are saying that we definitely won't all die then although you are almost certainly going to be right, you are being dogmatic (no evidence = you are wrong) and this is what I mean by faith based. The truth is that although it is unlikely we will die tomorrow, it is not impossible. A non faith-based approach would be the agnostic one. We probably won't die tomorrow although there is a very small chance that we might.
because this is the only way humans have got anywhere, we test things see the evidence of what works and what doesn't, what is true and what is not, humans would have got nowhere without critical thinking, it is essentially what marks humans apart from animals.
It is not true to say that humans have only got anywhere by testing evidence and drawing conclusions. Even in science some progress has been made by people ignoring evidence and persisting with their ideas (for example Faraday and electromagnetic induction) but science is not the only field of human endeavor. What about literature, art, poetry, music etc. Neither does critical thinking soley consist in weighing evidence. There are other tests of ideas that can be applied moral judgements, aesthetic judgements financial judgements consistency judgemetns can all be applied critically. Nor is critical thinking essentially what sets us apart from animals although it is an important aspect of being human. Nor is it true to say that people of faith are incapable or even discouraged from thinking critically.
Ok, lets go back to the matrix analogy, are you telling me that your disbelief that we are living in the matrix is a faith based perspective, because in my opinion it is just logical and sensible to say we aren't living in the matrix, what do you think ?
Well yes, because I have a faith in a different sort of matrix, don't I? But if you believe that we are definitely not living in the matrix because there is no evidence (rather than saying we almost certainly are not living in the matrix because no evidence as come to light to suggest we are so far) then you are also working from a faith based perspective.
All this really misses the main point I was trying to make - what are the ethical consequences of atheism? What does it tell us about how what it means to be human and what does it tell us about injustice, suffering and the meaning of life. Surely it means something beyond "don't worry and enjoy life".
LittleGrizzly
11-01-2008, 16:06
It depends what you are saying. If you are saying that we definitely won't all die then although you are almost certainly going to be right, you are being dogmatic (no evidence = you are wrong) and this is what I mean by faith based. The truth is that although it is unlikely we will die tomorrow, it is not impossible. A non faith-based approach would be the agnostic one. We probably won't die tomorrow although there is a very small chance that we might.
To that extent you can argue that every single thing in the world is faith based, gravity, i only know what i have been told by others on the subject, i cannot see these forces they speak off at work, i do not know for sure that invisible monkeys aren't crashing things into the earth for a laugh.
I mean for all i really know every living thing in the world is an alien trying to trick me or my mum is secretly a cia agent that has brainwashed me as a sleeper agent, all of these things are so blatantly obviously wrong, though there is no way to be sure about anything
I am not stating that a lack of evidence makes something wrong, i am stating that not believing something due to a lack of evidence has no basis in faith or belief but is simply a logical and rational look at the information available, there are levels of atheism, im not an atheist that will tell you that there is definetly no god for sure, infact i think the message on the bus summed it up nicely, there is probably no god...
Nor is it true to say that people of faith are incapable or even discouraged from thinking critically.
i wouldn't judge religious people any lower than an atheist or agnost, they can be the most logical, rational and critical thinking people on any other subject, but when it comes to religion it is basically down to faith, you can think about it logically all day but you are not going to come a logical conclusion that god exsists, the basic aspect of religion is faith.
It is not true to say that humans have only got anywhere by testing evidence and drawing conclusions.
Ok, too much of a blanket statement i will admit, but we can both agree critical thinking and evidence based conclusions is very essential to the progress humans have made throughout the years, so why throw that aside and call it faith based when someone simply uses the same tools to look at the possibility of the exsistence of a god or not ?
Well yes, because I have a faith in a different sort of matrix, don't I?
TBH, i have never really thought of it in that way, it is an intresting way to look at it...
But if you believe that we are definitely not living in the matrix because there is no evidence (rather than saying we almost certainly are not living in the matrix because no evidence as come to light to suggest we are so far) then you are also working from a faith based perspective.
I am not saying that its 110% sure thing gaurenteed that we are not living in the matrix, but that i simply don't think we are living in the matrix, i don't see why me saying there is no matrix is a faith based perspective anymore than me saying the 9/11 conspiracys are a load of rubbish, i cannot now either way, but any rational logical thought on the process will reject the 9/11 conspiracys, will reject the idea of us living in a matrix and will reject the idea of god...
You going to have to clarify this point for me as i can't get my head around it, are you saying that the rejection of something with absolutely no evidence to back it up, involves faith ?
(let me clarify that the evidence has been looked for and attempted to find, it is not through lack of trying that the evidence doesn't exsist, it simply isn't around for us to look at..)
anyway i gtg, finish this later...
T
hahaHA! this was on have i got news for you in which a bus quote was 'god probably doesnt exist' wow what conviction!
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.