Campaign: Atheist Bus
21.10.08 | Ariane |
Atheism, Atheist Bus Campaign, Donation, Donations, Fundraising, Humour, London Buses, Richard Dawkins, Slogan, Thank You
** We reached the total at 1006 BST (GMT+1) on 21st October, just over 10 hours after launch – thank you so much to everyone who contributed! If you haven’t donated yet and would like to then please do – we are now aiming to launch a full advertising campaign across the UK! **
The Atheist Bus Campaign launches today, Tuesday October 21. With your support, we hope to raise £5,500 to run 30 buses across the capital for four weeks with the slogan: “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Donate online now!
Professor Richard Dawkins, bestselling author of The God Delusion, is officially supporting the Atheist Bus Campaign, and has generously agreed to match all donations up to a maximum of £5,500, giving us a total of £11,000 if we reach the full amount – enough for a much bigger campaign. Our campaign partner, the British Humanist Association, will be administering all donations.
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.
As Richard Dawkins says: “This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think – and thinking is anathema to religion.”
856 Responses to “Campaign: Atheist Bus”
Pages: « 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 » Show All
Pages: « 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 » Show All
March 13th, 2009 at 16:58
Phil,
I don’t know how that nurse approached the subject, but one of the greatest things nurses can do is give comfort. If the patient had been a believer, she may well have appreciated a prayer being said for her. If she wasn’t, then a polite refusal should have sufficed.
To my mind, the nurse’s suspension was over the top and uncalled for.
Rik
March 13th, 2009 at 18:09
Paul said:
“I agree that the Primary Care Trust was typically heavy-handed in the first place, but the sane, rational outcome prevailed.”
That is great news that she can go back to work – but she really shouldn’t have been suspended in the first place. Would she have got her job back without the high press coverage, and support from the ‘Christian Legal Centre’ though..?
RedCitrus said:
“However, these were not illegal acts either, so I don’t see how they are relevant to this discussion?”
She very nearly lost her job because she was being caring, and maybe only got it back because of the media pressure. That is why I thought this was relevant to our discussion on having a secular legal system.
Phil.
March 13th, 2009 at 18:26
Or, she might have only been disciplined in the first place because of media pressure. The media are never quite sure how to deal with cases like this.
As far as I can see, the only point at which the law would become relevant to this case is if she claimed unfair dismissal. Political correctness gone mad, etc.
Compare this to the case of the pharmacy worker who was sacked for refusing to dispense the morning-after pill. I would agree with this decision as she was imposing her beliefs on others and not fulfilling her job responsibilities.
In the case of the nurse, a polite refusal by the patient should have been the end of it.
March 17th, 2009 at 7:23
I posted recently that there are two schools of thought when it comes to biblical historicity – minimalism and maximalism. The Journal of Biblical Archaeology is an *example* of the field – it is where human beings should answer the question “is the bible true?” We dont answer this by “faith”.
http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=26&Issue=2&ArticleID=1
Some feel there is history in the Bible. Some do not. However, in the field of Biblical Archaeology you need evidence to prove your point. All Bible quote quotes require evidence.
Nows heres an interesting quote from the journal:
“There was a time, within memory, when the dominant academic view was not far removed from popular perceptions. Adam and Eve and Noah’s Ark may have been beyond the reach of historical inquiry, but everything else in the Bible was thought by scholars to accord well with what was known about the ancient Near East, in general if not in detail. That view no longer holds, and debate now rages over whether the tenth-century kings David and Solomon—never mind Abraham and Moses—were real or merely glorious mythic figures”
Now, thats interesting….
March 17th, 2009 at 11:02
Interesting how the nurse, who out of love offered to pray, get’s scolded and suspended and what not…..what is the world coming to.
no-one prays for someone else because they want to tick em off… ITS ABOUT LOVE!!! Love for other people, and the faith that goes with it.
now, it seems, if we ‘love our neighbour’ it’s against individual’s human rights…..?
March 17th, 2009 at 11:06
Werner
Had it been you in that situation, would you have objected if a Hindu nurse had offered to pray to Ganesh on your behalf?
March 17th, 2009 at 11:36
… remembering, of course, that Ganesh is an evil demon.
March 17th, 2009 at 11:36
thats an interesting one….
Werner, I’ll be awaiting your answer to RedCitrus’ question. You have admitted you do believe in Ganesh.
You talk about love. The problem is that although the intention is love, the act IGNORES the personal beliefs of the subject.
I have this experience in my own family. Regularly they say they will pray for me to their god. I ask them not too – instead, the fact that their hopes are with me is enough. However, they refuse and say they will still pray. They ignore my request.
I think LOVE is a good analogy. Religious people are very much in love. They are in love with the idea of a supernatural being looking over them, caring for them, providing them with hope and structure in their lives. I’m sure its powerful.
However, very often – Love is blind. What do we do when a friend is dating someone that is obviously damaging to them? They may still act out of love, however that doesnt mean it is the correct action.
Love your neighbour – thats fine. But dont assume they believe what you believe.
March 17th, 2009 at 11:51
Surely, in regard to the incident with the nurse, a lot depends on how she made the suggestion. That has never been made clear in any of the reports I have read. However, it seems to me that she could reasonably offer to pray once, and if it were not to the patient’s liking, the patient could politely refuse and that should be the end of it.
While we should not jam our own beliefs down the throats of others, we should at least allow them to express those beliefs in a non-invasive way.
Nursing is not all bed-pans and bandages. Having spent time in hospital, the greatest thing I remember nurses for was having the time to sit and hold my hand. Comfort takes many forms.
Rik
March 17th, 2009 at 12:36
Hi Rik,
I would agree, however I would stress the emphasis on the intention and the method. I find often when prayers are offered, it is accompanied with a ‘youre welcome to come to our church’. The assumption is that your belief system is incorrect and that prayer will lead you to the ‘right one’.
If a beliver wants to pray for me – I am in my rights to tell him that his best wishes will suffice. He can pray in his own time – I can’t stop him.
Comfort does take many forms. The importance of a bedside manner is crucial. However, I dont believe that prayer adds anything for a non-believer – only a demonstration that the believer simply does not agree with the patient’s views.
March 17th, 2009 at 13:45
Hi guys.
Red citrus – you had to ask
having not been in the situation myself, it’s difficult to say. i would probably allow the person to pray, and when done – seeing as he/she opened the topic, talk to them about Jesus…
Eoin – i heard a talk once about how the brain functions – got the papers somewhere (research papers mind you), and apparantly, everyone functions on a basic level from either a lover of fear perspective. This influences the way they talk, behave etc. I serve a God of love. in fact, God is love. Where there is love, there is no fear. your family loves you, and they know God loves you too, that’s why they pray for you, and that’s probably why the nurse offered to pray for the individual.
love is blind? I beg to differ – love chooses to see the good in people, rather than focus on the bad and negative.
Rik – a fantastic point – my mom is a nurse. Being a nurse is much more than – as you say – bed pans and bandages – there are personal relationships involved. patients sometimes have better relationships with the nursing staff than with the MD. i applaud her for stepping ‘out there’ and offering the prayer.
laters…
March 17th, 2009 at 20:31
Eoin,
you are, of course, perfectly correct when you say it all depends on the “intention and the method”. Isn’t that what I made clear in my original post?
But intention and method apply to everything, don’t they? If you visit someone (usually some old aunt!) you might expect to be offered tea and cake but also expect a refusal to accepted without argument. It’s called basic good manners, and should be exercised by both parties.
But if that old aunt didn’t even offer …? I, at least, would wonder why.
March 17th, 2009 at 21:11
Hi Rikk,
We’re saying the same thing. However, I wanted to think about what exactly *is* the intention of people that offer to prayer for you.
There have been claims that religious types do this out of love – I find that it can also be done to attempt to convert the ‘patient’ and for many other reasons. There are so many levels on which we can analyse the intent of someone who offers to pray for you.
It may be out of unswerving obedience, or an attempt to gain acceptence of their belief system based on a lack of self-esteem. For example, we saw the Deborah 13 documentary. If she offered to pray, I would have concerns that her intention was as a result of the brainwashing she has been subjected too.
So a ‘declared’ intention (i want to share the love of jesus) is one level, whereas this could change on a different level (i want you to tell me you believe in my god).
However, we’re making the same point.
March 18th, 2009 at 0:36
@RikGG, 709, who said: “Nursing is not all bed-pans and bandages. Having spent time in hospital, the greatest thing I remember nurses for was having the time to sit and hold my hand.”
Except that mostly, they don’t have time. My son is a staff nurse on the cardiothoracic unit of one of our biggest hospitals, and his night shift the other night was all about soothing insomniac patients.
He’d never offer to pray for a patient, (he’s agnostic) but what on earth is wrong with such an offer? It can always be declined with thanks for the thought and the caring behind it…
Deb
March 18th, 2009 at 0:46
Further to an offer to pray for someone, I have always been taught that it’s courteous (in fact mandatory) to ask first before praying for someone. To not ask is rude. It’s akin to turning up with casseroles on the doorstep of flatting teens, which implies they’re unable to feed themselves.
In regards to the oft-quoted study that showed that patients prayed for had a worse outcome, two points need to be made.
1. The difference in outcomes was 51% versus 52% – in any other study, statistically insignificant, but to quote the credit card adverts, for atheists, priceless!
2. Prayer works if it’s meaningful. Praying people in the study were given a list that said something like “Patient X in hospital Y, angioplasty” – and the list was arbitrarily handed out to everyone from Unitarians to evangelicals.
That doesn’t mean God won’t listen/answer but God knows the intention of the heart, and whether or not the person praying is doing so because she cares about the person prayed for or whether she’s participating in a study!
D
March 18th, 2009 at 1:01
I’ve got to say, if someone offered to pray for me if I was in hospital, or anywhere else for that matter, I’d certainly have no problem with that. They’re welcome to do so. I know it’s not going to have any effect or make any difference to me but if it makes that person happy then they’re welcome to do whatever they wish! I’m not sure I’d be too comfortable them praying in front of me but if they want to do it in the comfort of their own synagogue, chapel, mosque or whatever else, they can go for their lives.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:06
Glad to hear that Alastair!! As we are praying for you guys on this forum too…
Phil.
March 18th, 2009 at 8:46
Hi Debbie
“but what on earth is wrong with such an offer? It can always be declined with thanks for the thought and the caring behind it…”
But thats just the point – we need to examine the thought behind why someone would do this in much, much more detail.
Your assumption is that it is motivated by love. However, for others it is a tool to be used to bully and intimidate.
I have had experience of christians implying they would ‘pray’ for me because I was a sinner or because I disagreed with them. It was used as blackmail – “Either join us or your only hope is that we pray for you.”
Alternatively, it can also be used as an alternative to therapy. When I attended a church, I was always surprised at the number of people that admitted they depended on religion for their self-esteem. If anyone challenged their views, they would become quite emotional and withdrawn. I guess you could say they were addicted to prayer – yet, I really thought this was unhealthy.
So, what on earth is wrong with such an offer? The list could be endless – I will always ask people what their intention is.
March 18th, 2009 at 13:45
Hi Eoin.
You Said: “When I attended a church, I was always surprised at the number of people that admitted they depended on religion for their self-esteem. If anyone challenged their views, they would become quite emotional and withdrawn” – this is exactly one of the many problems the ‘church’ faces.
a lot of People (and i am generalising) go to church to sooth their own consciences. these are the ’sunday christians’ we talk about. These individuals are dependant on ‘religion’ for their self-esteem. A true, committed relationship with God would not be as shallow – people would not need to depend on other people to help them feel good about themselves or to ‘fit-in’. Instead, they would be able to help others!
Wern.
March 18th, 2009 at 14:22
Hi Werner,
I think I get your meaning – however, I never got the impression that the people I met were trying to deceive the church in any way. I met these people at uni – at a chaplaincy. I got the impression that some were shy people that found a community of nice people in which they felt comfortable. The idea that a supernatural being looked over them brought comfort too.
However, they were anything but Sunday Christians – in fact, some became nearly ‘addicted’ to the group, and attended multiple times a week.
I remember one guy saying “coming to church has given me a social life”. He truely believed in all the dogma and was in the chaplaincy nearly every day.
I find this troubling. Whether I agree with them or not – the ideas that you claim should be believed in *only* because they are *true* not because they help your self esteem or provide hope.
March 19th, 2009 at 15:28
Hi Eoin.
you said: “the ideas that you claim should be believed in *only* because they are *true* not because they help your self esteem or provide hope.”
I agree, however – when you enter into a relationship with God, and a personal one at that it does actually increase your self-esteem and does give you hope. Out of personal experience – when i found Jesus and found out who i was in Christ it completely changed my perceptions of the world – and it’s not because of what someone said – it’s something i discovered for myself – through a commitment and a relationship with Him. I see the world and my life now as an opportunity, instead of a waste of time. I enjoy fellowship and all the rest, but NOTHING can compare to the intimite time I spend in the presence of Almighty God.
Laters.
March 19th, 2009 at 16:46
Hi Werner,
You agree….. and then go and prove that in fact you disagree.
“I agree, however – when you enter into a relationship with God, and a personal one at that it does actually increase your self-esteem and does give you hope. ”
The “It gives you hope” argument has been given for religion many, many times. BUT we should believe in something because it is TRUE not because it brings us hope or makes us feel better about ourselves.
So, just because various religions give hope – DOES NOT make them true.
I cant remember the number of times that I’ve seen believers say that “non-belief is hopeless”… or something like that. Just because you need hope does not mean your god exists.
March 20th, 2009 at 15:35
hi Eoin
don’t have a lot of time now – so just a short post.
here’s the thing about hope and truth. i don’t believe because it gives my hope, i believe because its truth. When the truth and the holy spirit (spirit of truth) settled into my life and my fears about life – it gave me hope knowing that i believe in something truthfull (hope that makes sense)
so it’s not about believing to get hope – the truth gives you hope – regardless. it should’t be the other way around.
wern
March 20th, 2009 at 15:42
Werner,
And so we come round a full circle. You don’t KNOW it’s the truth, you can only assume it is, for you.
March 20th, 2009 at 15:59
Werner,
Sorry, but ‘i believe because its truth‘ is just not rational.
You can believe something to be true, of course, and you seem very sincere in your belief.
But it is some sort of mania to claim that you know the truth, whilst only having ‘voices in your head’ to back it up.
The thing that fogs me is that there is a vast body of scientific evidence that essentially rules out supernatural intervention beyond any reasonable doubt – yet you must be prepared to dismiss all this in order to ‘believe’ in an archaic sky-god.
Paul.
March 21st, 2009 at 12:58
Hi all…
Paul N said:
“But it is some sort of mania to claim that you know the truth, whilst only having ‘voices in your head’ to back it up.”
Hmmm, if it was just voices in our heads I might agree. BUT, it is far more than that. (Anyway, remember there is only one true God – so it is a voice not “voices”!!) You see, God has shown his amazing power and love in many ways for those who believe. Healings, deliverance from addictions, lives transformed, hope, purpose, guidance… the list goes on – but I am sure that you will say this is all in our heads or just coincedence…
Anyway, I hope you don’t mind, but we are regularly praying for you guys on here. We are praying that you will be able to see the truth and be set free from satans deceiving grasp. Yes, we are praying that you will be converted – and we are not sorry about that! We are not doing this for our own gain, if you become a Christian or not makes no difference to us – but it will make an eternal difference to yours!! (we don’t get brownie points for the amount we convert!!) We are doing this because we care about you and long for you to find God and see what you are missing!!
Have a great day guys,
Phil.
March 21st, 2009 at 13:02
Paul said:
“The thing that fogs me is that there is a vast body of scientific evidence that essentially rules out supernatural intervention beyond any reasonable doubt”
How does this scientific evidence rule out God..?
If anything, it makes me marvel even more so at how amazingly God has put this world and us together. He really is an awesome creator God, and this awesome creator God wants to have a personal relationship with each one of us – amazing!!
Phil.
March 21st, 2009 at 14:15
Er Phil,
I think I was a bit more careful in what I said.
Voice(s) in the head have no basis in science since no scientific measurement could be made of this phenomenon. That is your only evidence, as we’ve established over countless posts.
You have to build elaborate, invisible frameworks in order to maintain your belief.
You must accept that believing that an all-powerful omnipotent being is contrary to, say, the laws of thermodynamics or the laws of motion.
As I said, beyond reasonable doubt, god(s) don’t exist.
Paul.
March 21st, 2009 at 16:19
Phil said:
“Healings, deliverance from addictions, lives transformed, hope, purpose, guidance… the list goes on”
…but it doesn’t seem to go on to include anything that might actually be true, does it?
That’s a very wishy-washy list. How about some *real* miracles? Turning the sun green? Making gravity go the other way?
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:22
@RedCitrus, who said: 729
That’s a very wishy-washy list. How about some *real* miracles? Turning the sun green? Making gravity go the other way?”
Why would God want to turn the sun green just for your pleasure? No, the information is out there, and God has said “If you will seek me, then you will find me” and here’s the important part “if you will search for me with all your heart”. You’ve gotta mean it. God knows if you’re playing games.
Deb
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:40
Debbie,
“Why would God want to turn the sun green just for your pleasure?”
Now youre on dangerous ground – not only do you believe in a supernatural being but you now claim to know its mind ie when and how it will perform miracles……?!
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:28
It must be very frustrating for you guys, this whole “miracle” thing.
a) it only seems to happen in church, and therefore;
b) it only seems to happen in front of those who already believe (how convenient);
c) it only ever seems to be rather unconvincing cures – addiction, etc. “My headache…it’s gone….it’s a miracle!”. How about regrowing a missing limb for once?
You say that I will find God “if you will search for (him) with all your heart”. Well, that’s impossible. In order to achieve this, I would have to entertain the possibility that he exists in the first place.
As I’ve said before, I would happily change my mind if I were presented with compelling evidence to the contrary. It’s all a bit of a one-way street, this belief in God thing, isn’t it?
I read an interesting quote about theology the other day:
“Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn’t there.”
The same could be said of your belief. You believe the black cat is there, whereas I don’t.
I’m not the one “playing games”. God is the one engaging in hide & seek – he’s the one playing the games.
March 23rd, 2009 at 13:01
Ah. “Miracles” yes – we’ve been here before.
Remember our discussion on causal proof. Saying that you have SEEN something is NOT proof that the laws of science were broke. So, if your associated were “healed” in church and you “saw” this – it is NOT evidence.
We need to analyse the person cured.
We need hundreds more examples of a similar miracle happening – was each case the same?
We need to understand the mechanism by which a supernatural being made contact with the person that was ‘healed’. What biochemical processes were altered – and how?
These are the kind of steps that we need to take. Simply saying that you SAW something is nowhere near. At all.
March 24th, 2009 at 0:18
@eoin, who said: :”Now youre on dangerous ground – not only do you believe in a supernatural being but you now claim to know its mind ie when and how it will perform miracles……?!”
God is not ‘it’ (although God does not have gender). I know Sir Dawk requires of you, deliberate disrespect, but it makes you look like a pillock, really.
Your assertion is meaningless. By definition, God is above humankind, and has IMO, (IOO), given the Bible to indicate God’s mind. No mention of parlour tricks to satisfy determined non-believers there!
Deb
March 24th, 2009 at 0:22
@RedCitrus, who said: “As I’ve said before, I would happily change my mind if I were presented with compelling evidence to the contrary. It’s all a bit of a one-way street, this belief in God thing, isn’t it?”
Change your mind? I don’t believe so. You’ve rejected evidence already, and you’re so tightly closed against the possibility (the fear) of ever being convinced, it’ll take drastic means for God to reach you, and it’s possible that you’ll get your most fervent wish, that God will leave you alone, and believe me, the results of that won’t please you one bit after your death!
Deb
March 24th, 2009 at 0:30
@eoin,
Man, you can’t do doubler-blind trials on miracles! “We need to analyse the person cured.
We need hundreds more examples of a similar miracle happening – was each case the same?”
But google Lourdes and Miceli, if you can be bothered (my guess is not), and I’ll see what I can find.
As you should be aware (but may not be) Lourdes has a medical bureau who examine each claimed cure with rigour, and thoroughly investigated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_Medical_Bureau#Vittorio_Micheli
for starters…
Deb
March 24th, 2009 at 6:56
sun turn green? common!
in the final days the following will happen: “The sun turned as dark as sackcloth, and the moon became as red as blood”
maybe then you will believe? When it’s too late….
March 24th, 2009 at 8:47
Debbie,
You seem to accept anything on the internet as true.
I’m sure I’ll be able to find another wiki that makes similar claims for other gods.
Will you accept their validity with the same naivety?
Paul.
March 24th, 2009 at 9:06
Paul, what a bizarre accusation! The Wikipedia link is one of dozens I found, and here was stupid me, thinking you’d accept that better than any of the others!
I don’t suppose you actually read it… I think you’d find that too threatening to your worldview. I am so disillusioned with you, as Werner and Phil have yet to be, but I have been debating atheists for years. I know how you think, and I know all the tactics, baiting us with questions about Ganesh, (on h2g2 it was Shiva, until the guy actually looked into it and discovered Shiva isn’t even a creator god!) He fell right in it, but the atheist cheering section jeered at the Muslim he’d tried to attack and not the idiot who thought he’d scored a point, as if a Muslim has to accept Shiva or he’s some kind of hypocrite.
If you’ll neither read nor accept Wikipedia, I give up. Just keep being your usual bullying self.
Deb
March 24th, 2009 at 9:37
wow – i can again feel the heat in this room…
guys – about miracles. i stand on the opinion that you cannot expect to see God at work if you are not in the areas where He works. If you hang out with a thug, you’ll see things you’ve never seen before – brutal muggings etc. So, if you spend time in the company of a believer(s), odds are you’ll see miracles happen. God isn’t going to turn the sun green ‘just for you’.
As for causal proof – Eoin – i again ask the question – if you stood next to someone in church who got healed (a limb growing back, blindness whatever) – you saw it with your own eyes – of even if it happened to you – would you still seek causal proof, KNOWING what you had just witnessed?
Wern
March 24th, 2009 at 9:46
Debbie
“Man, you can’t do doubler-blind trials on miracles!”
Any natural phenomena *can* be investigated. If you claim any supernatural being made contact with a human being and ‘cured’ them – well yes, we absolutely must investigate that.
If there is no evidence of contact or that any biochemical process was initiated by an external force – then the event is unverified.
“God is not ‘it’ (although God does not have gender). I know Sir Dawk requires of you, deliberate disrespect, but it makes you look like a pillock, really.”
This is the problem – for me ALL gods are it. All religious people claim a particular god. You claim a supernatural being exists. I’m interested if “it” actually does.
Finally, namecalling does not help your arguments. Lets keep our ideas focused on the debate.
“If you’ll neither read nor accept Wikipedia, I give up. Just keep being your usual bullying self.”
I think the point here is what we regard as evidence. Wiki is a great source – but there are a lot of errors. The best source is the academic community – here ideas are published and tested. However, getting access to it is hard.
I dont think you have been bullied – simply challenged over beings that we dont believe exist.
March 24th, 2009 at 9:48
Werner,
As for causal proof – Eoin – i again ask the question – if you stood next to someone in church who got healed (a limb growing back, blindness whatever) – you saw it with your own eyes – of even if it happened to you – would you still seek causal proof, KNOWING what you had just witnessed?
I sat and watched Derren Brown put a nail through one ear and it come out the other. With my own eyes, in the theatre. Therefore it must be true.
Paul
March 24th, 2009 at 9:48
“As for causal proof – Eoin – i again ask the question – if you stood next to someone in church who got healed (a limb growing back, blindness whatever) – you saw it with your own eyes – of even if it happened to you – would you still seek causal proof, KNOWING what you had just witnessed?”
Werner
Seeing is NOT KNOWING. I have said this many times. Just because you SEE something does not mean you KNOW it.
I would 100% absolutely want to investigate it. I cant stress this strongly enough.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:06
A simple question for Debbie@734
‘God is not ‘it’ (although God does not have gender). ‘
If ‘God’ is genderless, then why do most of your fellow christian friends refer to ‘God’ as ‘He’?
Why not ‘She’?
And, if genderless, then why not ‘it’?
March 24th, 2009 at 10:12
Debbie
You are *so* wrong. If faced with irrefutable evidence, verified by independent scientific analysis that God exists, then OF COURSE I would believe in him. Just in the same way that, even though I cannot see it, I believe in DNA, atoms, radiation, gravity, etc. These things have been discovered under controlled conditions, subjected to peer review, independently validated and are now accepted as “existing” because we can study them and their effects on the world around us.
If the existence of God could be demonstrated through the same rigorous methods, then I would have no problem at all in believing in him, really I wouldn’t (whether I would worship him or not is another matter.) Evidence is more than someone going to Lourdes, dipping their leg in some magic water and claiming that their dicky knee is healed. It’s true that strength of belief can sometimes heal illnesses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosomatic) but in these cases it’s the belief itself which is the cure, not the thing being believed.
Werner said: “The sun turned as dark as sackcloth, and the moon became as red as blood”.
Er, that’ll be a Solar Eclipse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse) and the Harvest Moon, then (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvest_moon). We’re living in the 21st Century, Werner. No need to be frightened!
March 24th, 2009 at 12:12
Paul – Derren Brown is: “a unique force in the world of ILLUSION… a mixture of magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and SHOWMANSHIP…powerful and provocative form of ENTERTAINMENT…”
He is a combination of: psychological illusion, perceptual manipulation and persuasive technique.
i understand your point about causal proof and all – FINE!
But based on your posts you guys are suggesting that you won’t even believe YOURSELF!!! How can you function normally in society? “Look – a Rat on the tube line” – “Or is it? Hmm…wonder if there is causal proof for it? I’ll pretend i didn’t see it and move away”
Red Citrus – frightened? I embrace it! God is in me, God is love, where there is love there is no fear!!
March 24th, 2009 at 12:39
Werner,
You are totally misunderstanding what is proof.
The requirement for proof is relative.
If you tell me you are from city A, well, I’m likely to believe you – I’ll take it on trust. Lets say you claim youre actually from a planet far far away – well, my brain kicks in and begins to ask questions. Or lets say you see a man fly. Can people fly? Well, you’ve seen it – so it MUST be true…. right?
Ever since humans adopted the scientific method – we simply cant think this way. How can we function in society? Society DEPENDS on the scientific method.
All the disiplines of science, economics, philosophy teach us to ask questions. If I see someone cured by a faith healer or by a god – I will still investigate further. SEEING it is NOT evidence. Because, in fact the cure is not seen – the actual biochemical process is unknown. We need to understand what exactly happened.
A final example. Lets say a man goes to the doctor and tells him he needs medicine. He gives a choice – 2 pills. The first has been through many clinical trials and verified. Regulatory agencies have approved it. The second has not – yet, he tells the man his god has spoken to him and that it will cure him much much faster.
How should the man treat the two types of proof?
March 24th, 2009 at 12:52
eoin.
as i said, i understand causal proof – no problem there. but scientific (human) methods aside now – how would you react? what would you think? if you saw something or experienced something similiar? Surely there would be a part of you that is in belief. the part of you that wants to investigate further is human – it’s natural for us to doubt these things – but as for your emotional and spiritual side – would there not be an inclining that this ‘might actually be true’? and if this is true that God exists?
Werner
March 24th, 2009 at 13:09
Hi Werner,
“but scientific (human) methods aside now – how would you react? what would you think?”
Simple. I would not accept myself seeing something as the definition of something being true. The event would be left UNVERIFIED. Once again. Seeing is not proof. How many times do I have to say this?!
Why do you ask for scientific methods to be left aside? That is how we get evidence. It works for economists, scientists, historians, governments etc etc.
“but as for your emotional and spiritual side – would there not be an inclining that this ‘might actually be true’? and if this is true that God exists?”
Absolutely – 100% – totally ….not a chance in hell would I put truth on a “emotional inclination”.
An emotional inclination is NOT proof. Gut feeling is NOT proof.
You claim to understand scientific proof and then say things like this, which concerns me. I’m getting the impression that you want a set of special laws for religious events where scientific proof is not required? Well, erm – no.
March 24th, 2009 at 13:38
Eoin
if you read my post carefully, i said i understand causal proof – but scientific methods aside.
How do you know you love someone? How do you know someone loves you? Gut feeling…warm and fuzzy feeling inside? where is the proof…