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 24th, 2009 at 14:03
Werner,
I think I did read your post… it went:
“as i said, i understand causal proof – no problem there. but scientific (human) methods aside now – how would you react?”
However, I’m concerned that you still dont. Your example of ‘love’ goes to confirm it. Remember, proof is relative. The proof we require that someone loves us is different to the proof required that the laws of science have been broken. My experience of being loved is quite a different event to if a miracle has occured. My being loved really effects me – a miracle if true would effect the entire world.
Nevertheless, we could break ‘being loved’ down to what a person does for you – what actions they take. This can be regarded as evidence. We can then use brain imaging methods to see what part of the brain is actived in people in love. Do we do this regularly? No, because the required proof is relative.
You didnt answer my example of the man faced with the 2 pills. Could you answer that? Would you take the pill based on emotional instinct?
Do you think economists, thinktanks, governments should act on emotional instincts? When should we use an emotional instinct and when should we require further evidence?
March 25th, 2009 at 19:02
Eoin.
In terms of the pills, i don’t think it’s a valid point. taking a pill because a doctor said his god had spoken to him about it is taking a risk – a pill that has not been clinically tested. a person who is prayed for and healed runs no risk of injury, infection, allergic reaction or any side-affect.
Secondly – i think love is a good example – you say seeing is not believing, yet you give credit to what actions a person would take when loved – thus, assuming that you observe those actions, seeing is to an extent believing.
Government – blowing it out of proportion – the government obvioulsy need to make a decision based on thorough research as to what would be best decision to take. The person could always pray for wisdom to make those decisions.
The initial point was about miracles, and it went into ‘causal proof’ again. indeed a vicious little circle.
I am saying that i believe 100% in faith healing. GOD DOES HEAL PEOPLE EVERYDAY. I have witnessed some of it, been part of some of it, heard from others about some of it (people who would have no reason to lie) and read a lot about it. For me its real and from God, and untill you let ‘causal proof’ fall out of your head, you will not believe it.
come to think of it – you haven’t answered my question – you keep running circles around it – WHAT WOULD YOU DO/SAY/BELIEVE/FEEL IF YOUR MOTHER/BROTHER/WIFE WERE HEALED OF A PHYSICAL DISABILITY/BLINDNESS/CANCER BEFORE YOUR EYES… and you know they are not lying!!!!
March 25th, 2009 at 19:22
Hi Werner,
To: WHAT WOULD YOU DO/SAY/BELIEVE/FEEL IF YOUR MOTHER/BROTHER/WIFE WERE HEALED OF A PHYSICAL DISABILITY/BLINDNESS/CANCER BEFORE YOUR EYES … I would feel very happy indeed.
I’d be interested in finding out how it happened and I assume doctors would too.
To try and discover what happened, various controlled experiments would be necessary. More than likely, we would only be able to make guesses, but we might learn something new.
At no point would it be useful to invoke religious belief to answer the question.
Paul
March 25th, 2009 at 20:43
Werner,
You’re just not capable of logic, are you?
Your thinking seems to be: something has happened which we can’t yet explain (or which we may never explain, but some people will keep trying).
Therefore there is a god. And not just “a” god, but MY God, the one I was taught about as a child. Or (sorry but I can’t be bothered to go back through your numerous posts to find out whether you were a cradle Christian or whether you saw the light after a few decades of being “wrong”) the God I later came to believe in. Either way, the leap is not logical.
March 25th, 2009 at 22:22
Hiya Werner,
I’ll come back to your other points later. However, i need to address this again ( though I have answered it before)
“WHAT WOULD YOU DO/SAY/BELIEVE/FEEL IF YOUR MOTHER/BROTHER/WIFE WERE HEALED OF A PHYSICAL DISABILITY/BLINDNESS/CANCER BEFORE YOUR EYES?”
Here we go. Lets say it is cancer. I would ask questions. What has happened to the cancerous cells? If this happened ‘before me’ – how did it happen over such a short timeframe? Why has it not happened before? I would publish the incident in peer-reviewed journals so that other cancer researchers could learn of what happened.
I would ask my relative to take sample tests to examine if their organs have fully cleared from cancerous cells.
Everything I did would be based on human beings current understanding of cancer and the evidence we have.
I would CERTAINLY NOT be lead to believe that just because I SAW the event happen in front of me meant that it was caused by a supernatural being. Remember, SEEING something is NOT PROOF.
So……
“you haven’t answered my question – you keep running circles around it”
I have answered this question before – and now I do so again.
March 26th, 2009 at 5:04
“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’?”
Our language doesn’t have a genderless pronoun (unlike Japanese, where there is a pronoun especially used for God, incorporating both male and female. Most of my fellow Christians refer to God as ‘he’, but not all, as you seem to already know, many say ’she’. (The reasons ‘he’ is used are both historical and cultural, again as you know.) God includes both male and female gender, not neither, and I and many others, find it simplest to simply not use pronouns at all, and simply read the word God.
You know very well that when you say ‘it’ your intention is to cause anger. Very well, if ‘God doesn’t exist’ is your excuse, then I presume the target of your spite is actually the believers you’re speaking to.
If you have a domestic animal, probably a dog (atheists prefer dogs, I’ve noticed though I don’t have a theory as to why), and I met your dog, I’d call your dog ‘it’, until otherwise told. This is because (a), I don’t go for generic he, unlike the Americans, and (b), I don’t like dogs.
Do you get my point?
Deb
March 26th, 2009 at 7:59
Eoin, Paul, and JohnnyYes.
Paul – GOOD FOR YOU. Finally – someone who allows himself some emotion. OF COURSE YOU WOULD BE HAPPY!! and MANY people afterward do go to a doctor to confirm the healing – leaving the doctor dumbstruck. What then – would (after your controlled experiments) you not then be in a better position to say “God does exist”?
Johnnyyes – Have you coined a new phrase? ‘cradle christian’. I grew up in a Christian home, but abandoned the belief after school and went my mary way. 3 years ago God exploded into my life and I couldn’t deny Him.
Eoin -You say: “I would CERTAINLY NOT be lead to believe that just because I SAW the event happen in front of me meant that it was caused by a supernatural being”
think about the circumstances of Devine Healing. You and *significant other* just happen to be in CHURCH – someone comes and prays *in the name of Jesus* and the next thing healing takes place. If not a supernatural being (God) what then?
laters.
March 26th, 2009 at 8:51
Hey werner!
We’re getting there!
“You and *significant other* just happen to be in CHURCH – someone comes and prays *in the name of Jesus* and the next thing healing takes place. If not a supernatural being (God) what then?”
EXACTLY!! What could it be that has cured my significant other? Your solution is to say that it is a supernatural being – simply because we SAW it. You get a correlation between the prayer and the cure. The prayer is said and lo – a cure.
No. This is wrong – we need to investigate what happened to obtain EVIDENCE that the prayer is the cause of the cure. We would need to publish what we find and have it reviewed by other experts. We need to analyse other cases where this occured.
Maybe my ’significant other’ had a very rare form of tumour that self-healed? Maybe she wasnt sick at all? Maybe the diagnosis was incorrect? Maybe what I and hundreds of others at church thought we saw – was actually something else – and not actually a cure.
Maybe. Maybe. Maybe.
“If not a supernatural being (God) what then?”
Your question goes to the heart of the matter – we need to investigate and find evidence to help us understand what occured. However, SEEING is NOT enough
March 26th, 2009 at 10:33
Hi Werner,
You said:-and MANY people afterward do go to a doctor to confirm the healing – leaving the doctor dumbstruck. What then – would (after your controlled experiments) you not then be in a better position to say “God does exist”?.
Even if what you say (MANY, dumbstruck, etc) is verifiable, no. That’s what someone who has already decided would think.
There are plenty of examples of things that were previously considered divine going on to be explained scientifically. RedCitrus mentioned eclipses. A rainbow is another example.
An unexplained ‘healing’ does not imply a god, any more than it implies impossible-to-detect aliens with sight-regaining ray guns. Both are equally likely.
All you are doing is filling an a gap in our knowledge with wishful thinking.
March 26th, 2009 at 10:53
hey werner,
Going back to my scenario of the doc and the 2 pills – see earlier post. I said I would come back to your earlier comments this I find really really interesting…
“In terms of the pills, i don’t think it’s a valid point. taking a pill because a doctor said his god had spoken to him about it is taking a risk – a pill that has not been clinically tested. a person who is prayed for and healed runs no risk of injury, infection, allergic reaction or any side-affect.”
Here you are very definite about two different forms of evidence. First – a clinical trial to validate safety. Second – prayer for a healed person.
However, in my scenario the doctor has prayed to his god (not yours….its a different one) and that god has informed him that the pill is safe and far better than the other one.
Why can you not accept his emotional bond with his god as evidence? Why can you not free your mind from your requirement of a clinical trial? Surely the fact that the doctor’s god has spoken to him is enough? What brings you to want the clinical trial?
March 26th, 2009 at 14:48
Hi Guys!
Eoin – #758 – I understand your point. when talking about evidence however, one also has to take the circumstances of the event into consideration. The environment was in the church, the circumstances was ‘blindness’ – the action was prayer, and after the prayer – healed! Surely this should be part of ‘all’ the evidence. a person does not just walk into a church and gets ’self-healed’ – although this has happened – there is an action connected to it – prayer. Prayer cannot be left out of the equation.
#760 – the doc with the pills – as a Christian, and a child of the living God, i know that other gods are ‘false gods’, therefore would not trust what the doc is saying, and insist on medication that i know has been tested in the past.
Prayer for a person’s health, and taking a tablet prescribed by a person’s god are 2 different things altogether. One is human intervention, the other devine intervention – accept for prayer – the two cannot be linked.
March 26th, 2009 at 15:14
Werner
All I can say is that it’s just as well that very few people share you view on what constitutes “evidence”. Otherwise we’d be without modern medicine at all, and in all probability we’d still be drilling into each other’s skulls to release “evil spirits” in an attempt to cure disease.
“Prayer cannot be left out of the equation.”
We’ve already talked about psychosomatic illnesses, and blindness can occur both as a physiological condition as well as a psychosomatic one – in the latter case, it is perfectly possible that through prayer such conditions can be cured – it is, however, only the belief in prayer and not the prayer itself which is the cure. There is an important difference: the first is science, the second is superstition.
March 26th, 2009 at 15:16
Hey Werner, you say….
“Eoin – #758 – I understand your point. when talking about evidence however, one also has to take the circumstances of the event into consideration. The environment was in the church, the circumstances was ‘blindness’ – the action was prayer, and after the prayer – healed!”
Werner, We really need to crack this correlation thing youve got going on
Youre doing it again and again and again…… There was an action – PRAYER. There was a result – CURE/HEALING.
This is called correlation. It means that something happens (ie a prayer) and there is a result – HOWEVER it does not mean that “the something” (ie the prayer) is the CAUSE of the result.
We’ve been over this before and you claim to understand it – but your arguments then go directly against this claim.
So lets be really really clear. The prayer happens. A cure happens. Just because we’re in a church or whatever – it is STILL A CORRELATION. You must prove the prayer is the CAUSE of the cure.
Lets take this another way. Lets say you pray for a blind man and lo – he can see. You do then deny that there is NO POSSIBLE NATURAL explanation? That the only explanation can be your god came in and cured him???
March 26th, 2009 at 19:49
Debbie@756
Sure I get your point.
Still, referring to ‘God’ as ‘it’ is a grammatically correct usage of the English language to refer to a ‘thing’ which has no gender.
If I have a coffee table called George and found it offensive that you didn’t recognise it to be called George, that would be my problem, not yours and you would still be within your right to refer to ‘it’.
The same goes for my pet dog (but don’t presume that I would have a dog as a pet above say, a parrot or gold fish or cat or hamster or goat).
You imply that my use of ‘it’ is to offend those who believe in ‘God’: perhaps you should know that some of those who do not believe in god are offended when people refer to a great creator and ‘it’ ’s actions and will with whatever name; who find the things done in the name of ‘God’ equally if not substantially more offensive and I would maintain that these are much more malicious than getting ‘God’ ’s name wrong or not not recognising the existence of any god.
Do you get my point? Rhetorical question actually as you will still argue the toss no matter.
March 26th, 2009 at 20:10
Eoin
Ok, let’s say there is a natural explanation. Why did it not happen (the natural explanation) while the guy/girl was in the bath/kitchen/work/supermarket – and just spontaneously?
how come it happens when a person is prayed for (not necessarily in the church)- and i’m not talking about psychosomatics – actual blindness? maybe it’s God that initiated the ‘natural explanation’ that would otherwise not have happened?
March 26th, 2009 at 20:18
maybe it’s God that initiated the ‘natural explanation’ that would otherwise not have happened? … or maybe my ray-gun toting alien likes visiting churches.
P
March 26th, 2009 at 20:20
Maybe. And maybe not. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
March 27th, 2009 at 0:00
Hello Roy, you said: “Do you get my point? Rhetorical question actually as you will still argue the toss no matter”
Actually no. You know your intent, which is to offend believers. But I know you’ll never admit it. So frankly, no, I can’t be bothered. Your coffee table analogy is absurd, but you know that too.
Deb
March 27th, 2009 at 3:31
Debbie@768
I expected a response of that kind.
Boring really.
March 27th, 2009 at 3:49
Boring, really? Is that because I won’t play your silly little game of being asked the same question, and if I word my reply slightly differently, bing accused of contradicting myself? Or any of your other atheist games?
I’ve learned from you people, all your tactics. I refuse to play the game according to your rules, so I get a sneer. Come on, you people are supposed to be the Brights, we’re supposed to be the morons. Can’t you do better than ‘boring’? It’s fun to see how scared you boys get when you encounter a woman who can give as good as she gets, or a believer who’s acquainted with all your tricks.
Run back to Dicky-Di-Do Dawk and ask him what to do!
Ban me?
That’s usually the next step. Werner and Phil, if I suddenly disappear you know what they’ve done, just as they did on the Dawk site, a believer free place.
Deb
March 27th, 2009 at 14:08
P
Welcome to the forum!!
Quite an impression you make “ray-gun toting aliens” with a first visit…Let’s try and stay away from sarcasm for a while shall we…
Laters.
March 27th, 2009 at 14:22
Hey Werner,
That ‘P’ was me … Paul N.
And I did put a little smiley to suggest cheekiness!
Paul N
March 27th, 2009 at 20:18
Thanks paul – for coming clean
i suppose we need a bit of humour now and then…
away for the weekend. will check back in on monday…
March 29th, 2009 at 22:42
Debbie,
Take a breath. Your post keep making a host of assumptions of what we atheists all believe. I’m all for debate and challenging our position – thats what I take a debate to be. However, your last posts have severely damaged your credibility.
“I’ve learned from you people, all your tactics”
did you really say “you people”…?
“Run back to Dicky-Di-Do Dawk and ask him what to do!”
Now, have you asked all of us if we agree with Dawkins? I’m assuming thats what youre trying to get at here?
“or a believer who’s acquainted with all your tricks.”
This is a debate – there are no tricks. We simply dont agree with you.
So, keep in the debate, but take a breath and lets keep the going easy eh?
all the best
March 30th, 2009 at 2:03
Yes, I did say ‘you people’. Why is that a problem?
Yes, I am familiar with your tricks… I’ve been on h2g2 for 7 years and the Dawk site for one year, before being thrown off. I particularly resented being thrown off h2g2, as I’d been there for 6 years with no trouble, and had been there longer than many if not most of the Angry Atheists who bent the rules to ban me.
The Dawk site was another issue – I didn’t want to be there, and so being banned was just ‘ho-hum, typical’.
Forgive my assuming you’re all fans of Sir Dawk, but if you’re not, I will buy a hat to eat.
Deb
March 30th, 2009 at 7:57
Debbie,
“Yes, I did say ‘you people’. Why is that a problem?”
Its is a problem – because its rude, offsensive – and most importantly – you add nothing to the debate.
Unlike Werner and Phil – your solution to someone who disagrees with you, is to simply fire insults at them. You dont engage with people to find out exactly what they believe and why they believe it.
“Forgive my assuming you’re all fans of Sir Dawk, but if you’re not, I will buy a hat to eat.”
Once again, you seem to find comfort in your current view of non-believers – and unwilling to get new information to confirm youre right. Well, please do buy a hat. Richard Dawkins is only one author on non-belief – there are thousands more. There are areas where I feel he is correct, but I certainly do not agree with him on everything as you claim. However, even if I did – you assume this without asking.
Let me ask you a question. You obviously simply dont like anyone who doesnt profess belief in a god. However, we do all have to live together. We do have to form laws and direct society in the best way we can, given our disagreement. Now, how does your solution of simply firing off insults help this situation?
Werner, Phil – what are your thoughts on Debbie’s approach to us?
As a final suggestion, maybe you could learn a bit more about humanism? There are lots of books out there. I think you would be quite surprised at the numbers of areas in which we agree. Instead of of assuming what we think, why not take it as an opportunity to ask questions or challenge us?
March 30th, 2009 at 8:10
“Let me ask you a question. You obviously simply dont like anyone who doesn’t profess belief in a god. However, we do all have to live together. We do have to form laws and direct society in the best way we can, given our disagreement. Now, how does your solution of simply firing off insults help this situation?”
Eoin, first, I am not Werner or Phil, I am me. If you’all want to be considered as individuals, let we believers have the same right.
Second I have no problem with non-believers – after all, half my family are atheist. My problem is with internet atheists who insult believers, twist what they say, and who like ‘The 4 Horsemen’ (Dawk, Dennett, Harris & Hitchens), wld like to see us all in mental institutions.
Deb
March 30th, 2009 at 8:20
Hi Debbie,
Your conduct is just as bad.
“My problem is with internet atheists who insult believers, twist what they say…”
You’ve committed the exact same offense. And you do it again – who said the ‘4 horsemen’ are the only authors to refer to? Do we agree with all of them? Have you asked us?
Have you heard of the ‘Beyond Belief’ conference? The above 4 certainly do attend – however there are many other speakers that give very interesting ideas on why they think religion occurs.
I would ask you to stop assuming what we all think just because of who you have interacted with in the past.
March 30th, 2009 at 8:31
eoin, you’ve yet to demonstrate in what way you’re any different from the most zombifiedly devoted followers of ‘The 4 Horsemen’. If you’re different, I’d like to know in what respect.
If you think I haven’t read their books, you mistake me, I have, as I’ve also read about the ‘Beyond Belief’ conferences. (I read New Scientist, and they always cover them.)
Deb
March 30th, 2009 at 9:09
I’m sorry, but you’ve all completely lost me now. 4 Horsemen? H2G2? What?
March 30th, 2009 at 9:25
Hi RedCitrus,
According to the bible, I think they are disease, war, pestilence and famine.
A charming bunch that are going to sweep across the world, leaving only the (right set of) believers alone.
The rest of us are going to fry, it seems.
It’s easier to talk about ‘Sir Dawks’ etc. than counter this tosh.
Paul.
March 30th, 2009 at 9:27
Eoin, Paul…anyone….
I’d like to change the subject just ever so slightly from where we were last (#762 – 765) about healing.
As healing is one of the gifts of the spirit, i’d like to hear your thoughts on some of the other gifts of the spirit, particularly the gifts of: Tongues, Prophecy and Discernment.
Are you aware of these?
March 30th, 2009 at 10:01
Oh, I see. *Those* four horsemen!
So why would Debbie describe us as being “zombifiedly devoted followers of ‘The 4 Horsemen’”? Is it a metaphor for something else in this context?
March 30th, 2009 at 10:09
Debbie,
You might want to buy another hat. I’m not a “fan” of Dawkins, although I do have his last book.
I must say the tone that comes across when you say “you people” DOES come across offensively and yes, I have a problem with that too. You keep talking about being banned from this site or that site (none of which I’ve ever been to – I can only guess h2g2 is the BBC Hitchhiker’s Guide To the Galaxy site?) as if you’re proud of the fact and keep going on about being banned from here as if you’re begging to be banned to add another war medal to your collection.
You do need to chill out a little, most of your posts of late seem to be very aggressive and very attacking, while I think as a whole this “forum” has been quite pleasant.
Personally, my interest in the “atheist community” on the internet or off it goes no further than this site – I did buy a tshirt though, and very nice it is too. I’ve never been to the h2g2 site and I’ve rarely visited the Dawkin’s site – I signed up for the forum there but have never got round to reading or posting anything.
So what “tricks” these “us people” use, I couldn’t tell you.
March 30th, 2009 at 10:13
RedCitrus,
Deb is describing Dawkins, Hitchen, Harris and Dennett (who?) as “The 4 Horsemen” and assuming we all worship these guys and follow their every word.
March 30th, 2009 at 10:39
Debbie,
I have to admit you have me stumped – I have never met someone so determined to prevent debate occuring. I try to reach out a hand to continue a debate, and your reply….
“you’ve yet to demonstrate in what way you’re any different from the most zombifiedly devoted followers of ‘The 4 Horsemen’. If you’re different, I’d like to know in what respect.”
I COULD ask you “how different you are from the zombifiedly Westboro church?”. I COULD make great assumptions that you believe in a 6000 year old world…. and so on. But I would argue, I dont. I ask what you believe and if I disagree I will challenge you.
The four you discuss are interesting. Harris offers some interesting ideas on eastern meditation. Dennent, in my opinion has offered the best approach. He simply says we should research why religion exists – lets get the best minds we have to investigate this.
However – personally I’m more interested in the research that appears in journals. For example, I feel Pascal Boyer and Scott Altran offer a much more advanced interpretation of the existence of religion than Dawkins or Hitchens. I also like Norenzayan et al and his discussion on religious prosociality.
But you appear hellbent on generalising, not listening and insulting us. I’m interested – how do you debate with the non-believers in your family? Do you treat them the same way as in your posts? Are they “zombified”?
In my last post, I suggested reading up on humanism – what do you think? Although you wont agree with the philosophy, I think it might help you see exactly the range of views within non-believers.
March 31st, 2009 at 0:33
The non-believers in my family are entirely different, I leave them alone and they leave me alone (except for my youngest son, we occasionally debate.)
Which is something you may well want to do, but it makes you an exception among people here.
Yes, I’ve allowed my temper, my impatience and my past experiences to get the better of me, and I apologise for that. But really, past experience on other sites, *and here* have shown that many, if not most internet atheists (i.e., active campaigners), don’t want to debate, but simply to confirm themselves in their beliefs – especially the belief in their own intellectual superiority.
Deb
March 31st, 2009 at 6:38
Hi Debbie,
I can understand the debate gets really frustrating. It can from both sides – there are many religious and non-believers that do exactly the same ie debate simply to confirm their own beliefs. I think our personal philosophy (religious or nonbelief) is something very close to us and when it is challenged makes a very tense atmosphere.
However, having such a debate is our only option. I think here we have had some interesting topics. As for intellect, well I’ve seen some really dumb things said by both non-believers and believers over the years.
I do appreciate what you mean about the intellectual superiority aspect. I used to work in science, and there can be an attitude that once you have a phd, talking about belief is a no-go. However, if that is what you belief then – that is your position. We still need to have this debate. In fact, Debbie I’d go further – if possible debate within your family?
My parents would dearly love for me to believe in their faith. But I dont. However, I’ve found out that their understanding of non-belief and humanism was quite wrong. Then again, I can appreciate that they are simply holding beliefs that they believe is the best way to live life.
I really do feel the worst possible outcome could be that you feel the attitude you describe is the majority of non-believers. I, personally, fall into the humanist branch of non-belief. There is a very wide range of ideas of non-belief – so do stay in the debate.
March 31st, 2009 at 9:16
I appreciate the things you’ve said, Eoin, and as far as my family goes, the reason for no debate is, that I don’t want to ’step on any toes’… It’s a fine line, as I don’t want to upset anyone.
My parents were atheists and agnostics. Unbelief is pretty much the family tradition, and my brother and I (and now our sister) are anomalies! So really, I know all the atheist and/or humanist arguments and knew them before I ever knew any Christian ones! Sometimes I get intemperate and I shouldn’t, so let the debate continue!
Deb
April 1st, 2009 at 5:14
Well…Now that the debate can continue….
i refer to my previous post #782
I’d like to hear some opinions….and share some info…
laters.
April 1st, 2009 at 6:48
Hi Werner,
I’m aware of the three aspects you mention. Tongues is quite a worrying aspect of the belief system. However, it is more interesting that is particular common among the pentecostal church. If you look outside of christianity, there are many tribal faith systems that ask the believer to adopt behaviour that seems ‘odd’ or ’strange’. I would suggest this acts to enforce the togetherness of a religion. These kind of acts bind the practioners together simply because everyone else thinks they are quite odd. The claim is that the believer has been taken over by ‘the spirit’. For me to accept this, I would require evidence.
Prophesy is easily dismissed as any kind of ‘power’. I believe this to be a writing tradition among ancient writers. I think I’m right in saying it was widely prevalent – even outside the christian texts. A writer would take a historical text and claim that a recent event was proof of a prediction. It is meant to add credibility to the author. I dont accept it at all.
Discernment, as I understand it, is that you have a particular vocation because of belief in christianity. I would have no problem with people doing good things. I do have an issue with people claiming that a supernatural being wants them to do that thing. It grants a license to any believer to break man-made law. I would also challenge them to proof that being has contacted them and “told” them this.
Finally, though these concepts are from a particular ‘brand’ of christianity – pentecostal etc. The problem you face is that other christians would find all this quite odd. In fact, I’d go further – my own parents who are catholic would describe this as nonsence, however would grant it because its from “faith”.
Its quite interesting that these ideas have only gained ground in a particular type of christianity. For example, can you imagine ‘Songs of Praise’ showing an Anglian service with Tongues?
April 1st, 2009 at 9:02
Hi guys, sorry about the lack of posts from me – I have had a massive project on at work and been very busy.
Eoin – it’s not just Penticostals who believe in the gifts of the spirit. Actually. the Anglican church up the road have regular healing meetings (where people are being healed), and yes they do also speak in tongues, receive prophecy, and have discernment (although, your understanding of it is not quite right).
Tongues: There are a few uses for this… On a personal level, we can at times run out of words to use when worshipping God, so we can receive tongues to worship God in a ‘heavenly’ language. Also in a group setting God can give someone tongues and then someone else gets the interpretation from God as a way for God to speak into someones life. I also know of times where someone has been worshiping in tongues – but it has actually been another language (that they have never learnt) and someone in that meeting is from that country.
Prophecy… God can speak to us about things in peoples lives and things that may happen – areas to pray into etc. For example: my wifes family has a history of difficulties in pregnancy – a guy who knows nothing of this was praying for her and God told him this so he could pray against any problems, and we have a little lad now (he didn’t even know she wanted kids.).
Discernment… God can give us the gift of discernment so we can see and understand what is going on around us and in peoples lives on a spiritual level. When councelling or praying with people God can help us discern the root cause of problems, he can help us see Satans hold on peoples lives so when can pray directly agianst it.
These gifts that God can impart to us are for the building up of each other… and are to be used in love. This is a simple explanation, there is much more I could go into but I have work to do…
Hope you are all well, we continue to pray for you guys that your eyes, hearts, and minds will be opened to the reality of God and his love for you.
See ya, Phil.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:49
Hi Phil
Hope your not up to your elbows….
Good post you made!
Eoin – yes, unfortunately, some ‘churches’ don’t accept God in His fullness, which includes the Gifts of the Spirit. Those that do, allow the Holy Spirit to move in the church, and in the lives of believers (we can go back and debate about ’sunday christians; and all that)
Prophecy – it cannot really me ‘measured’ as such but normally, the Prophet receives a message from God which is intended for a certain individual. It’s not about ‘telling the future’ but as Phil said about uplifting each other. I have had a person look at me, and start speaking to me about future events that I had planned or thought about – before that day I had never met that person. There was no way that he could have known those things – God revealed it to him/her.
As for bible prophecy, not exactly what I’m referring to – but a very interesting topic none the less. I have quite a lot of info on Bible prophecy that I’ll share when the time is right.
Tongues – it’s interesting – People think Christians are ‘making it up’ or they speak Aramaic, Hebrew or what not. It is in fact ‘Communicating with the Spirit of God’ in a way that we don’t understand. We sometimes don’t have the words, as Phil said, to Praise or sometimes we are in a situation that seems impossible and the Spirit takes over and speaks for us. Truly Awesome.
Lastly – it’s not that these ideas have ‘gained ground’ in a particular ‘type’ of Christianity. They have always been there. Regrettably, some ‘denominations/individuals’ would “describe this as nonsence”. They obviously haven’t read their Bible properly…
April 1st, 2009 at 10:08
Werner,
You left the most important sentence until last…
“Regrettably, some ‘denominations/individuals’ would “describe this as nonsence”. They obviously haven’t read their Bible properly…”
This underpins your entire argument. That these ideas are true *simply because* they are in the Bible. Many other churches do not adopt the approach that whatever is in the bible is true – it is up for debate. The problem here is that anything could be in the Bible and you could hold it up as a benchmark of how humans should behave. The bible contains lots and lots of crazy human behavior. Its not surprising – it was written by bronze age writers who had no idea of modern day science or technology. Nearly everything occured to them was regarded as “supernatural”.
Therefore all these things ‘tongues’ etc, I think is part of a much bigger issue. It is how different churches use the bible. Pentecostalist etc regard the words as law wheras other churches aim to interprete the “meaning” of the writer.
So its not just non-believers you need to convince of these ideas – it is the christians beside you who believes the bible needs to be taken with a pinch of salt…..
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:54
Eoin. HI.
You say: “these ideas are true *simply because* they are in the Bible” once again (and i’m pretty sure the words ‘causal proof’ are going to be in your response) it’s not ’simply because’ they are in the bible. i have had Real experiences of this nature. Family members who speak in tongues, prophecy i received etc.
you also say: “So its not just non-believers you need to convince of these ideas – it is the christians beside you who believes the bible needs to be taken with a pinch of salt” – I WHOLE HEARTEDLY AGREE!!!
But, any Christian who believes the Bible should be taken with a pinch of salt is not a devoted follower of Christ.(in my opinion) The Bible is the authority for a Christian. And as mentioned in other posts – people are very quick to take a piece of scripture that sounds good and make it apply to them, disregarding the rest. if one applies they all apply!
‘Churches & Denomination’ over the years have come into argument about ‘their’ interpretation of the Bible, causing the forming of new churces. This is a serious problem for me, because NOW you have one group that allows the Holy spirit to move – and He does! Healings, prophecy, tongues, interpretation etc etc. The other group on the other hand are content with sitting in pews every sunday and listening to some guy speak, instead of listening to the Holy Spirit speak. Fooling themselves really…
i could go into detail about different denominations (specifically the big one) but this forum is too sensitive for that.
Laters.
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:08
Hey Werner,
I find this interesting – the different ideas that different christians believe are ‘true’. For example, you believe talking in “tongues” is a good idea. However, if I told my dad he needed to do this – I would be laughed out of town (hes catholic).
First, he will simply reply to you that it is your OPINION that the bible needs to be followed in this way (ie sola scriptura). Second, there might be other christian behavior that you may question. For example, do you pray to the Virgin Mary, do you pray to dead saints? Do you believe the Pope is God’s representative on Earth? Purgatory? Transubstatiation? Forgiveness of sins by priests? etc etc
On the other hand, I reject both your suggestions and my Dads. Not only do I question the worthiness of the bible itself (there are some good bits….) but I dont believe in any evidence for the divinity of jesus (nice guy, but not a god…) or in any supernatural being.
In order to live a good live, I do not believe you need any of the above ideas – tongues, praying to saints – whatever…
You can discuss rituals within any tribe. And I’m sure every tribe in the history of human beings argued over them. I can imagine that who ever put Stonehenge argued over the resulting ceremony and how to perform it.
For me, when rituals start to not only define you – but to divide you from other people, they lose total credibility. Imagine a Christianity with no rituals…. at all! No more Tongues – no more praying to Mary. As a humanist, I suggest this would be a move in the right direction.
April 2nd, 2009 at 12:32
Eoin
I’ll make a few brief points, but I’d like you to contact me on my personal email – wrossouw {at} hotmail(.)com – as I’ve said, certain issues are too ‘sensitive’ for this forum.
1. Bible interpretation is certainly a big issue – which is why we need leaders, individuals who dedicate their lives to the cause. They are supposed to give guidance.
2. no one ‘needs’ to talk in tongues, prophecy etc. It’s not the measure of a man (Christian). These are simply gifts the Holy Spirit blesses us with as we try to help others.
3. Quick question – why does your father pray to mary and the dead saints?
4. Divinity of Jesus – you won’t believe it no matter who tells you what. Only the Holy Spirit can make you believe.
5. Rituals – EXACTLY!!! – The problem we face is that people are ‘religious’ instead of having faith. Following a set of rules thought out be some ‘priest’ a few hundred years ago is enough to calm their conscience – committing your life to a Christian lifestyle is a major commitment – one that takes hard work and perseverance. Some people see it as too much hard work and become ‘Sunday christians’ You don’t even need to go to church to be a committed Christian. We have church to ‘uplift’ one another and learn new things and there should not be rules as to ‘how we run the thing’
Werner
April 2nd, 2009 at 13:02
Hey Werner,
Dont be too worried over how ’sensitive’ you need to be – this forum is the perfect place for debate. If you happen to disagree with other churches, I’d be interested to learn why.
All of your above points rest on your particular interpretation of the bible. I’m sure you’ll pass this down to the next generation. My Dad was told from his parents that Mary and the saints look over him. It is his ‘faith’ – just as you have faith.
However, be careful over your description of “Sunday Christian”. I know my folks would be quite offended at that. They take their faith really seriously and get involved in lots of parts of the church. However, they dont believe in the rituals you mentioned.
This is the problem – if someone does not consider the bible as you do, you are forced to describe them as “Sunday Christian”. However, they disagree saying they simply dont agree with you.
I disagree with both of you – I question the need for the bible, rituals, and any kind of god whatsoever. So dont worry about any sensitive arguments – we’re all grown up for that.
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:25
Eoin.
i think you misunderstood me. Tongue’s, prophecy etc are not rituals, and i did not refer to them as rituals. But these are things that believers obtain as a gift from the Holy Spirit. They are not rituals and should not be mistaken for things such as ‘transubstantiation’ etc.
The reason i wanted you to contact me personally is to share some other insights i have on the Catholic Church. I’m sure your parents take their faith seriously, and attend a number of activities with the church, which is great. and for the sake of clarification, my reference to a ’sunday christian’ is a person who is in church every sunday, but his/her life does not reflect Christian Values and beliefs. I’m sure your parents’ does…?
For now i’ll hold my tongue on all the other things…
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:55
Hey Werner
I could not disagree more – these *are* rituals.
Ritual….
- prescribed, established, or ceremonial acts or features collectively, as in religious services.
- any practice or pattern of behavior regularly performed in a set manner.
These acts are just the same for you as for the people who practiced at Stonehenge. They are the things you do because of faith.
For me the phrase ‘gift of the holy spirit’ does not mean anything. It is wrapping up an particular act that human does to elevate it to a higher level and to give it credibility. You claim a supernatual being has provided you with an “ability” for these rituals – but you offer or require no proof of this happening. An ancient text (bible) is enough – and your interpretation of it.
I could claim another supernatural being has given me powers of perception. That I can tell when you are truely happy. You may claim you are, but I will proclaim my ‘gift’ overrides anything you believe. My gift is from a higher power. This discussion goes nowhere. You can claim anything. Its only credible if the being can be proven to exist.
I want to know your thinking on the catholic church. Believe me, I’m not it is nowhere near my level of criticism. It greatly worries me that you want to reveal these ideas in private – why? This discussion should be carried out as if we are discussing politics – if someone disagrees with you – who cares? We live in a democracy – you have ever right to your view. Why can you not reveal your thinking on a forum?
I have sat in silence and watched how catholics and protestants debate. For me its interesting what you guys do and dont believe. I find it amazing that you have so much stuff which to argue over. This discussion must happen. In the open, and not in private.