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.”
October 18th, 2008 at 21:09
Can’t wait to jump onboard!
October 20th, 2008 at 8:34
I want to ride this bus.
October 20th, 2008 at 17:38
I’m in for a fiver, how do we donate?
Gavin Esler was a bit sniffy on the bbc news i thought.
October 20th, 2008 at 17:55
Many thanks for your support Niallist. I’ll email you as soon as the donation link goes up!
October 21st, 2008 at 0:47
I love it when a plan comes together! Thank you so much Ariane!
October 21st, 2008 at 8:18
Count me in, can’t wait to see this on a bus.
October 21st, 2008 at 10:51
A lot of us don’t live in London. As many of the donator’s comments show we’d like to see this go national.
Please use the extra money for a campaign in the North.
October 21st, 2008 at 11:34
We’ll see what we can do… We’ve been rather astounded by the scale of the success of this today, and ads elsewhere is quite possible.
October 21st, 2008 at 11:46
Yes it is very exciting. Just goes to show how many people there are out there sick to death of religions hijacking the moral debate.
October 21st, 2008 at 12:12
What a fabulous idea. We need more like this to strengthen athiest/humanist ideals. Well done!
October 21st, 2008 at 12:16
Gone past the £10k mark hurrah – well done, what a great campaign. This site needs to be promoted on the Just Giving website as it’s quite difficult to find.
I think you should also maybe post another message on the Just Giving site encouraging people to hit another milestone (i.e. £15k gets ads in Manchester, £20k get ads in Birmingham etc).
Good luck and keep up the hard work!
October 21st, 2008 at 12:57
This is fantastic. Well done to all involved. Proved those snorters at The Telegraph wrong in emphatic fashion!
Thanks for the link, too. Will reciprocate soon.
October 21st, 2008 at 13:16
Whats the chances of us getting enough money for a TV advert? I bet you could essentially make it for free, with volunteer film makers + actors etc.
The money would just be to get it on TV.
October 21st, 2008 at 13:29
Might car stickers (”bumper stickers”) might be a good idea? If they were seen at the same time as the ads on the buses it would reinforce the message. I would certainly want one, and any proceeds could help fund further campaigns?
October 21st, 2008 at 13:34
I disagree with the word ‘probably’ in the advert – religious advertising is sure about their message – Why not be sure about this message.. Or are you too scared of offending someone..
I support you and will donate when i get paid..
October 21st, 2008 at 13:59
I had to share this. I read with interest and a lot of head nodding the story of these adverts on the BBC news site. Then for sake of fairness I thought I would visit the websites for the British Humanist Association and Christian Voice. The BMA website loaded fine, but when I tried Christian Voice my work firewall prevented access and gave me the message that it was blocked because “this page has been classified as Intolerance & Hate”. Priceless!
October 21st, 2008 at 14:01
@Rich – priority is ads on more buses for longer… But there may be other campaigns in future.
@Rik – there will be other variants for sure. We’ll post details on the site very soon!
@Steve – there’s a big debate about this at the Facebook group. The first priority is for these ads to actually run, and for things to try to be positive and upbeat – that’s the motivation for the slogan.
October 21st, 2008 at 14:07
This is wonderful! But I want more! Car stickers and badges?
And I agree with comments hoping for a similar campaign up north…. come to York!
October 21st, 2008 at 14:21
£17,800 ! Well done everyone ! This is fantastic, I too would like to see this expanded outside London.
)
( I also still think “There’s almost certainly no God” instead of “probably” is better
October 21st, 2008 at 14:51
This is the biggest load of crap I’ve ever seen. Why do intend to harm the lord in such a way that you say he doesn’t exist on the side of a bus and then ride around like a load of clowns on a psychiatric field trip?
October 21st, 2008 at 14:56
Would you please send a bus to the USA.
October 21st, 2008 at 15:01
What’s with the “probably”? That’s Agnosticism, isn’t it? It worries me; is it saying there just might be a chance of the hell fire?
October 21st, 2008 at 15:11
I’ve contributed !! We need one of these buses in the Netherlands !
October 21st, 2008 at 15:13
I’ve set up a flickr group for people to post pics of the buses when they arrive !!!
October 21st, 2008 at 15:40
Excellent! I love how quickly the money was raised.
October 21st, 2008 at 15:47
A fantastic idea! Yes, please go national – that includes Scotland where there is plenty of entrenched religious conservatism! I pass a religious billboard daily on my street & it’s far past time that atheists stopped being so deferential and responded in kind.
October 21st, 2008 at 15:49
This is excellent news. I paid my contribution earlier when it was around £2,000. Now it’s up past £20,000!
@GMAC – Just because we don’t believe in your sky fairy doesn’t mean we’re all mad. You’re the one who talks to an invisible, non existent being so you might want to take a look in the mirror first.
October 21st, 2008 at 15:50
Why did you add the word ‘probably’ to this advert?
October 21st, 2008 at 15:56
GMAC, This is not offending “the lord” because it is obvious to any sensible or even remotely intelligent person there is no such thing, long ago it was quite possible for adults to believe fairy tales but as the word evolved people did too becoming more intelligent and this is when people started thinking for themselves and understanding that silly things like this are just not true, people began to ask questions and found the answers through proof.
People like yourself read a book and believe it just because it tells you to have faith, it is pure silliness, if you need this in your life for some reason to help you then I have no problems with it but if not see sense and stop believing in a childish fairy tale of magic and afterlives and flying people called angels, it is pure silliness, pull yourself together mate, don’t waste your life believing in this nonsense.
My sense be with you. Hail to sense. Sense is thy saviour
October 21st, 2008 at 15:56
I would have gladly donated to this idea but I don’t like the slogan. Surely “There is no god” would be best – isn’t that what it’s all about? I’m all for the badges, etc, if the slogan is changed.
October 21st, 2008 at 16:03
Well … “Why do intend to harm the lord in such a way that you say he doesn’t exist on the side of a bus and then ride around like a load of clowns on a psychiatric field trip?” … I think the big guy can probably look after himself … just as soon as he’s sorted out the actually existing bit.
October 21st, 2008 at 16:09
This is amazing, is it cool to link to this in my new blog?
I totally agree with the word ‘probably’, it’s almost the punchline of the whole thing. Removes any possible offense and let’s you smile about the whole thing.
Good work!!
October 21st, 2008 at 16:11
Wow! Can this happen in Plymouth too?!?! Would be greatly appreciated!!
October 21st, 2008 at 16:28
This is all somewhat confusing to me. Isn’t this type of atheism, with the proselytizing and all, just another religion? Instead of preaching faith in a supernatural power, your preaching faith in the lack of one. Semantics, really.
On the whole, all of this seems much more of an effort to convert others to your religion of faith (in an absence), than anything that I have seen lately from any of the other more traditional religions.
You’ll probably pull this comment also, the same way any other religion would. Hmph.
October 21st, 2008 at 16:33
Will the religious (particularly muslims) refuse to drive or ride on these buses ? Will they say the ads are offensive, and demand they be removed ?
It will be interesting to see if the authorities have the courage to stand up to them, and support free speach.
October 21st, 2008 at 16:48
Be careful raising so much money so quickly,someone will want to be in charge of it,and no doubt need an office,then maybe a building with a steeple then a bigger one where he can meet all his followers.Maybe shout slogans across the road to those misguided pseudo Jews.I cant see a hundred million atheists sitting back quietly.Violence would be the next step kill all the Christians ,Dawkins is our new god.Of course we will want all the wealth from the Vatican its obscene how much they have when we need it to spread the word in Africa.I am an atheist but you get my drift ,what wikk be the effect of organized atheism??
October 21st, 2008 at 16:55
Woah, congratulations, this has been phenomenal.
“Will the religious (particularly muslims) refuse to drive or ride on these buses ?”
Well, Alpha Course buses are far more popular and no Muslims/Hindus/Buddhists/Satanists (to my knowledge) have refused to ride them.
October 21st, 2008 at 16:57
Any chance of bringing this to the states?
dennis crinion: I think you’re thinking of anarchists and/or schizophrenics.
October 21st, 2008 at 17:00
dennis is a heretic!
(oh no, it’s started already!?!)
October 21st, 2008 at 17:02
Hi, I’ll second
a) The request to remove “probably”! That also allows for a bigger font size, of course.
b) The call for bumper stickers!
c) The call for this to go beyond London! Hey, when I donated this morning, you stood at 20k, now it’s >26k already. Can you roll this out in all European capitals? You know you want to, and I’m confident, we could easily get the required funds. There so clearly is a NEED for someone to become vocal about this.
Vide also Bill Mahers “Religulous” movie etc.
All the best,
D.
October 21st, 2008 at 17:08
Regards Jack Rivers’ comment above: lacking a belief is, by definition, not a faith position. This is a tired old switcheroo that theists often pull. We’re not the ones making the extraordinary claim. We’re not the ones who can’t produce evidence for an extraordinary claim. We *are* the ones who are sick of religious groups getting unwarranted privileges, and an unmerited voice in the poitical affairs of this country, based on a collective fantasy. So we’d like to try to counter that with a little publicity that presents an alternative viewpoint.
October 21st, 2008 at 17:20
why probably? what kind of atheist campaign says probably no god? sounds like agnostic to me… how about “There is no god. Now enjoy life”?
October 21st, 2008 at 17:34
Top stuff! I’m so chuffed that it worked.
Please, please, please can we spread this beyond London?
The pot is over £27K at the moment and what with Gift Aid (God bless, HMRC) at £6.5K and the fantastic Prof. Dawkins at £5.5K, we are nearly at £40K by my reckoning.
Rational & National Please!
October 21st, 2008 at 17:54
Impressive total!
I have an idea for using the surplus. Why don’t you run a campaign urging people to rethink Christmas: it’s costly, it’s propaganda and annoying.
October 21st, 2008 at 18:00
Just to add my 2p to some of the comments.
1. I agree that I would prefer to remove ‘Probably’, but I also understand the need to take small steps. By using ‘probably; you’re more likely to provoke thought than by simply trying to force your views on others (I know, that’s what the religious lot do, but we don’t have to follow their lead).
2. Atheism is a statement of a lack of belief in a god or gods. Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge. You can believe in the lack of a god or gods without 100% certain knowledge. Just as you can believe in a god or gods without 100% certain knowledge. It isn’t a scale of Theist-> Agnostic -> Atheist, it’s statements about different things – belief and knowledge. If your still unsure about this look up Russels Teapot, hopefully that’ll help.
October 21st, 2008 at 18:03
[...] they met their target at 10:06 am. At the time of writing (17:49), donations total £28,728.0. (You can see the current total here). [...]
October 21st, 2008 at 18:06
Excellent idea, I’ve just bunged them 20 quid.
October 21st, 2008 at 18:24
Remember guys, please do not feed the trolls.
I, too, like the probably for lightheartedness, not trying to crush anybody’s faith but stating a view in a positive light, though I wouldn’t be opposed to “almost certainly no” either.
October 21st, 2008 at 18:31
Well, I’m an actor and I’d give my time for free to make an advert.
Any other creative brights on here?
October 21st, 2008 at 18:50
#28 Tommy- I find it unfortunate how closed minded you are to spirituality. I said nothing about believing everything in a book because it says so. Matter of fact I do understand that the “book” has flaws, so does every other book. There were entire books actually removed from the bible because they were controversial and spoke of things in our past that we can’t even comprehend now. I DO understand that the “book” is not the be all end all of life but is only the start: Logic is only the beginning of wisdom. The only fairytale that I know of is the disbelief in the creator, this whole world is steeped in evil and destruction simply because he gave us free will and to respond to humanity with care for all that he created. I will continue to pray for you all!
October 21st, 2008 at 18:57
I wish the Campaign well although I am not entirely comfortable with it — I fear the way it is presented will add to the common confusion between Atheism and Agnosticism with it being referred to as Atheist yet (unless it is revised) the ‘probably’ suggests Agnosticism which in fact I prefer, being a hard Agnostic, not an Atheist. Furthermore, the explanation of Atheist on the website appears in fact not to be about Atheism but about secular Humanism which is not the same thing, further adding to confusion. I fear clarity about these (to some of us) important distinctions is being sacrificed to the needs of simplified sound bite marketing ——- which I understand but regret.
October 21st, 2008 at 19:00
#26 Paul R- Only you would be so naive as to really believe that just because we have eye’s that we should see everything that is. This universe is FILLED with things that defy explanation based off of the previous days laws of physics. We are constantly finding ways to break our own laws of nature doesn’t that tell you how masterfully we were created. It’s because we have Godly ordained free will that the world is in such turmoil all the time. LOL…sky fairy, that’s a good one!
October 21st, 2008 at 19:03
Ideally, we should look for proof on both sides of the argument. Isn’t that fair?
October 21st, 2008 at 19:18
It would be far more dismissive and effective if it were to read “More than probably there are no gods. So stop worrying…”.
This way of pithily downsizing deity – likening the one to the usually more vigorously dismissed many (Odin, Wakanda, et al) – is an often-missed trick that should always be kept in mind. Just a little less effective on Hindus, I would imagine!
_____
October 21st, 2008 at 19:21
Please ‘Digg’ this story:
http://digg.com/arts_culture/London_to_have_Atheist_adverts_on_Buses
October 21st, 2008 at 19:24
Re #45 by GMAC
You say-This universe is FILLED with things that defy explanation based off of the previous days laws of physics.
This is a very good point and I’m surprised to hear it from someone who doesn’t seem, in other statements, to appreciate the scientific method.
Then, We are constantly finding ways to break our own laws of nature doesn’t that tell you how masterfully we were created..
Er, no. If anyone ‘breaks’ our ‘laws of nature’, and I mean anyone, then experimenters will recreate the ‘break’ over and over again.
It might mean just an adjustment to the law, or occasionally the law gets dumped altogether. Either way we improve our understanding of the world.
October 21st, 2008 at 19:34
RE: Comment by # 20. GMAC | 21.10.08 at 14:51
“This is the biggest load of crap I’ve ever seen. Why do intend to harm the lord in such a way that you say he doesn’t exist on the side of a bus and then ride around like a load of clowns on a psychiatric field trip?”
Perhaps GMAC is right. Let’s change it to say “There’s probably no god, unicorns, or flying spaghetti monsters so, stop worrying and go enjoy LIFE!”
October 21st, 2008 at 19:40
RE: Comment by: 33. Jack Rivers | 21.10.08 at 16:28
“This is all somewhat confusing to me. Isn’t this type of atheism, with the proselytizing and all, just another religion?…..On the whole, all of this seems much more of an effort to convert others to your religion of faith (in an absence), than anything that I have seen lately from any of the other more traditional religions.”
Dear number 33, aka Jack Rivers:
Please try and comprehend that atheism is no more a religion than being bald is a hair color.
October 21st, 2008 at 19:45
@GMAC
Ah, the old God of the Gaps explanation. I’ll say no more as there is nothing to be said on that subject that hasn’t been said a thousand times before.
October 21st, 2008 at 20:42
GMAC,
*Ahem*
October 21st, 2008 at 20:52
“Therefore because you are neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.”
October 21st, 2008 at 20:58
Give it up GMAC, you won’t convert anybody here. We’re all born again Pastafarians!
October 21st, 2008 at 21:11
So, 60 busses for 12 weeks, and still counting?
Awesome, glad to have helped out, even though London is 300 miles away, this still rocks. Nice to see Atheists can band together like this.
@DB
Speak foryourself, I’m a last-thursdayist.
October 21st, 2008 at 21:29
This pretty much gives the lie to the “atheists are a persecuted minority” assertion, doesn’t it? It also makes it a bit hard for you to claim that atheism isn’t a faith…
What a pity you can’t spend your time and a huge amount of money on something more constructive!
Studies have shown that atheists are the people least likely to give to charity, or to help the poor, the sick or the oppressed. DK
October 21st, 2008 at 21:42
Good idea! My congratulations!
Rosalba
http://www.uaar.it Roma
October 21st, 2008 at 22:19
I don’t try to convert…I pray!
October 21st, 2008 at 22:39
http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press110.html
‘fellow humanists, not known for their generosity, wouldn’t stump up the cash’
HAAAAAAAAA haaaaaaaaaa hAhahahahahahahahahaaah!!!! – Currently >£42,000 and not even a day old.
What a bunch of fools (to put it very mildly) Christian Voice are – they must be a COMPLETE & TOTAL joke/embarrassment to any half reasonable Christians out there and I don’t ven have to say what they must be to the rest of us.
The next story on their website “Scouts Accused of ‘Grooming’ Children” – NO JOKE.
October 21st, 2008 at 22:55
If you’re right and I’m wrong – I’ve lost nothing – however if I’m right as a Christian and you’re wrong then you’ve lost everything!
By using the word probably it says you don’t know and that you’re not confident in you’re belief whereas as a Christian I am 110% confident in what I believe and why.
I know that Jesus died on the cross and paid the price for my sins and for that I Praise Him.
In the future I expect to see miracles and I have no qualms in praying for someone to be healed or for someone to be raised from the dead. The same POWER that CREATED the world is available to me…today!
And I challenge you to a debate on the television to prove “beyond reasonable doubt” that God doesn’t exist before a totally impartial jury. Are you up for that? I can assure you that you will lose.
October 21st, 2008 at 23:04
Sorry will be last post for a while. Now at >£44,000 including my tenner and rising fast!
Just noticed the next story on the Cristian Voice website:
‘CANNIBAL CHEF SHOULD FACE DEATH PENALTY’
”In the Christian understanding, upon which our laws are or should be based, the death penalty was given to mankind for perpetuity under God’s covenant with Noah. That covenant was sealed with the sign of the rainbow (Genesis 9:12-13).
‘I don’t like the idea of putting a man to death any more than the worst humanistically-minded liberal…’ ”
Doesn’t seem very ‘Christian’ to me… or is it
I’ve got hooked on Christian Voice – it really is very funny, its going to cheer me up no end (though if not in the way they intended)
October 21st, 2008 at 23:28
To add to the clamour for extending this beyond London, now that we’re hitting ~£60,000 in ~18 hours (!!), I’d like to nominate Exeter for a bus or two as it was a recent target of a failed suicide bomber. Having the message drive past people might get them adding two plus two.
~~~~~~
Debbie @ 64:
I’ve heard that claim from the religious time and time again but never a shred of evidence to back it up. Got any?
On the other side, two of the largest ever sources of charitable giving has come from atheists, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.
Remember, just because you say something is true does not automatically make it true. The same rule applies to vicars, imams, priests, rabbis and the writing in old books.
October 21st, 2008 at 23:41
WOW… I love this!
Please please please… could we have one of these beautiful buses in Iran too?
I would donate 1000 pounds for a bus like this in Tehran.
Well done, keep it up.
YOU ARE THE BEST.
I cant wait to see more of these buses all around the world.
I also didnt like the “probably” that much. I wonder how Richard has approved of that!
October 21st, 2008 at 23:52
Great job, UK! I’m happy for all of you. Hopefully one of these days, a campaign like this will happen in Jesusland, USA, where I happen to be from. I remain hopeful.
October 21st, 2008 at 23:55
@Richard #68
Pascals wager? Oh dear, please tell me you don’t take that seriously? What if YOU chose the wrong god? There are after-all many hundreds (if not thousands) of gods throughout history and the present day. Any one of them is just as likely as your Christian god.
October 22nd, 2008 at 0:25
Suggestion, change it to “so” rather than “now”, and skip “your”.
I.e. “There’s probably no god, so stop worrying and enjoy life!”. The “so” implies that the existence of a god would mean needless worrying and that the realization that there is no god is directly responsible for relieving that worrying (good message!), and more like gentle encouragement, whereas the “now” seems like you’re telling people what to do. The “your” makes it sound less selfish and more like a shared experience, i.e. don’t just enjoy your own personal life, but the general shared experience of life.
Also, consider proper capitalization, that way you can get an extra dig in by using “god” rather than “God”. Not crucial, but I bet you lots of people do a double take when they see “god” without the capital g, so you get more bang for your buck.
October 22nd, 2008 at 0:43
An excellent idea and it’s great to see it doing so well.
Some variety in future banner messages would be nice, but the gentle humourous touch should stay.
October 22nd, 2008 at 0:57
David @ 70. Re atheists and giving or charity, look it up! I found the studies a few months ago, but I don’t have time to find them again.
It’s true, no because I say so, but because studies and surveys have shown it – those who give time and/or money to others. are overwhelmingly believers in one of the ‘Abrahamic’ faiths.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, so what? They’re billionaires. What about yer average internet atheist?
Debbie
October 22nd, 2008 at 0:59
Also, dropping “your” has the added benefit that it’s shorter which means you can register stopworryingenjoylife.com (or perhaps stopworrying.org), and put up an online campain as well, with some short and sweet introduction to atheism (there are plenty of arguments to sew the seeds of free thought, take your pick), and further links, etc.
It would be a shame to not exploit the campaign for more than just a link to a non-campaign site. Have a focused site that links directly to the advert (easier to remember too).
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:01
Debbie, you’re actually wrong about that, I’ve seen studies showing that the opposite is overwhelmingly true.
It’s especially easy to look up the ranking between countries – compare almost entirely atheistic countries like the scandinavian ones with e.g. the US.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:06
Debbie
How many blankets and bowls of hot soup does it take to prove, for example, the Virgin Birth?
Adam
_____
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:15
Debbie:
Yeah, that’s what they all say. No, really, they do – or they just disappear.
I suspect what you’re confusing and conflating is that the religious give through their church and therefore the donation is associated with a religious
organisationcult. Atheists, however, don’t have atheist clubs through which they channel their charitable contributions.You therefore have no way of proving your claim and the ’study’ you found “months ago” most likely did not exist or was some flawed, anecdotal claptrap published by Give Us Money Or Go To Hell Ministries.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:16
I was going to donate, but my contribution is clearly not required.
If, however, I heard that the extra money would be spent widening the campaign to other parts of the country, rather than splashing out on Tube ads for already spoiled Londoners, then I would happily help nudge that total even higher!
Or perhaps something to counter this threatening hoarding on the A1 Northbound
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:19
Adam, I have to ask you what on earth you mean?
Christian giving isn’t meant to prove anything. It just comes out of faith…
Also, Sebastian, I am not talking about countries, but individuals. Talking of atheist or religious countries is largely meaningless. Where would you rate New Zealand (where I am?) The media here proudly proclaim us the most secular country outside Scandinavia. That’s probably true, but there’s no way to prove it!
I don’t know if I can put links here, but here goes…
http://www.islam.co.za/awqafsa/sorce/library/Article%209.htm
There’s also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_religion
about a third the way down…
“Religious belief appears to be the strongest predictor of charitable giving.[86][87][88][89][90] One study found that average charitable giving in 2000 by religious individuals ($2,210) was over three times that of secular individuals ($642). Giving to non-religious charities by religious individuals was $88 higher. Religious individuals are also more likely to volunteer time, donate blood, and give back money when accidentally given too much change.”
DK
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:20
Er.. . David, see number 81, and apologise!
DK
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:30
On deep 1am reflection, I’m not sure how far I’d take the “stop worrying” slogan…
Seriously. I’ve donated and everything, but… humanism requires worry, doesn’t it? It requires effort and actually *doing* things rather than relying on god to sort things out for us.
We have massive responsibility because the invisible bearded ghost in the sky doesn’t. We can’t pray away cancer. We have to do. We have to worry because nobody else will. The “stop worrying” throwaway reminds me of the blissful, disengaged ignorance religion encourages: don’t worry; god will sort it out.
I know you were going for “stop worrying about whether there’s a god” – but it seems very general as it’s currently phrased, as others say.
Just thinking out loud, as is obvious.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:42
Nick, actually I think they’re going for “stop worrying about accidentally angering an invisible man and being sent to hell”.
The anxiety about always being “good” (according to some bronze age mythology) is one you can let go of once you realize that it’s not real, hence the “stop worrying”.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:57
Sebastian,
I really like your alteration to the slogan.
“There’s probably no god, so stop worrying and enjoy life!”
It sounds far less aggressive and much more positive. Such a slight a change but a world of difference, great suggestion
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:29
Sebastian, that’s probably true but why not be specific? To me, the message of secular humanism is “There’s probably no God, so it’s up to us to make the world a better place!”
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:30
Lets put it this way,
1. If there is a god, and we have good deeds, well we’ll go to heaven, also if we made sins, we’re gonna burn in hell
However
2. If god doesnt’ exist, we got nuffin 2 lose, by being nice, nuffins gonna happen, u made f*ckin sins, nuffins gonna happen
To sum up:
We aint got nuffin 2 lose dudes, from a ‘gamblers’ point of view, i’ve chosen 2 believe
for cryin out loud sweet mother of atheis bitches….. f*ck yo’ll!!!
peace, over n out
samantha!
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:22
Great idea and I’ve donated.
But as it’s an ATHEIST campaign could you not just forget the ‘probably’ part of this slogan and make any future ones more direct too?
Here’s hoping…as this would help the silent secular majority to feel comfortable voicing their views more loudly.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:07
We can’t deny the existence of God nor can we be sure that he doesn’t exist.
That is why people call it “FAITH” and not “KNOWLEDGE”.
I personally cannot imagine a world without God. If there’s nothing after death, everything here (even “enjoying life” 24h/day) seems pointless to me.
It is up to every single person to choose wheather he or she wants to believe or not.
God does not force anyone to believe in Him.
Unfortunately it seems like today’s world is doing the opposite way urging people to leave their faith behind them.
The phrase written on the bus can be given one name: “Intolerance”.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:13
I like the “probably”. It’s whimsical. I think discussions about our existence and meaning are better for a bit of humour. It also allows for opening people’s eyes without prevailing on people to agree (or dismiss) right off the bat.
For those who say this is “just an alternative religion being rammed down their throats”, compare to raising awareness of gay and lesbian issues (eg the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras in Sydney). It’s about letting people know there is an alternative and getting people used to it. It’s not about making everyone conform to the new idea as a new social norm. Gay people don’t want everyone else to be gay too, they just want to be able to be open about themselves without fear of prejudice. Likewise, atheists would like it to be more socially acceptable to be open about the fact that they don’t believe in a god or a hereafter.
All power to the campaign!
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:52
“We can’t deny the existence of God nor can we be sure that he doesn’t exist.”
I deny the existence of God, so that is disproved quite easily.
I am sure the God of the Bible does not exist, in general the idea of a personal God is ridiculously juvenile. A God (or Gods) that exist outside of the Universe is a little trickier, but given they would not be able to intervene in human affairs why bother about it?
“The phrase written on the bus can be given one name: “Intolerance”.”
I think you have to have “faith” that is the case as you provide no working out to explain how you came to that “name”.
From where I am sitting the only intolerance shown is by the religious who seem to think that atheists should shut up and go quietly into the night. Even something as mild as this message has caused a wholly disproportionate reaction amongst so many believers.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:59
Fantastic campaign, and I shall be donating. Shame it has to have ‘probably’, but I guess it seems to have been necessary to get the campaign on the buses.
I love the idea taking the campaign further afield and maybe running TV adverts, although the cost of these is alarming. Most importantly for me, I would like to buy some car window stickers (without ‘probably’). I know plenty of people who would consider putting them on their cars as part of a wider campaign.
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:12
@Kael
I deny the existence of God. There you go.
I can’t say for 100% certainty you’re right, but I can be more than 99.999% certain.
Intolerance is when you get in a huff when someone who holds to different beliefs (of any kind) to you exercises their right to talk about it. So, who is being intolerant here?
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:20
There has been discussion about what to do with the extra money. Richrd Dawkins is takling about another London based campaign with a different more punchy and direct slogan.
I have another suggestion regarding the use of the now large amount of money donated. Rather than another London-centric based campaign why not go country-wide and have buses in Birmingham, Manchester, Nottingham, Glasgow, Edinburgh etc with the same slogan.
As the money will have been donate by people all over the country it would be great if we all got the chance to see a bus in our area with the slogan on.
It would also mean a greater awareness of the campaign and get to more people than just people in London.
It would be a shame if the *British* Humanist Society was seen to be just London-centric.
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:20
So what are you going to do with all the extra money? It looks like there will be enough for a major nationwide campaign – maybe advertising hoardings as well. What about broadcasting?
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:37
Regarding the surplus… rather than roll out the campaign as a one off effort, use some money to kick start merchandise, t shirts, mugs, key rings… given the support already shown for this there would soon be enough cash in the coffers to mount an enduring effort. I don’t think there would be any shortage of volunteers to help out.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:12
#Kael 89
“God does not force anyone to believe in Him.”
Maybe not but we all live in a world where society demands that we live in a world where god (or diety of choice) exist.
I’d much prefer to think for myself thank you.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:45
I’m amazed, with growing irritation, that so many fail to appreciate the subtlety and force of the proposed understated advertising copy.* Father Christmas is just as probable! As Bergen Evans once wrote: The common mind is intensely literal.
_
*Though this would be improved by, following Genesis, introducing the plural form – (see 54 above).
_____
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:46
congratulations great campaign !
I come from Poland and in my opinion We need to raise awareness of atheism in my country .
its so sad becouse its artificial to prepare campaign like that !! :/
keep going!!!
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:51
A religion is sometime a source of happiness, and I would not deprive anyone of happiness.
But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak, not for the strong. The great trouble with religion – any religion – is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence.
One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak certainty of reason- but one cannot have both.
- Robert A Heinlein (7 July 1907 – 8 May 1988)
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:57
With all this extra money, you must consider rolling this initiative out country-wide as much as you can.
And I’ll have a bumper sticker too please!
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:28
This is fantastic news…. maybe in the future the BHA and others could consider a challenge to the Alpha course ?
I’m just waiting to see the religious “majority” on the evening news going on about how offended they are……. I’ll be contributing.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:38
So any takers on a sweepstake for when the first bus gets torched by Muslims?
It’s clearly heresy to suggest such a thing!
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:51
[...] the first magazine today coincides nicely with David at “Island Life” bringing the Atheist Bus Campaign to my attention via Facebook this [...]
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:53
@ Paul R 93
As far as intolerance is concerned I can tell you one thing. I’ve noticed that when it comes to homosexual behaviour, everyone who says something wrong about it, is called to be intolerant. But if someone says something bad about faith and religion then people say – “It is a freedom of opinion”.
I can bet that if there was a banner saying for example: “Homosexual behaviour is not natural” everyone in mass media would be irritated and the person who put it on the bus would be accused of being intolerant.
@Roy 97
You’re right. Some people try to force everyone else to believe in God. It is not respecting somebody’s free will and is completely wrong.
I do belive in God but sometimes when I listen to some priests who brutally criticise other people because they have different opinion I am ashamed of them.
@ A.G 99
Such campaign would not pass in Poland (fortunately if you asked me).
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:57
Can we have a campaign after this one to make the churches pay taxes please? I’m sick of thinking those freeloaders are getting an easy ride becasuse they believe in a beardy man in the sky. In a fair society, its only right that these money making organisations (read cults) pay up the same as us atheists.
Q; How would the United Kingdom be, if it were a religion free zone?
A: United
Don’t care if I do burn in hell for that one!
October 22nd, 2008 at 13:16
Love it! it’s just what today’s society needs!! it’s 2008 crying out loud.
One thing i’d like to add, don’t even consider removing “Probably” here’s why!
“After that, I Googled Carlsberg and found this marketing site, which suggests that using the word “probably” at the start of the ad saved Carlsberg from litigation.”
Read the Frakking Article!
October 22nd, 2008 at 13:21
Fantastic idea.
Arab countries follow suit!!!
October 22nd, 2008 at 13:36
@Kael
I’m sorry, but exactly how is this campaign intolerant? As far as I can see a group of people – Atheists – want to express their opinion, which happens to be opposite to yours. The definition of intolerant is an “unwillingness to grant equal freedom of expression”, does this campaign impinge on your freedoms in any way? Is it offensive in anyway? Of course not. In fact your comment to A.G 99 shows that you are the one being intolerant!
Also, comments like “Homosexuality is not natural” are very hurtful because they are totally unfounded! Saying things like this just dehumanizes homosexual people.
October 22nd, 2008 at 13:50
Epicurus
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
October 22nd, 2008 at 13:57
Fabulous initiative, congrats. I just posted a comment in the blog of UAAR, the Italian atheist organisation, suggesting that maybe they should start rethinking from scratch their communication strategy.
October 22nd, 2008 at 14:03
mo?e przypomniec wam równanie pascala albo có? takiego w którym mowa o tym ?e lepiej wierzy? ni? nie wierzy? w Boga.
October 22nd, 2008 at 14:04
Hi,
Just a quick reminder as to why ‘probably’ is being included in the message. I agree it is a bit of a cop-out but here’s the reason behind it …
http://www.atheistcampaign.org/probably/
Re #87. samantha | 22.10.08 at 5:30
Wow, there’s christian tolerance for you … just prick the surface and all the air comes out of the bag.
Seems to me that Samantha is only really in this religion schtick for herself. Doing a good deed for the sake of it isn’t on the cards – it’ll only be worth it if her good deed gets seen by the bearded one.
And you missed off at least two other possibilities:
3. What happens if you do good and bad deeds? Do you have to do part-time burning or is it one bad deed and you’re toast? If that’s the case, we’ll all fry, including you!
4. What if it’s one of the other zillion gods, now that would be downer, wouldn’t it.
Re #53. GMAC | 21.10.08 at 19:03
Ideally, we should look for proof on both sides of the argument. Isn’t that fair?
Sorry GMAC, but there’s an old saying ‘If you’re in a hole, stop digging’. If you need proof that your deity exists, then by implication, faith must be lacking.
Paul.
October 22nd, 2008 at 14:15
@Oli
“Also, comments like “Homosexuality is not natural” are very hurtful because they are totally unfounded! Saying things like this just dehumanizes homosexual people.”
Well, the banner on the bus is also very harmful because it expresses the opinion that people who have faith are just stupid, their way of life is medieval and they are worse than those who do not believe.
That is why I think it is intolerant. The very same reason you find the sentence I’ve written about homosexuals intolerand and harmful.
You asked if it offensive, so I can give you an answer: Yes, in my opinion, it is offensive.
Look at what you’ve written:
“As far as I can see a group of people – Atheists – want to express their opinion …”
And after that you say it is their right to do so.
And in the end you write:
“Also, comments like “Homosexuality is not natural” are very hurtful … ”
But is it not another opinion of another group of people???
Well, the answer is up to you.
P.S.
And could you please explain me whe my answer to A.G is intolerant??? That is the thing I cannot understand.
I’ve just noticed the fact that in Poland people would not approve of such campaign.
That is all, a simple fact.
I’ve written ‘fortunately’ beacause as you might have noticed, I don’t quite approve it.
But it is still my opinion and of course there can be people happy when they see such banner.
October 22nd, 2008 at 14:21
Well done!
Now come on you lot, the BHA office is in london and everyone I speak to there has a southern accent. Thats fine (but still something you should address) so lets take this message up north into the cities and towns.
October 22nd, 2008 at 14:25
@Robert #100
So religion is a comfort for the weak not for the strong?
The trouble with religion – any religion – is that a religionist , having accepted certain propersitions by faith, cannot therefore judge these propersitions by evidence?
An interesting if misinformed position. I prefer to look at it like this. Religion is man’s search for God whereas Christianity is God’s search for man.
I am not weak although my faith in Jesus is a comfort to me. What I am though is incredibly powerful through the power that is available to me when I pray – the Power that CREATED the World, the Universe!
I accept Creation by faith as a starting point and I then look at the evidence for Creation that not only strengthens my faith but that is overwhelming.
I do therefore bask in the warmth of the fire (the Holy Spirit) and I do enjoy the bleak certainty of reason (a personal faith in a personal God).
As Jesus is knowable why are so many people afraid to know him?
October 22nd, 2008 at 14:28
Religion should be ridiculed in a court of law, let’s forget what you find offensive it’s been too long going now.
Consider this a motivational AD for level headed humans.
October 22nd, 2008 at 14:35
Its unfortunate but predictable I suppose that this forum seems to be attracting the well rehearsed yet as usual banal, ill conceived, contradictory flowery nonesense which atheists have been listening to for decades.
October 22nd, 2008 at 14:41
@ Richard (104), writing things poetically doesn’t prove anything.
Christianity is God’s search for man? Really? I’m right here. He hasn’t found me yet. And for someone who’s suposed to be omniscient, he’s pretty crap at finding things.
When I was younger (13ish), I was pretty agnostic, but when my grandma got cancer, I thought I’d give prayer a go. That was a pretty good opportunity for God to show himself yeah? She died painfully.
As for your comment that you accept creation, and then look for the evidence to back it up; don’t you realise how backward that is? You’re supposed to start with a blank slate, look for some evidence, and then find a hypothesis that fits. Not the other way round. You can make evidence fit whatever you want, if you choose to ignore enough of it (as religious people do).
And you say that you “become powerful” when you pray. How do you mean? Can you perform miracles? If you mean you gain the “power” to face life, deal with hardship etc, well I’m pretty good at dealing with stuff like that too, and I’m as big an atheist as you can get.
October 22nd, 2008 at 14:58
@Kael
Your answer to me is not intolerant, Its your opinion i accept that. Ok but i will be try to do somthing like that i promise .
your another point of view is:
“Well, the banner on the bus is also very harmful because it expresses the opinion that people who have faith are just stupid, their way of life is medieval and they are worse than those who do not believe.”
So i am asking you where do you see in background foolishness? (in banner indeed)
you know i see great sentence which shows another possibility of life, (not only .. “omg God will punish you if you dont do it somthing” – you know a lot of child-teenager heard that and so on & so on ).
the contents of this banner is : “just think!”
October 22nd, 2008 at 15:09
“Well, the banner on the bus is also very harmful because it expresses the opinion that people who have faith are just stupid, their way of life is medieval and they are worse than those who do not believe.”
It does? I don’t think it does. If you have leapt to that conclusion that might be your own subconcious telling you that.
To compare this with the demonisation of homosexuality (indeed, the persecution of homosexuals under the banner of religion) strikes me as a mite odd.
Almost as odd as drawing meaning out that really isn’t there.
I’m afraid that religion is not given a free pass anymore by everyone, you do not gain respect for your views by fiat. I don’t respect your views, and I don’t respect you for holding them but I do respect your right to hold them.
The right to hold views is not a right to shut down criticism. You have no right to not be offended as you go through life.
October 22nd, 2008 at 15:11
@ Rich Savage #105
Do you want to be found? Are you prepared to have your life changed? Can I suggest you do the Alpha Course at your local church?
There is a time to die for all of us. However, the girl I sponsor in India was healed of leukaemia and if you punch the name David Hathaway into a search engine you will find a man who was healed of throat cancer miraculously.
I didn’t have to look for the evidence to back up my belief in creation it was there all the time whereas evolution is bad science as having hit upon a cock and bull theory the scientists are desperately trying to find the evidence!
Science only confirms the authority of the Bible.
I have got no qualms about praying for someone for healing (and I don’t care how bad the prognosis is) and expecting them to be restored the same as I have no qualms in praying for a dead person and expecting Jesus to raise them from the dead – Yes, I’m talking about miracles.
Just a thought…..
It’s quite unbelieveable hom many unbelieveable things you have to believe in to be called an unbeliever.
Revelation 3:20:- Behold I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.
I challenge you Rich to pray and ask Jesus to reveal Himself to you.
October 22nd, 2008 at 15:12
Clear off posting religous crap on this board, no one gives a rats ass.
October 22nd, 2008 at 15:23
Richard, of course I want to be found.
The idea that I might go to heaven is awesome (not quite as awesome as the Islamic 72 virgins thing. You missed a trick there). But I have to look at it rationally, and the evidence is overwhelmingly strong to suggest that none of it is true. For 24 years of my life I was VERY open minded to christianity. In the 25th year, I decided that enough was enough. In that entire time I hadn’t seen a shred of evidence.
You think it was a miracle that somone was cured of Lukemia? It does happen, y’know. It doesnt mean that God did it. It annoys me when religious people attribute positive things, which could happen by themselves as miracles. My dad survived cancer for 5 years, which was VERY unlikely, and he beat all the odds to do that. He was an atheist. No-one prayed for him. He just had really good medical insurance, which kept him alive way longer than most people with the same type of cancer.
And what on earth are you talking about “no evidence for evolution”. Do you actually understand how evolution works? Every single fossil is evidence for evolution. If you do think you understand how evolution works, please reply to this message and give your idea of the explanation. I bet you’ve misunderstood it completely.
I am planning to go on an Alpha course. I only found out about them today. Are they free? I LOVE asking religious people to explain how it all works. It’s fun seeing them getting all confused and dodge questions.
October 22nd, 2008 at 15:43
@Dr Doctor 107
Well the interpretation of the meaning is up to everyone in person. I’ve just expressed my point of view.
Some people before were saying that I said something harmful about homosexuals. But I really wrote about their “behaviour” and not them in person. It is just another example of different interpretation of a sentence.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t blame homosexual people and I don’t want them to be offended. It is just my point of view that their kind of sexual activity does not follow human nature.
And as you have mentioned before I have the right to keep it.
@ A.G
” the contents of this banner is : “just think!” ”
Well, we could fit this to every banner that says anything about different ways of life. Even to the sentence I’ve written about homosexuals.
And we could tell people that this is the only one and true meaning of the banner.
But I’m afraid that this does not work.
If you come accross the sentece that touches you closely you’ll rarely interprete it in this way.
Best regards to everyone, that is my last post for today
see you tomorrow
October 22nd, 2008 at 15:50
This is wonderful!
All of my support are belong to you!!
October 22nd, 2008 at 15:52
May I remind some of you that many of the countries on this planet that enjoy free speech and freedom to bear arms were founded by christians with christian ideals. The rights and freedoms we all enjoy today are do to people that were tired of being overrun by the government and having their basic rights stripped away. ALL that is happening once again. Right now the US gov, owns the right to do what it wants with YOUR money your well being and your house and your land. Mass amounts of army personel are returning to the states from murdering 3 million Iraqi’s to patrol city streets in case you decide to feed your family with stolen bread because it’ll cost $5000. When the US decided to take God out of the classroom, they sealed their own fate. America is the next Babylon, and we will all suffer for partaking in here adulteries!
October 22nd, 2008 at 15:56
About homosexuals: Just how in the heck do you propose to carry on the human race with a “partner” that has the same parts as you?
October 22nd, 2008 at 16:10
troch? to dziwne
October 22nd, 2008 at 16:11
Because the mormons have about 12 kids each. Thats how. We’ll all be starving in 2 generations thanks to religious people, who think having a million kids is great fun.
October 22nd, 2008 at 16:24
Great idea! Wish I see the same in Moscow
October 22nd, 2008 at 16:26
So are you’re suggesting America was ‘founded by christians and on christian ideals’. Really??
Which freakshow religious semi-literate institution taught you this? Is it the same place that teaches children that dinosaurs are 5000 years old?
October 22nd, 2008 at 16:30
Thinking is anathema to religion, yes and metaphysics is an anathema to the Atheist Campaign! Really people ask yourself how do you know anything? Study the mind-body problem with metaphysical analysis. AND really employ your reason if you can.
The atheist is closer to god than the blind faith believer. Karl Popper. …
October 22nd, 2008 at 16:31
The day when religion is consigned to the dustbin of bad ideas is long overdue. More conciousness-raising like this is what’s needed!
October 22nd, 2008 at 16:36
[...] that they started the campaign this morning and got enough funds by 10.06am they should now really go for the Old [...]
October 22nd, 2008 at 17:13
Sorry, but this argument is roughly two hundred years too old.
“An Imam could reason in much the same way” – Daniel Diderot
Is this an admission that evangelicals are intolerant of any other that holds a contradictory opinion?
Veering very close to Fred Phelps territory, dude.
I’m assuming that, in the name of consistency, you oppose singletons and the sterile as well?
October 22nd, 2008 at 17:19
@Kael,
re: Homosexuality and Religion. There is a difference between the two, one is a choice, the other isn’t. Get back to me when you’ve figured out which is which, and understood why each can and should be treated differently.
@GMAC,
re: USA and Christian foundings.
Get a clue, and do some reading. The USA is on NO WAY AT ALL founded on christian beliefs or by christians. Most of the founders are either atheists or deists. They were very specific about religion should be kept out of the public domain and remain a private individual thing. It’s a pity that very few religious types manage to keep it private, and that ultimately annoys those of us that want nothing to do with it.
October 22nd, 2008 at 17:31
I think this is absolutely marvelous. I can only hope that those who see the advert engage in thought about its message rather than anger at those who express it.
October 22nd, 2008 at 17:45
Hey, I’ve just seen a photo of Ariane.
Hmm, maybe there is a god after all – cancel my donation (joke!)
P.
October 22nd, 2008 at 18:03
Did you see last drastic fall in God’s popularity? RateTheGod.com
October 22nd, 2008 at 18:08
Why this post is dated 14.10.08? I am trying to write an article about this campaign (we REALLY need one like this in the US) but the dating back kind of confuses me. I guess the campaign to raise money was launched yesterday and today at 10 am the goal was reached… is that right?
October 22nd, 2008 at 18:09
Hello everyone. This is a great campaign – congratulations to everyone involved and all those who have made donations for a sterling effort.
I’d encourage you all (well, will the exception of the christian halfwits, obviously) to have a pog at the National Secular Society (www.secularism.org.uk), and if you can spare a few quid on this campaign, hopefully you’ll consider spending just a few more on a year’s membership – it’s a worthy cause.
Ta for now!
October 22nd, 2008 at 18:47
@GMAC
Are you serious? USA was founded on Christian principles? Thats totally ridiculous! Read the constitution, its right there in the First Amendment. The USA was founded on SECULAR principles, the idea that church and state should have a wall of separation. America is almost unique in this respect, it is this that has dominated the western world NOT the values of any one religion.
If you are American then I really suggest you read the first amendment of the constitution that protects your rights.
October 22nd, 2008 at 18:56
interesting concept…may God bless you.
October 22nd, 2008 at 19:28
Well done. Best wishes!
October 22nd, 2008 at 19:33
As the campaign now is nearing 75k that means we’ve probably raised more in less than 30 hours than the Church of England screws out of it’s parishioners (those that are still sad enough to go to church) on one sunday’s collection plate !!!
October 22nd, 2008 at 19:36
In reply to post 141 by Sandra
The campaign started yesterday morning (21/10/08) and reached it’s target 10.06 GMT… the original requested amount was 5.5k pounds and as of a few seconds ago it was nearly 74k pounds..!
October 22nd, 2008 at 19:37
everyone join digg and digg the story !
http://digg.com/arts_culture/London_to_have_Atheist_adverts_on_Buses
October 22nd, 2008 at 20:00
I can’t believe the amount of people out there that believe the big bang theory. One day they will see when Jesus Christ returns through the clouds for His church.
October 22nd, 2008 at 20:06
Hey Folks, good to see that there is a place for some debating goings on over the pond. As a practicing lutheran and doctor, i find that yes, religion has its place and so does the ability to seperate the two when needed. I feel that if you need an output of your beliefs (yes, even being atheist is a belief) then you should be able to. Just remember that as humans, we have always been able to question everything as this is how we obtain answers and knowledge.And, I welcome the ability to do so. But to leave comments that can be veiwed as hurtful to either party does nothing but push us further apart. We all need to understand each other and be a single unit as far as this world is concerned. I have many other doctor friends who would be on either side of this coin and still give care to whom ever needed it. In the rush to pick a side, we tend to forget what it is really about. Helping others when in need. this should not be viewed as a christian belief, but a belief in the human race. Doesnt it really all boil down to being good to one another and having “faith” in human nature? Yes, i am christain and yes i believe in God, and do i not care for you if you are not? We are all sinner and saint…I have a problem with the “fire and brimstone” televangelist that take someones money on the tv for they are wrong and i along with other caring christains should not be grouped as such. I believe in free thinking and free will. i believe that not one God or belief is better than another, if yours is jah ,jesus or muhummad, so be it…cant we be just a single world? help the needing and each other? you dont have to be a christain to help someone anymore than you have to be a non-believer to think for yourself. peace be with you!and understand my views and opinions are both! thanks
October 22nd, 2008 at 20:06
I happened upon this commentaries today and have thoroughly enjoyed both sides of the controversial issue, especially the civility with which you respond to each other. People respond in quite vile tones down here in Texas at times. Although I don’t respect religious belief, I tend to keep such matters to myself and expect those who have such belief systems to keep them to themselves as well. Live and let live, I say.
October 22nd, 2008 at 20:07
OOPS! That should read, “these commentaries.” So sorry. ~ CV
October 22nd, 2008 at 20:08
I am curious as to why you would even want to say anything. If you believe there is no god why worry about what anyone says? I know there is a God and I am a very intelligent, thinking, educated person. I feel sorry for folks missing out on the wonderfully challenging and intellectual pursuit of God. I also think that you can get more from folks you want to change if you quit the put downs. Religion is not the antithesis of thinking. Sad to think of you facing the God of the Universe at death with no relationship with Him. thankfully He is a redeeming and forgiving God. He will establish a relationship with you any time you come to Him.
Have a good day and think hard! : )
October 22nd, 2008 at 20:32
SJ Sands post 154
Please stop the preaching… it’s the sort of thing you’re saying that started the campaign in the first place.
And to 151 Dr Mcelroy – I suggest you look up atheism in a dictionary.
Atheism is not a belief…. it’s an absence of belief.. note the last sentence of the explanation below.
This may help from wikipedia
“Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism. It is also defined more broadly as an absence of belief in deities, or nontheism”
October 22nd, 2008 at 20:37
CONGRATULATIONS ON THE CAMPAIGN. This is a dream coming true for me. Here in Brazil, if you say you’re an atheist, you suffer immense social prejudice. It is time for us to have the same rights as the religious. Keep up the courage and we will follow in this backward country.
October 22nd, 2008 at 20:53
How sad.
October 22nd, 2008 at 20:57
I’m posting a lot tonight… but this tickled my fancy
I think it’s Atheists 1 Alpha Course 0
http://www.justgiving.com/alphaposters/
Just think we’ve done 75% of their target in less than 48 hours !!!
October 22nd, 2008 at 21:00
You are just angry because you can’t control God. He is in charge but you want to be.
October 22nd, 2008 at 21:01
This is perhaps the most user-unfriendly board I’ve ever been on! Is it possible to quote a previous post?
As it is, I’ve made some notes… I wanted to quote someone who made a scathing remark about “the common mind”. This reminded me of the elitism common to organised atheism (I’ve yet to meet a working-class organised atheist.) Yer know, full member of the ‘congregation’, tithing to Dawkins advert campaigns, screaming abuse on message boards… By and large, working class people don’t have the time, and they’re less intolerant anyway.
@kde 134, what makes you think thinking is anathema to religion? That’s simply your assertion!
@Redcitrus 143. Why the ‘halfwit’ remark? It’s very immature…
DK
October 22nd, 2008 at 21:09
excuse me mrs 157 debbie… I’m working class, have time and an antheist as are many people on here ??
Now who’s the halfwit ?
You cannot class this board as “unfriendly” just because there are intelligent working class atheists out there who have a different idea from you !
October 22nd, 2008 at 21:19
Why do you atheists have to get together to be non believers. Can’t you do that all by yourselves?
If you don’t mind wasting your money go ahead and give. But you could do better by buying the homeless couple on the street a hot meal.
October 22nd, 2008 at 21:26
Debbie @ 82:
That looks like what I described: anecdotal evidence from partisan sources. Even if it were true that the religious give more to charity, it says nothing about whether religious claims are true – and it doesn’t say anything about the the massive harm religion does to society.
~~~
SJ Sands:
Hurrah! At last! Evidence! Do tell.
Of course, I’m going to have to temper my excitement because I’ve read that claim many, many times and each one has been complete and utter bollocks.
Actually, reading the rest of your little missive, you’re no different to the others, offering thinly veiled threats from your imaginary friend if we don’t bend our knee to him and join you in your backward Bronze Age beliefs. With all due respect: fuck you and the donkey you rode in on.
P.S. Gotta love the Jeebus clappers proselytising here. They’ll meet with as much success as White Supremacists setting up a stall at the Notting Hill Carnival.
October 22nd, 2008 at 21:30
I think this is extraordinary that you’re launching this campaign. I am glad to see you are raising more funds than expected and I have to encourage you to go international with this campaign and open up people’s eyes here in the US. Once people realize that this is the only life they’re ever going to live, maybe we can all find a little more happiness each day. Keep up the good work and I’m glad to see a group finally speaking out about this issue!
October 22nd, 2008 at 21:32
yeah the “jeebus clappers” (excellent term by the way David L) are upset that their poster campaign is only at 62 quid !!!
October 22nd, 2008 at 21:34
“…thinking is anathema to religion”
Robert Hooke. Sir Isaac Newton. Robert Boyle. Galileo. James Joule. I can’t buy the fact that thinking is anathema to religion.
Regardless, it will be interesting to see how this impacts society. I look forward to see how people will use their minds as a result of this campaign.
However, I must conclude this comment with my opinion on the subject– a quote from Blaise Pascal: “Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists.”
I sincerely appreciate everyone’s desire to think hard and well.
October 22nd, 2008 at 21:36
To organizers of the atheist bus project, from a rare atheist in the religion-soaked land to your west, I salute you. Bully!
October 22nd, 2008 at 21:42
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life”
John 3:16
Matthew 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
For all of you that are blinded by the non belivers then I will pray for you. For I will tell you god doe’s exist and you will all be judge in the end. I have a film for you 23mininhell.com check it out and tell me you would like to end up in this. Your fleash burning and dripping and your screams will be the music to your new masters ears. Because if you don’t belive than maybe you should just pick up the bible and start reading.
October 22nd, 2008 at 22:19
no i chuj wam w dupe
October 22nd, 2008 at 22:20
You guys only hope there is no God. I think I would rather hope that there was one and be wrong than think there wasn’t one and be wrong.
And someone said something about God’s popularity, why in the world would you think God cares about popularity…He created the universe let alone you. The biggest thing He cares about is you…and you have the nerve to say that His popularity is going down?
I’m sorry but I love God and it hurts me and Him to see this happening. In all seriousness, I hope every one of you finds Him, in the deepest way. Not a shallow “yes I believe in God” but a relationship with the creator of the universe.
October 22nd, 2008 at 22:22
To raz
1) Your link didn’t work
2) I will end up in flames when i die.. i know that for a fact.. because I am going to be cremated
3) but as I’ll be dead I won’t bother about it
4) enjoy your delusions
5) please don’t preach to me… it causes me burning in my belly..oh shit you’re right it’s the devil in me.. oh no..maybe not it was just indigestion caused by the clap trap were spouting
6) I think we can class you as a “jeebus clapper”
Look out for our lovely buses that will be running down the street soon .. and hopefully causing people to think rather than follow blindly
October 22nd, 2008 at 22:26
To all those theists who wonder why us atheists care…
We care for many reasons.
We care because we don’t like seeing people waste their time praising a God that doesn’t exist and looking forward to an afterlife that they will never find when they would be better off spending their time enjoying the all too short time that we are giving on this world.
We care because we don’t like to see the harm that blindly following doctrine does to people and society, especially when it flies in the face of evidence and reason.
We care because we don’t understand why our taxpayer money should go to subsidise religious organisations (the fact that churches etc don’t pay tax means there is less money in the government coffers, so us tax payers have to pay more to make up for it).
We care because we understand the freedom that non belief gives us. The freedom to marvel at the beauty of a natural universe. The freedom to make our own life choices without having to worry that someone is keeping score (this does NOT mean being able to act without morals).
We care because we don’t believe that one group of people should hold a privileged status over another group purely on the basis of a choice they have made.
We care because despite what the theistic may say and believe, religion is forced upon us in so many little ways day in and day out.
We care because forcing beliefs on very young children who do not have the mental faculties to question or evaluate what they are told borders on abuse.
That is why we care.
October 22nd, 2008 at 22:29
Paul R
I couldn’t have said it any better myself !!
October 22nd, 2008 at 22:32
@166. Asagaciousvoice
Please, for your own sanity, please look up any one of the total dissections of Pascals Wager.
This one is a good start:
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
October 22nd, 2008 at 22:34
Peter
I was about to make the point about atheism not being a belief before I noticed your reply.
If you look at the definition/explanation of atheism on this website i think you would be a little concerned. Atheism is simply and solely the assertion that a god/supernatural deity does not exist. It ends there. There is nothing else. It isnt a philosophy and it doesnt encompass a broader set of views. Everything outside this simple assertion is up for grabs and open to debate, but is distinct and outside of the atheist conviction we have about religions. There may be some general common ground in atheists views in some areas of society/ policy etc but this is not not the intellectual accompaniment of atheism. We should draw the distinction between broader views of say, humanists which encompasses other perspectives and that of atheism which doesnt.
It is a mistake and actually misleading to present atheism as some kind of counter philosophy or world view. It plays into religionistas hands because it will be impossible to represent the views of atheists who by their very nature are diverse and independent types. Like ‘herding cats’ even. Atheism is simple and logical, we should just leave it at that.
October 22nd, 2008 at 22:40
Like I said yesterday, this is what your slogan makes me think:
“There’s probably no God.
Okay.
But what if there is? …”
What’s the matter? Why didn’t you approve this post yesterday? Don’t have the courage to think about it and respond?
October 22nd, 2008 at 22:43
Hi Paul
I agree with your sentiments and there is something in my own observations that suggets that non believers do care in a particular way. However fundamentally I would suggest that you have these qualities because you are a decent bloke and have spent time thinking about this stuff andnot BECAUSE you are an atheist.
It would be entirely consistent for an atheist (ie someone who rejects the idea of a god/supernatural power) to be a miserable or uncaring sod. The point is I would contend that those qualities you describe are positive human attributes but are not a necessary part of being an atheist.
October 22nd, 2008 at 22:44
Your post was approved yesterday.
Look under the probably comments and you’ll find it !!
Comment 10 on this pagehttp://www.atheistcampaign.org/probably/#comments
We don’t censor here
…unlike certain organisations/institutions/brain-washers who cannot take criticism…
October 22nd, 2008 at 22:45
Any chance of bringing this to the states?
dennis crinion: I think you’re thinking of anarchists and/or schizophrenics.
October 22nd, 2008 at 22:45
that last comment was in reply to post 176 phototrope !!!
October 22nd, 2008 at 22:51
i fell so sorry with everyone who thinks this is great what happen in your lives to come to this point and to make a point in a bus! why not help the poor and homeless think that is what Jesus would do.
October 22nd, 2008 at 23:01
@177 John,
Thanks for that, I hope that I am indeed a decent bloke.
Lets just extend your points a little further… You’re right, the only thing I do specifically as an atheist is not believe in a god or gods. That is what atheism means. But it does mean that I do what I do, and think what I think as a result of my own thoughts and actions, not as a result of the indoctrination of a ‘holy book’. I’m not doing stuff because I’m worried that some celestial being is keeping tabs on me and that if I upset him/her/it I’ll be damned for all time.
I know that I have one shot at life, this is it.
The act of being an atheist defines one thing, but it influences so many other things as a result.
October 22nd, 2008 at 23:11
No God = no meaning (besides the temporal; eat drink and be merry).
Kill the sick and the weak and all who sap the resources and prevent us from having as much fun as possible.
Belief has consequences!
Atheism is simply the voice of those who feel abandoned. Jesus Christ met that and took it all upon Himself when He said “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me”, while hanging from the cross which barring sucking a living human from the safety of the haven of its mother’s womb is the most cruel form of execution we’ve invented.
You’re not abandoned and yes there is a God – “The infinite and perfect Spirit in whom all things have their source, support and end”
October 22nd, 2008 at 23:14
Yippee! Yahooooooooo! La La La La La…….
I love it! This has just brightened up my day! At last, a statement that actually means something!
Enjoy your ***life***. What a beautiful and wonderful world this would be if people relied on their own conscience prior to engaging their lives. As well as respecting the natural world in which they live. Think about how much healthier this planet would be if it weren’t perceived as a temporary holding ground.
October 22nd, 2008 at 23:37
Bring this to the States! Obviously, there’s a demand. No offence to London intended, but LA, San Fran and New York could use a bit of godlessness too!
October 22nd, 2008 at 23:42
i’m in the usa-how do i donate? this is a fantastic idea!
October 22nd, 2008 at 23:44
Peter the working-class-atheist, read more carefully. I said user-unfriendly, referring to the things it lacks – a quote/multi-quote facility, for one. Oh, and don’t call me a half-wit, aside from anything else, when you haven’t bothered to read what I posted or you haven’t understood it, you look like the halfwit.
David L, 163
“That looks like what I described: anecdotal evidence from partisan sources. Even if it were true that the religious give more to charity, it says nothing about whether religious claims are true – and it doesn’t say anything about the the massive harm religion does to society.”
Wikipedia is anecdotal evidence? Hilarious! It is true that believers give more, that man’s linmk notwithstanding.. and now you sound a little desperate.
DL
October 23rd, 2008 at 0:08
Hopefully, this will get Christians off their butts to do more to help promote God. Stunts atheist extremists pull such as this one always backfires on them, which always makes those with faith in God even stronger. Atheist extremists have become the biggest proselytizers in the world.
Of course most of the money Christians gather goes to charities. This money certainly could have helped a whole lot of people who desperately need help.
I think it is much more cruel to tell people they have no choice at all after death than to tell them they may go to hel*.
Thank you for helping to promote God!
October 23rd, 2008 at 0:21
I find it interesting that the so called atheists now have a campaign to raise money and support their “cause.” Are you trying to get people to think the way you think and believe what you believe? Hello! You sound just like another religion. It’s not refreshing, you’re just sending another slab of propaganda down the tube for people to feast on or vomit.
Are you really atheist????
Do you really know what it means to be an atheist????
I am sure the esteemed Richard Dawkins who has so generously given to this campaign of presumption knows what an atheist is. After all, he has written a book about it. Maybe he can give a personal response on this blog or someone else who really knows what an atheist actually is. I have a question.
How is it possible for someone to even imagine, dream, create, theorize, theologize, hypothesize, or believe in a god outside of the existence that we see and experience? Essentially how can something come from nothing? Why would a caveman look outside one day and think there must be a god? Why would some early civilization begin worshipping an invisible being? Why would anyone today be inclined to put their faith in someone who they have never touched, seen, or heard? Where could this thought or feigned being come from? If all you know is what you start with, food, sun, water, other people, Big Bang, whatever, etc. how is it even possible to think of God?
Provide a half-way decent answer with some thinking, that anathema to religion, because frankly, saying “there probably isn’t a god” just makes you look ridiculous, hypocritical, and like you just wasted £ 77,000.
October 23rd, 2008 at 0:35
Bring this also to Poland, which really needs it.
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:58
Debbie 186, anyone can contribute to wikipedia. That’s why, at the top of the page you cite, it says: ‘This article or section may be inaccurate or unbalanced in favour of certain viewpoints.’ That’s what ‘partisan’ means.
Just wondered: how would anyone really know who gives to charity, and what their beliefs are? I could tell you I’m a Catholic who gave £20 to the Alpha project fundraiser. Actually, neither of those things are true, but I did feel a bit of humanistic sympathy on seeing that they still have only £62, which falls some way short of a million. Might throw in a couple of quid later today. But probably not …
October 23rd, 2008 at 2:38
You know the old saying: There are no athiests in a fox hole. So, all of you donating to this nonsense, remember that the next time your great country is threatened by a bombing or terrorist attack and you or someone you love is a victim. My guess is that you’ll be the first praying for God to help save you or your loved one.
I’m sorry, but this ad campaign is a total crock. If you want to challenge the special privileges given to clergy, do it, but don’t try to deny the existance of God. That just makes you look stupid.
October 23rd, 2008 at 3:48
Since the sign says there is probably no God, I think you should probally do some more research into the matter. There are probally no real atheist in the world, just those who are to afraid to deal with the truth that Jesus is the only true path to God. So enjoy you short lived joy in this world atheist because it is probally the only joy you will ever know…
October 23rd, 2008 at 3:49
Link added from DMOZ/ODP
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:03
@Debbie 160
When I was a child, my parents told me that Father Christmas brought presents to the end of my bed. After a few years, I reached the conclusion that this could not, in fact, be true.
Nobody has since proved to me either way, but until I have concrete proof that Santa does indeed exist, there’s no point believing in him.
About the same time, despite being made to sing hymns at school assembly, I reached the conclusion that god doesn’t exist. Again, nobody has managed to provide evidence that he does, and until that happens, I won’t be believing in him. The same is true for fairies, ghosts and aliens.
I was about nine or ten years old when I reached this conclusion…and you’re the one who think that I’m immature?
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:13
…and by the way, just read some of the posts here from the christian types. Most of them are unintelligible nonsense! Examples:
…and there are more. Are these the ramblings of rational, intelligent human beings? Or the delusional rantings of half-wits?
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:39
Anyway, ignore the preacher types, bloody well done.
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:17
Think I’ll donate again. The world certainly needs a calm voice of reason.
E
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:25
Er, thanks, 192. Karen Grube. Really insightful. Well done.
Who’s the one looking stupid, exactly? The ones who realise that this is the only life we have and get on with things accordingly, or those who turn up at church week after week, praying for salvation to some imaginary being?
Just look at the posts from the christians on this site (see my post 196 for a summary)…do you really want to spend eternity with idiots like that when you die? Hell sounds like much more fun.
Oh, except that doesn’t exist either.
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:44
@Karen Grube
The next time my country is threatened by a bombing or terrorist attack you can bet it will be by some deluded religious maniac! You can keep your prayers!
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:41
Just a quick one, regards comment 192 from Karen Grube: I am an atheist. I’ve been in a “foxhole”, under fire. I was an atheist then – a rather scared one, but still an atheist. At NO POINT did I pray, or start hedging my bets about a god. Your assertion has been disproved. Thanks for playing, though!
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:47
“You know the old saying: There are no athiests in a fox hole.”
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Many hands make light work.
Lot slept with his daughters.
Hatstands come in red, blue, white and green in the Grattan catalogue.
Is any of that supposed to be pithy?
“So, all of you donating to this nonsense, remember that the next time your great country is threatened by a bombing or terrorist attack and you or someone you love is a victim. My guess is that you’ll be the first praying for God to help save you or your loved one.”
No, I’ll be out there not wasting my time on guff like that digging through the rubble, and hunting down the perpetrators. Weak minded morons sit by and “pray” (or hand wring) when seismic events take place.
“I’m sorry, but this ad campaign is a total crock. If you want to challenge the special privileges given to clergy, do it”
Thanks for the permission, but we really don’t need it.
“but don’t try to deny the existance of God. That just makes you look stupid.”
Why?
I deny the existence of “God”, Allah, Jupiter, Wotan, Saturn et al.
I don’t just *try*, I do it. Why would that make me look stupid?
What would make me look stupid, nay narcissistic, would be if I fell to my knees and “prayed” for my imaginary friend who considers me oh-so-special and obviously will intervene on my behalf over everyone else to change reality around me.
If you feel insulted by this remember that *you* were the one arriving on this website throwing around insults.
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:19
Re: The ‘fox in a hole’ argument has the same status as Pascal’s Wager.
It’s just cod-logic – what happens when a soldier who has been brought in a christian country is facing a soldier from a non-christian country?
According to your theory, they will both resort to praying to their god. But they’ll completely disagree on which god to pray to. I assume you’ll just say the ‘other’ guy is wrong, and end any attempt at a reasoned argument.
And for all those who claim that religious people ‘give’ more – go to Rome and see the splendour and riches of the catholic church, go to America and see the money-soaked preachers who would take the last dollar off their own granny – all in the name of religion. There are many religious people who ‘give’, but there are plenty who ‘take’ as well.
Re #189. Atheist for Real.
Agree with you here … I don’t really class myself as an atheist, in the same way that I’m not an a-tooth -fairy-ist or a-santa-ist … it just doesn’t come into my thinking.
October 23rd, 2008 at 15:09
Let’s spread this campaign. This may be the start of a revolution to rid humanity of the repressive dogmas of religion. Let’s target the biggies – US, Mexico, Brazil – big catholic countries. Money is not so important as is the capilarity of the Internet. Put in Youtube and Orkut! Put it everywhere!
October 23rd, 2008 at 15:22
[...] this on my coworker’s blog, thought it was [...]
October 23rd, 2008 at 15:47
Tony b, i totally agree.
This is the first time there has been a real advertising campaign for rational thinking. Dawkins et al have done amazing jobs, but I think a lot of people just choose to not read their books out of laziness or pig headedness. Exposing fence sitters/agnostics to real advertising could make all the difference.
After the busses, I think radio adverts would be the next way to go. You could fit a whole lot of persuasive information into a 20 second advert.
Alas, I dont think we can ever change the minds of the truly delusional relgion-heads. They need de-programming, which I think can only be done by a psychologist.
October 23rd, 2008 at 15:56
Not sure if you’ll read the comments this far down Ariane, as I fear you may be a bit busier than you first imagined!
However, I have read a lot of comments and a huge number dislike the word ‘probably’. Now, I know why this must be done in order to get around the bus advertising rules, but I do think very strong consideration should be given to a stronger message if a different advertising medium is used.
I for one would love to see a motorway-side hoarding telling people that there is no afterlife so slow down!
October 23rd, 2008 at 15:59
I hope these ads will be strategically placed – on bus routes stopping at as many churches, mosques and synagogues as possible!
October 23rd, 2008 at 16:08
We’re doing our best to read as many comments as possible, but it might take Ariane and I a few days to go through all of them!
October 23rd, 2008 at 16:14
Bravo!!! Al fin gente inteligente en este planeta!!!
October 23rd, 2008 at 16:18
Now this is good!
October 23rd, 2008 at 16:44
Brilliant idea to run a campaign. I would like to suggest some slogans.
-If God created the universe how come he can only have one son?
-After the first billion years wouldn’t Heaven get boring?
-Science has created the modern world – for good and ill.
-300 years ago toothache was a killer disease, thanks to science it is now just a hassle.
-Christianity is very WEIRD – during communion you eat the body and drink the blood of Jesus -Just say NO to symbolic cannabalism.
There’s more of these, but I’ve got to go.
All the best, Mat Stickland.
October 23rd, 2008 at 17:09
Yes, we need to make our voice heard, and not be dismissed (as by Thoughtless For The Day) as having nothing to contribute.
But while it might be fun to tweak the god-botherers’ tails (oh, YES!), we should face the fact that many are as committed to their beliefs as we are. We are not going to change their minds any more than some Jehovah’s Witness banging on my door when I’m halfway through a good film and a bottle of wine is going to change mine.
Ultimately, we need to work towards some kind of society that will allow us all to live side by side. And we won’t achieve that by emulating (no matter how tempted) the intolerance shown by certain other fundamentalists and fanatics.
Nope – I don’t know how. But in a world where Muslims hate Christians, Christians despise Jews and Jews have it in for Muslims, we won’t have contributed much by simply adding another faction to the squabble. That “probably” is a let-out clause; it expresses belief without dogma. We are announcing our presence without laying down any gauntlets
October 23rd, 2008 at 17:16
The “probably” should stay.
A dogmatic message sounds as smug and sneery as the “faith heads” nonsense, and nobody’s going to look at the bus and think “DOH! Why did I never see it all before?”. Some people, however, might be provoked to think or debate.
And if it brings out the rabies in Stephen Green and the Christian lobby that can only be a good thing.
These guys will be so embarrassed when they hear it.
Well, this country has already been bombed and, oddly enough, no revival followed.
If you can accept that we are responsible for our actions, it’s surely self-evident that we’re responsible for our reactions.
“Man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards.” – Sartre
Haha!
Your wish is my command.
(Incidentally, you’ve got a cynical link from Andrew Sullivan. That’s big.)
October 23rd, 2008 at 17:20
Your wish is my command.
Ben
(Psst! This will ultimately get reposted, but the last comment’s been reserved for moderation, and Jon and Ariane are presumably a leetle bit busy.)
October 23rd, 2008 at 17:24
I don’t get it…the link doesn’t go anywhere
October 23rd, 2008 at 17:32
Wrong link. Here you go…
October 23rd, 2008 at 17:34
what’s the point of the campaign ?
i simply cannot image Britain to be even more atheistic than it is now…
October 23rd, 2008 at 17:35
Still not a fan of the probably. Probably sounds like 95% sure rather than 99.99% sure. With no advertising restriction from the buses we should definitely debate, refine and identify the best wording to use.
October 23rd, 2008 at 17:51
True, but that’s why so many people are getting rather sick of being preached at.
Up until now, there has been no firm reply, and the church(es) can claim that this country is 75% christian. Technically, that 75% includes me, since I was christened as a baby. As soon as I was old enough to question religion, I gave up on it, but I haven’t been un-christened as far as the good ol’ COE is concerned.
October 23rd, 2008 at 18:22
[...] October 23, 2008 A few final thoughts on the atheist bus… [...]
October 23rd, 2008 at 19:32
Richard said: “And I challenge you to a debate on the television to prove “beyond reasonable doubt” that God doesn’t exist before a totally impartial jury. Are you up for that? I can assure you that you will lose.”
Fair enough. You prove to me that Zeus and Apollo don’t exist I’ll and use your method.
October 23rd, 2008 at 20:50
In the absence of a quote function etc, I am copying-and-pasting from Mat @211…
“Brilliant idea to run a campaign. I would like to suggest some slogans.
-If God created the universe how come he can only have one son? (He doesn’t need any more than one, why should s/he?)
-After the first billion years wouldn’t Heaven get boring? (Heaven isn’t sitting on a cloud with a harp. It’s doing stuff!)
-Science has created the modern world – for good and ill. (Ill. Napalm for starters, oh and nuclear waste!)
-300 years ago toothache was a killer disease, thanks to science it is now just a hassle. (Toothache a killer diseease? Dude you could have picked a much better example)
There’s more of these, but I’ve got to go.
Oh, and Redcitrus, your Santa Claus analogy has more whiskers than the advertising character has! There’s no comparison between Santa Claus and belief in God, no matter what St Richard of Dawkins says! (You guys need some original thinkers in your campaign, not just mindless followers…) Check out Alister McGrath’s excellent book, ‘Dawkins’ God’…
Disclaimer. There’s another Debbie who came along over nignt NZ time, probably from the USA, if her phraseology is any indication. I just want to say I am not her (not that she’s wholly wrong!)
Debbie K
October 23rd, 2008 at 21:41
Over £90,000!
Ariane for Secularist of the Year!
- outstanding achievement!
_____
October 23rd, 2008 at 21:42
Good luck with it. I live in the Netherlands, here preaching is less of a problem but the stupidity of reasoning in most religions still baffles me.
October 23rd, 2008 at 22:11
Sorry, there is a non sense.
Can’t you use any logic?
If God doesn’t exist, why should we waste all this money so stupidly?
I think we should donate all this money raised for charity to help poor people.
God doesn’t exist (PROBABLY), so we are the only people who can possibly help all those poor children that are still praying God for help!!!
Anyone agrees?
October 23rd, 2008 at 22:22
it’s a syllogism
A) God doesn’t exist, so we shouldn’t bother about him
B) We can only hate someone/something that is real. if something doesn’t exist, again, why should we hate it?
C) Either God exist, and this must be why we are all so pissed off…or he doesn’t. So, why this campaign?
October 23rd, 2008 at 23:11
Hi Debbie K. I’ve not read the Dawkins book, so can’t really comment on whether he uses the Santa analogy or not, but I’m all ears if you’d like to explain the difference to me.
As far as I can see, they are both fictional characters which have developed over time in folklore and literature. The character of Saint Nicolas varies from country to country, just like the character of God, so there would appear to be parallels here too. Both are passed down through stories from one generation to another, and, fundamentally, there is no evidence that either exists.
October 23rd, 2008 at 23:48
Redcitrus,
Trust me, Dawkins uses the Santa Claus argument all the time, part I think, of the general elitism of internet-atheists…
But as McGrath points out, adults don’t become believers in Santa Claus, whereas there are many thousands or millions of adults who become believers in God (McGrath and I have that in common, becoming believers as adults.) I was brought up by parents who were an atheist (father) and an agnostic (mother.) They did the Santa Claus thing but didn’t believe it, because they thought we children did, but of course dropped it gratefully when it became clear we children were only pretending to believe in Santa for the sake of our benighted parents…
I offer you a link to McGrath’s discussion in his book, and in case that doesn’t work, do google ‘Dawkins’ God’ by Alister McGrath…
http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=V9dr6167AJ8C&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=Apologetics+God+and+Santa+Claus+are+not+the+same&source=web&ots=g4-VjGO2_P&sig=7G75xUCdU2lva5ZvUvOqQyPxYg8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result
I am hunting up some more arguments, but do try googling, in fact I challenge you to do so, though I am reasonably sure that you simply won’t.
Here’s another link that probably will work, I am sorry it’s so American, but that’s google.co.nz for you!
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/unicorns.html
Debbie K
October 24th, 2008 at 0:12
Debbie, seriously…
Believing in god is exactly the same as Santa Claus. The reason why so many adults believe in God is because of “sanity in numbers”.
If a billion people believed in the flying teapot, spoke about it every sunday, made films and books about it, you’d believe it.
You need to step out of your programmed mind for just a coupld of seconds and see the world for what it is.
October 24th, 2008 at 0:34
Is there a connection between the Atheist Campaign and the nonsense of the “Bright” movement? It’s one thing to be outspoken about ones atheism, but pretending it means atheists have anything else in common.
October 24th, 2008 at 0:35
@Rich Savage 230.
Sigh… The reaction I expected! To me, you people are the ones who are programmed!
Did you bother to follow the links I gave? No, of course you didn’t.
What part of “I became a believer as an adult” didn’t you understand? I understand Mr Dawkins doesn’t even accept that phenomenon, people brought up by atheists, living in a hugely secular country and then becoming believers… Maybe he’s never heard of it, or maybe like his followers, he just can’t cope emotionally with it?
DK
October 24th, 2008 at 2:27
Delighted to see someone take positive steps in support of non-belief. I particularly liked the use of the word “probably” on the bus.
Here, in India, it is taken as axiomatic that people who hold religious beliefs, and most do, have a right to be offended if someone questions those beliefs. Apparently the sensitivities of atheists and agnostics do not call for such careful handling. I wish we could start a similar campaign in India. Congratulations
October 24th, 2008 at 2:29
@SJ Sands 154#
“I am curious as to why you would even want to say anything. If you believe there is no god why worry about what anyone says? I know there is a God and I am a very intelligent, thinking, educated person. I feel sorry for folks missing out on the wonderfully challenging and intellectual pursuit of God. I also think that you can get more from folks you want to change if you quit the put downs. Religion is not the antithesis of thinking. Sad to think of you facing the God of the Universe at death with no relationship with Him. thankfully He is a redeeming and forgiving God. He will establish a relationship with you any time you come to Him.
Have a good day and think hard! : )”
You see this is where I start to have problems dealing with this; I DO think hard and the result leads me to conclude that, on balance there is no god.
Also @DebbieK when my mum died there was a room in heaven for her and when my dad died, there was a room in heaven for him. These words were comforting and eased the pain but guess what, after the tears, I’m still an aetheist
As I have said previosly, I do think for myself.
While I’m here, and this is a question I’ve been meaning to ask for a long long time, whenever christians refer to god, they refer to god as ‘Him’ or ‘He’. Does this mean god is male?
(post script-Ive often wondered if my mum’s room and my dad’s room are next to each other)
October 24th, 2008 at 3:14
@Roy 233. IMO, God is neither male nor female but includes both… and there are many, many Christians who avoid He/Him for God for that reason, that saying he/him is ultimately misleading…
If your Mum and Dad are anything like my Mum and Dad, also dead, they are together. (In my case with my two brothers.)
God is the God of the living, and that includes those who are dead from our point of view…
DK
October 24th, 2008 at 5:08
@ Debbie K
After reading some short extracts of the book you linked, I think a lot of the points made ( at least what I read ) are poorly constructed.
October 24th, 2008 at 8:36
“God is neither male nor female but includes both…”
Prove it.
“and there are many, many Christians who avoid He/Him for God for that reason, that saying he/him is ultimately misleading…”
A bit like arguing about the outfits the tooth fairy wears when he/she/it takes your teeth away.
“God is the God of the living, and that includes those who are dead from our point of view…”
White noise. No wonder the religious fear logic, when they speak they speak mystic nonsense.
Prove a single one of your assertions, and you might be making a start. But frankly, I see no difference between this and the ravings of a madman who believes he was taken for a ride on a UFO, or believes he is Napoleon reborn.
October 24th, 2008 at 8:40
Debbie, what makes you think your god is some sort of hermaphrodite? Is that mentioned somewhere in the bible? As far as I recall, they’re usually say “He”.
If that’s the case, what’s the arrangement? Does he have both cock and balls AND a vagina? And boobs?
God, now I’m getting aroused.
October 24th, 2008 at 8:50
What does it require to become a “religious text”?
No, really.
I just re-read Ariane’s exchange with the ASA:
—-
When I called the Advertising Standards Authority, the nice lady said they’d only received two complaints about the bus ads, neither of which had been investigated, because “The quotations used are clearly from the Bible and there’s nothing in the advertising standards code to prohibit advertising a religious message. The website is not part of our remit.”
—-
….and being a nitpicky sort made me wonder: Why The Bible? How come bible quotations (etc) get freedom from audit?
So how about Shakespeare (”first, we kill all the lawyers”)
Or what about The Origin of Species?
I’m just saying basically:
- either all books should be treated equally by the ASA
- or no book should be quoted carte-blanche
- or other books should be declarable as religious texts.
So, which avenue should we attack first?
-a
October 24th, 2008 at 8:53
[...] a bus ad gonna change your beliefs? Atheists think [...]
October 24th, 2008 at 9:13
Hi Debbie K,
You asked us to read your links. I have just read this one … http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/unicorns.html
… this is just an opinion. Please point out where exactly the writer proves his case. He merely refers to the bible.
His argument about differences between god and santa are laughable. Santa isn’t physical, he’s a made-up story – even you accept that.
And he’s also fallen into a trap of his own making. It says … ‘In contrast, atheism would predict that the universe would be eternal. In fact, this belief was prevalent among atheists until the evidence against the steady state theory became overwhelming last century.‘.
This is exactly the difference between relying on an ancient text and updating your view on the world by repeatable experimentation and evidence. He seems to approve.
Paul
October 24th, 2008 at 9:16
@ Debbie K 232.
Of course Dawkins believes it happens. That kind of no-evidence thinking (”NO atheists become religious as adults”), should be left to religious people. Of course SOME people do, for the precise reason I gave: When there are a billion other people believing it, its easy for you to believe it too.
The reason why you dont believe in santa as an adult is because no other adults do. The reason you believe in god is because billions of other people do.
October 24th, 2008 at 9:16
‘agnostic-atheist-canuck | 24.10.08 at 0:34
Is there a connection between the Atheist Campaign and the nonsense of the “Bright” movement? It’s one thing to be outspoken about ones atheism, but pretending it means atheists have anything else in common.’
I think this is such an important point. There is no atheist lifestyle or collective of ideas ,so I always get fidgety when I see ‘atheist groups’ labeled thus, then discover that there are all sorts of philosophical ideas drawn in. Please STOP STOP STOP. There are other groups dealing with the broader issues, most notably the Humanists, but atheism should not be taken any further than its core meaning.
One of the (many) weaknesses in religious criticism of atheism is that they create all sorts of philosophical and social assumptions to try to construct an atheist way of thinking which they can then criticise. Its often represented as an alternative set of beliefs (bit of an irony there!) By representing atheists in this way they really do miss the point, but crucially we musnt think that we are some kind of counter culture. It is not, it is just the absence of belief, every thing else is separate and while im sure we take time to think about the big questions, I for one am not happy to be represented as part of some shared way of thinking.
October 24th, 2008 at 9:18
Oh, and debbie, yes i did read all the links. Yet again, wishy washy dribble. Its amazing what you people think constitues an argument.
October 24th, 2008 at 9:26
Debbie K.
There are a number of flaws in your argument. You seem to be suggesting that because many people believe something, then it must be true.
There are over a billion people in India, 80% of whom are Hindu. That’s quite a lot of people who have a belief which isn’t a Christian one. Doesn’t their vote count for something? You can’t both be right.
Both belief in God and Santa are inherited. A child brought up in complete isolation from the world will not believe in the Christian God (although they may well formulate their own belief system); both God and Santa rely on parents / preachers passing down belief from one generation to the next without providing conclusive evidence that either exists.
I’d be happy to exist in God…all he has to do is to demonstrate that he exists. So far, nothing. Being told that he does by some bloke with a dog collar just doesn’t cut the mustard, I’m afraid.
October 24th, 2008 at 9:31
John
Absolutely right, however isn’t Humanism a subset of atheism, one that adopts a set of values? Such organisations spring up, and you either join them or you don’t. There is no such thing, as you say, as an atheist set of values beyond the self evident.
The religious are trying to taunt the irreligious with “you have no values”, missing the point, for sure, but effectively slandering the atheist.
October 24th, 2008 at 12:47
Well done, love this campaign! I’m just about to out the logo on my webpage. I belong to the Facebook group as well.
October 24th, 2008 at 13:20
when i first heard about this i thought it was an interesting and refreshing idea, more in the sense that it will probably be provoking, make people take notice, turn their heads and say ‘wow look at that bus, how strange!’ or something like that. and maybe for that reason it would be a bit funny and entertaining as well. but i don’t think it goes further than that, and i don’t think it should be taken further than that anyway.
the things that are being said on here for me are just plain scary. people talking of some ‘worthy cause’ or wanting to remove the word ‘probably’ from the slogan. so are we going to have a collective of atheists now fighting for their worthy cause? does this not defeat the point of atheism?
people are atheists because they see no reason to believe in god and/or because they think that religion is responsible for many of the ills of this world.
if they see no reason for believing in god, then they are just quite relaxed about the whole thing and are not too bothered with people that do – they just disagree, but i don’t think that they feel the need to parade their view around a city…apart maybe from wanting to spicen things up a bit, which is fine.
if, on the other hand, they think that religion is reponsible for many bad things in this world, then maybe their atheism has a bit more edge to it, and then maybe they even hate religion in a sense. but if that is the case, why would they even want to start campaigning for atheism and start trying to convert people? wouldn’t that just make them as bad as any other religion?
October 24th, 2008 at 14:11
@Rich #125
Hi Rich,
Nice to see your message but I am somewhat surprised that you think the fossils are eveidence for evolution when they clearly are not and cannot be.
The fossil record is the only so-called material evidence for evolution when really the fossils cry out Creation!
So, what are fossils? When an organism is trapped and swept away by running water, it is buriedat some point by sediment. The sediment becomes compacted into rockand the organisms or their imprints become part of the rock. These are called fossils and they are found all over the world.
To start with, any person examining this subject with an open mind must conclude that fossils are evidence of sudden death and quick burial, and NOT slow gradual death and decay. It is evidence of catastrophism and uniformitarianism. The graveyards of fossils all over the world are “living” evidence of the Biblical account of the universal flood in the days of Noah, as described in the book of Genesis.
If the fossil record favour evolution, we would expect, first of all, to find the oldest layers of rock having the most primitive forms of life, and gradually as we go into different forms of strata we expect to find more and more complex forms of life.
Do we find this? Not at all! There are no indisputable fossils below the Cambrian strata. The, all of a sudden , fossils of billions of animals that are complex, like triolobites, jelly fish and worms, appear in the Cambrian strata. Even if we accept micro fossils of single cells, there is a gap with no fossils at all which, according to evolution took 1.5 billion years. So in this aspect the fossil record is not in favour of evolution.
According to creation all living things were created together, so their fossils appear together as the record shows. Running water usually groups all similar weights and dumps them together, which is why fossils are sorted according to size.
If the fossil record favours evolution , then we would also expect new basic types not to appear suddenly, but to possess characteristics of their ancestral groups. So if fish gave rise to amphibians over 50 million years according to evolution, there must be millions of fossils showing transitional forms, that is fossils with part fins and part legs, or half fish and half amphibian. If reptiles gave rise to birds over millions of years, then we must find fossils with part forelimbs and part wings, or half reptile and half bird.
But in all the fossil records comprising of millions of fossils, not a single transitional form is to be found. Evolutionists cannot blame the size of the record.
There is more Rich but please look at the evidence.
I have faith in a personal God (Jesus) and science completely agrees with His Word, The Bible. Check it out…..
October 24th, 2008 at 14:33
No 125 Rich Savage, the Islamic virgins thing…. I guess these guys don’t count either:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7682240.stm
October 24th, 2008 at 14:36
Oh no … not the argument from misunderstanding evolution “crocoduck” style. Next we will get the “banana” being the atheist nightmare.
October 24th, 2008 at 14:41
Post 247.. I take it that is this “intelligent design” bullshit you are referring to in your post.. what a load of bollocks ! You’re actually going against your own argument as well..doesn’t the god-squadder nonsense say that the planet has only been around for 6000 years or so until your imaginary friend decided to magic it into existence.
You can have it both ways… it’s either big bang billions of years ago… or a book of fairy tales about your nasty homophobic, misogonistic child abuser ?
October 24th, 2008 at 14:42
Hello again Richard.
I’ll let one of the worlds best biologists explain. Just hit either of these links:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=091AcgsWoTk
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kIgeOz21nAE
You’ll still say “there aren’t any transitional fossils!”, even after you’ve heard that there are.
What will it take to change your mind?
I would happily believe in God is I saw one true miracle.
October 24th, 2008 at 14:43
I agree humanism is a way through which you can develop a clear set of values, and in return influence the collective values of humanists. However I dont think atheism has subsets or a range of associated values. Atheists will have a full range of values just like any group of individuals you care to identify.
If religious types try to argue against atheism on moral grounds then they are completely stumped as atheism itself is not a moral stance. We as individuals can argue our own corner about morality, and as we know history shows us that religion has the least right to preach morality. And we know dont we how laughable it is that the religious think that morals dont exist without some god or other which of course is very easy to refute.
October 24th, 2008 at 14:51
All I am saying is that a subset of atheists are humanists.
Atheism does not bring with it anything other than a rejection of the god hypothesis.
This is, as you say, what stumps the religious. They also think that if they attack evolution it somehow attacks the root of the atheist position. This is an absurdity in itself.
Even if we did not understand how the natural domain perpetuates itself and adjust to the challenges around it we would still not need the “God” hypothesis.
October 24th, 2008 at 14:57
Re #247. Richard | 24.10.08 at 14:11
Richard, you seem to be some kind of strange hybrid – happy to use scientific data and methods to talk about ‘billion-year-gaps’, and then go on to say all the fossils were laid down in the biblical flood – which would mean sometime in the last 10,000 years.
But in all the fossil records comprising of millions of fossils, not a single transitional form is to be found.
First define ‘transitional form’ clearly. I ask you to do this, because I’m not sure exactly what you mean by this.
If you can define it and I can show you an example, will you then change your mind?
October 24th, 2008 at 15:12
@ Richard,
Are human fossils to be found in the Cambrian Strata?
October 24th, 2008 at 15:30
I imagine Richard himself is a transitional form, somewhere between a slime mold and a human being. Not a very advanced form, obviously.
Richard, there is a massive consistent body of scientific evidence in support of evolution. There’s way more to it than looking at fossils, although I imagine you don’t believe in molecular genetics. In the light of this, don’t waste your breath as no-one here is going to be converted by a frothing loon like you.
October 24th, 2008 at 15:54
Barry..couldn’t have put better myself…
October 24th, 2008 at 15:55
I wonder how long the posters will be up before some Muslim group announces that it finds the ads ‘offensive’ and puts pressure on the bus company to remove them. Just as Sony did with the Koran references in LittleBigPlanet http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7679151.stm, I fear they will capitulate. But what gives Muslims the right not to be offended? Why do religious groups need such privileges? I don’t have that right and find plenty of things offensive (like Spurs for eg) but being offended is the flip of having freedom of expression and without that we really are back in the Dark Ages.
October 24th, 2008 at 16:07
@Richard
I’m afraid you are displaying the kind of strained and willful ignorance that is necessary to maintain belief in a supernatural creator.
The fossil record is not, as you state, the only evidence for evolution, and it hardly supports biblical ‘theory’. Evolution is overwhelmingly and simultaneously supported by studies in the fields of genetics, comparative anatomy, ecology, ethology, biochemistry, palaeontology and geology to name just a few.
And if you’re interested in so-called ‘transitional forms’ try the following: Acanthostega gunnari, Ichthyostega stenisoei, Pederpes finneyae, tiktaalik roseae , panerichthys rhombolepis, Prolacerta spp, Protorosaurus spp., Euparkeria capensis, Chasmatosaurus spp., Sphenosuchus acutus, Terrestrisuchus spp., Sclermochlus taylori, Eoraptor lunensis, Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis, Staurikosaurus pricei, Sinornithosaurus millenni, Microraptor spp., Sinovenator changii, Archaeopteryx lithographica, Confuciusornis sanctus, Iberomesornis romerali, Sinornis santensis, Chaoyangia beishanensis, Liaoningornis longidigitus, Yanornis martini, Yixianornis grabaui, Jeholornis prima, Graculavus spp., Cimolopteryx spp., Palintropus spp., Tyttostonyx glauconiticus, Presbyornis pervetus, Juncitarsus spp., Rhynchaeites messelensis, Limnofregata azygosternon, Lithornis spp., Salmila robusta, Psilopterus spp., Procariama spp., Gallinuloides wyomingensis, Foro panarium, Eomaia scansoria, Haplodactes, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus natans, Basilosaurus, Rhodocetus, Hyracotherium, Sahelanthropus tchadensis.
Faith trumps evidence only for those who wish to be deceived…
October 24th, 2008 at 17:04
Like many others, I’m bemused the inclusion of the word ‘probably’
Would you say there is ‘probably no such thing as a unicorn’?
October 24th, 2008 at 17:22
bom acho tudo isso um absurdo!!! o que na realidade não existe é seu senso do ridiculo e sua falta de fé!!!! realmente que vive sem Deus,vive sem nada!!! exemplo no oriente medio eles acreditam que Alha é o Deus deles,por que sera que no oriente medio existe tanta morte tanto atentado,tanta miseria ??? ué cada Deus deles???? Bom nós acreditamos que Deus existe e que deu seu unico filho Jesus para salvar a minha vida e a sua vida!!!! pense se Deus não existe vc nasceu como???vc acredita que é descendente de macaco ou dos dinossauros?????
October 24th, 2008 at 17:37
POCA VERGONHA DIZEREM ISSO DO SUPREMO SENHOR JESUS CRISTO !
VOCÊIS NÃO TEM O QUE FAER, TANTA GENTE PASSANDO FOME AI E VOCÊIS GASTANDO DINHEIRO A TOA.
A VINDA DO SENHOR ESTÁ PROXIMA, HOJE ESTAMOS NO MESMO TEMPO DE NOÉ, QUANDO MENOS SE ESPEROU ACONTECEU O DILUVIO.
October 24th, 2008 at 17:45
GOD IS WONDERFUL, FAITHFUL, IS MY REASON TO LIFE
October 24th, 2008 at 18:04
As stated, one of the aims of the campaign is simply to raise awareness of atheism; which is currently a largely mis-represented and under-represented section of society.
The serious side of this is to try and forward a humanist agenda to prevent the erosion of human rights and un-necessary suffering, and curtail the increasing power of zealous religious groups in public life.
It is ‘probably’ the case that the majority of ‘relgious believers’ are unaware of the possibility of life without religion; where ethics and morality are innate human qualities that are globally shared, rather than acquired through religious teachings.
Consequently, the message should be construed as providing a positive, enlightened alternative, rather than an attack on non-atheists.
The whole campaign is amazingly inspiring and feels like a ‘wake up call’ to everyone who cares about what they believe in (I believe in the power of humanity as a humanist), lets hope it is the beginning of greater representation for the good of everyone!
October 24th, 2008 at 18:05
So this campaign has topped 100k
Congratulations to all!!
It is clear that those who believe in facts would like a voice. What now?
October 24th, 2008 at 18:43
I don’t agree.. God is present in our lives.. He created everything.. He created me.. He created you… He loves you and everybody.. stop with this,
I think we have to enjoy the life, of course..
but why don’t enjoy believing him??
He can make wonderfull things in our lives!
It’s only believe!!
thank.. Kisses *.*
October 24th, 2008 at 18:45
can we have a bus in Andover … please.
October 24th, 2008 at 19:02
Congratulations. Looking forwards to ‘probably’ going national.
October 24th, 2008 at 19:29
There is another post on the press, now in the brazilian presse, you can see it here:
http://terramagazine.terra.com.br/interna/0,,OI3280377-EI11346,00-Sexo+na+escola+e+onibus+no+inferno.html
October 24th, 2008 at 19:31
PLEASE CAN WE HAVE A MODERATOR??????
I chose to look at this blog thread ‘cos I was interested in the bus advert. I don’t see why I have to wade through reams of stuff which is OFF THE SUBJECT! Surely a moderator should be diverting some comments to another space on the site?
Basically, I don’t see why an argument IN FAVOUR OF A DIVINE BEING has ANY place in a comment session devoted to a purely atheist subject. I ADMOT THAT THERE SHOULD BE A SPACE FOR YOU TO MAKE YOUR BIZARRE OPININS KNOWN… but can’t we have an ‘Alternative’ area for these things? I’m not aware that Atheists ‘invade’ religious sites in the same manner. maybe I’m wrong? Maybe atheists are simply more POLITE!!!!!!
October 24th, 2008 at 19:59
Hey,
#271. Cleison | 24.10.08 at 19:13
What’s your dad got to do with this?
P
October 24th, 2008 at 20:05
Andy asks:
Would you say there is ‘probably no such thing as a unicorn’?
Yes, I would; equal treatment for all fictions, I say
- and I’m rather fond of wink & whimsy
Adam
_____
October 24th, 2008 at 20:30
Although ‘probably’ is going to be wilfully misinterpreted (and already has been on Thought for the Day) it’s, for me at least, a scientific statement in the sense that, if someone showed me a unicorn, I’d accept that they exist.
Saying ‘God does not exist’ is just as unprovable as saying ‘God does exist’. If either statements were provable, there wouldn’t be any need for this campaign!
But, the technical reason for ‘probably’ is that without it, the bus company won’t run the ad – see http://www.atheistcampaign.org/probably/
October 24th, 2008 at 21:44
Hey, we’ve just had a mention on “Have I Got News for You on BBC 1″! Ian Hisolp was a bit scathing of the “Probably” word though.
October 25th, 2008 at 7:32
Despite me (financially meagre) contribution to it I must admit that I am just a trifle disappointed at an Atheist Campaign using an Agnostic Slogan.
By the way, one REAL fear: Fundamentalists blowing up such buses…
October 25th, 2008 at 9:15
“and thinking is anathema to religion” – Richard Dawkins has not read the quran since it repeatedly directs people to think!
October 25th, 2008 at 9:32
Jesus replied to Peter, “I can guarantee this truth: Before a rooster crows tonight, you will say three times that you don’t know me.”
If you do not know God, and do not believe in Jesus, then when the day comes He will say that He does not know you…
Believe
October 25th, 2008 at 11:48
Good reason not to believe in Jesus or Allah or any of that drivel:
Can you imagine ending up for eternity in heaven with a bunch of these pious humourless numbnuts?
Yeach.
I’ll be happily burning away in the lake of fire, using it to light a Cuban cigar and having a chat with all the interesting people. I might even enjoy some deep fried food.
October 25th, 2008 at 11:53
Quoting some words from a book of fairy tales about people in a desert country over 2000 years ago is suddenly not going to make me change my mind !
I do believe.. in myself and other like minded intelligent people who have reasoned that as there is no proof of God then the whole religions built around him are just a fraud.
October 25th, 2008 at 11:57
Sorry to spoil the party but much as I welcome an atheist “fight back” this one is a gesture not a campaign! And before someone says “look at the publicity” that will quickly fade, what is needed is a long term strategy.
A PR/marketing/advertising strategy first defines goals, it identifies the audience and only then does it embark on a creative approach.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that, with the exception of vociferous minorities the UK is not very religious, but many still think of themselves as culturally christian as evidenced by census results. But many of those who are not religious are not wholly rational either, they believe in conspiracy theories, alternative medicine, the Loch Ness monster etc.
Belief in something “outside ourselves” is regrettable but harmless so “god” is not the problem but religion certainly is. In my opinion it is the status and privileges that religion enjoys that need to exposed and undermined and the acceptance of the moral authority of religious leader that needs to be challenged. In my own small way that is what I have been doing in my correspondence with Mark Damazer over Thought for the Day (mentioned elsewhere on this site).
Getting back to the bus ads “probably no god” is about as unconvincing as it can be and as stated previously god is not the problem. So if money is still coming in then please get some professional advice on how to spend it more effectively.
October 25th, 2008 at 12:31
To Rich #253, Paul N #256, DSK #257 and the insulting Barry Young #258
We can continue the debate concerning how scientific evolution is on this website but I would prefer to have the debate before a wider audience. So please, if you really are serious then take me up on my challenge #68. I do not look to insult your intelligence or expect you to insult mine, Barry, all I want to do is bring the debate out and kill the theory once and for all. Are you up for it gentlemen?
October 25th, 2008 at 12:45
Richard #283 – I’d like you to answer something that’s been puzzling me for some time.
On Boxing Day 2004 the Asian Tsunami killed over 200,000 people indiscriminately across the Indian Ocean. Now, presumably an omnipotent and all-powerful God could have prevented this happening. But he didn’t.
This presents a number of possible scenarios:
1) God made this happen, and therefore he is a cruel and vengeful God, and not worthy of worship.
2) God couldn’t prevent this happening, and therefore he is a fallible God, and not worthy of worship.
3) God could have prevented this happened, but didn’t, and therefore he is an irrelevant God, and not worthy of worship.
4) God does not exist.
Which of these is it?
October 25th, 2008 at 15:30
The Atheist Bus is important, but this is where it’s really at if we want to see lasting change:
http://www.justgiving.com/faithschools?from=UKSponsorExit
Let’s all put our money where our mouth is!
October 25th, 2008 at 17:31
God just laughs at your plans
October 25th, 2008 at 18:15
[...] 25, 2008 Mark Kenny sniffs disdainfully at the atheist bus… “It may even stimulate someone to write a book called “The [...]
October 25th, 2008 at 18:54
Tough shit, Richard. You’re a brainless gimp. Now piss off to somewhere where you’re appreciated – it ain’t here.
October 25th, 2008 at 18:57
Richard #283:
How do you suggest a televised debate be organised, unless of course you have contacts in the media?
As regards to “kill the theory once and for all” – you apparently have a very high opinion of yourself. Perhaps too high when you throw Pascal’s Wager into the debate (#68). I respectfully suggest you keep the debate to the more narrow audience to save yourself some embarrassment.
October 25th, 2008 at 19:05
Richard,
Furthermore, no one is claiming absolutely beyond reasonable doubt that there is no god. The stance is that it is almost certain that there is no god.
To say there is absolutely beyond reasonable doubt no anything is a foolish thing to believe, and likewise to say absolutely beyond reasonable doubt A GOD EXISTS is equally foolish. You can no more prove this than I could prove a god absolutely does not exist and so your proposed televised debate is futile.
October 25th, 2008 at 19:17
Barry don’t resort to insults, use intelligence instead.
“And I challenge you to a debate on the television to prove “beyond reasonable doubt” that God doesn’t exist before a totally impartial jury. Are you up for that? I can assure you that you will lose.”
I will accept this challenge if to the same “impartial jury” you can prove “beyond reasonable doubt”, that none of the following Gods exist:
Abassi
Abeona
Abgal
Abuk
Abundantia
Ac Yanto
Acan
Acat
Achelois
Achelous
Acolmiztli
Acolnahuacatl
Adamanthea
Adeona
Adimurti
Adityas
Adonis
Adrammelech
Adrasteia
Adroa
Adroanzi
Aegea
Aengus
Aeolus
Aequitas
Aether
Aethon
Aetna
Africus
Agastya
Agé
Aghora
Aglaea
Agni
Agoué
Agrotora
Agwe
Ah Bolom Tzacab
Ah Cancum
Ah Chun Caan
Ah Chuy Kak
Ah Ciliz
Ah Cun Can
Ah Cuxtal
Ah Hulneb
Ah Kin
Ah Kumix Uinicob
Ah Mun
Ah Muzencab
Ah Peku
Ah Puch
Ah Tabai
Ah Uincir Dz’acab
Ah Uuc Ticab
Aha Njoku
Ahau-Kin
Ahmakiq
Ahulane
Ahura Mazda
Aida-Wedo
Ailuros
Aine
Airmid
Aita
Aizan
Aizen-Myoo
Aja
Aja
Ajbit
Aji-Suki-Taka-Hi-Kone
Ajok
Aker
Akhushtal
Akkan
Alaghom Naom
Alauwaimis
Alcyone
Alecto
Alectrona
Alemonia
Allah
Alom
Alpan
Alpheus
Ama-arhus
Amaethon
Ama-No-Minaka-Nushi
Amaterasu
Amathaunta
Amatsu Mikaboshi
Amatsu-Kami
Ama-Tsu-Mara
Amaunet
Ambika
Ame-No-Mi-Kumari
Ame-No-Wakahiko
Ament
Amida
Amimitl
Ammavaru
Ammon
Am-No-Tanabata-Hime
Amphitrite
Amun
Amun-Re
Amurru
An
Anala
Ananke
Anansi
Anantesa
Anatu
Andhrimnir
Andjety
Angerona
Angita
Angitia
Angrboda
Anhur
Ani
Anila
Ankt
Anna Perenna
Annamurti
Annapurna
Anouke
Ansa
Anteros
Antevorte
Anti
Antu
Anu
Anubis
Anuket
Anumati
Anunitu
Anuradha
Apa
Apam Napat
Apep
Apet
Aphrodite
Apis
Aplu
Apo
Apocatequil
Apollo
Apsaras
Apsu
Apu Illapu
Apu Punchau
Aquilo
Aradia
Aranyani
Arazu
Ardhanari
Ardhanarisvara
Ardra
Arebati
Arensnuphis
Ares
Arianrhod
Artemis
Artume
Arundhati
Aruru
Aryman
Asa
Asclepius
Ashnan
Aslesa
Astamatara
Astraea
Astrild
Asuras
Asvayujau
Asvins
Aten
Athena
Aticandika
Atl
Atla
Atlas
Atlaua
Atri
Atum
Audhumla
Aurora
Auster
Avatars of Vishnu
Aya
Ayyappan
Azaca
Ba
Ba
Ba Xian
Baal
Baba
Babbar
Babi
heart.
Bacabs
Bacchus
Backlum Chaam
Badb
Baku
Bala
Balakrsna
Balam
Balarama
Balder
Bali
Balor
Banba
Banebdjetet
Banga
Banka-Mundi
Baron Cimetière
Baron Samedi
Baron-La-Croix
Bastet
Bat
Belatu-Cadros
Belenus
Belet-Ili
Beletseri
Belisama
Bellona
Benten
Benzai-Ten
Bes
Beset
Beyla
Bhadra
Bhaga
Bharani
Bharat Mata
Bharati
Bhavani
Bhumidevi
Bhumiya
Bhutamata
Bhuvanesvari
Bile
Bimbogami
Binzuru-Sonja
Bishamon
Bitol
Bixia Yuanjin
Boann
Bolontiku
Bomazi
Bona Dea
Boreas
Borghild
Bosatsu
Bragi
Brahma
Brahmani
Bran
Branwen
Bres
Brigit
Brigitte
Brihaspati
Brono
Bubona
Buddha
Budha
Budhi Pallien
Buku
Buluc Chabtan
Bumba
Buto
Butsu
Bylgia
Cabaguil
Caca
Cailleach
Cailleach Beara
Cai-shen
Cakulha
Calliope
Camaxtli
Camaxtli
Camazotz
Camenae
Candelifera
Cao Guo-jiu
Caprakan
Cardea
Caridwen
Carmenta
Carna
Carrefour
Catequil
Cauac
Cautha
Cavillaca
Centeotl
Centzonuitznaua
Ceres
Cernunnos
Cghene
Chac
Chac Uayab Xoc
Chaitanya
Chalchiuhtlatonal
Chalchiuhtlicue
Chalchiutotolin
Chalmecacihuilt
Chalmecatl
Chama
Chamer
Chandanayika
Chandika
Chandra
Chantico
Chaob
Chaos
Charun
Chasca
Chasca Coyllur
Cheng-huang
Chenti-cheti
Chenti-irti
Cherti
Chibirias
Chiccan
Chicomecoatl
Chicomexochtli
Chiconahui
Chien-shin
Chimata-no-kami
Chinnamastaka
Chitra
Chitragupta
Chiuta
Chloris
Chnum
Chons
Chontamenti
Chu Jiang
Chuku
Chup-Kamui
Cihuacoatl
Cinxia
Cit Bolon Tum
Citlalatonac
Citlalicue
Ciucoatl
Cizin
Clementia
Clio
Cloacina
Coatlicue
Cochimetl
Cocomama
Coelus
Coeus
Colel Cab
Colop U Uichkin
Comus
Conditor
Coniraya
Consus
Convector
Copacati
Copia
Coyolxauhqui
Coyopa
Cronus
Cuba
Culsu
Cum Hau
Cunina
Cupid
Da
Dagda
Dagon
Dagur
Daibosatsu
Daikoku
Dainichi
Damballah-Wedo
Damgalnunna
Danu
Danu
Dea Tacita
Decima
Dedun
Dei Lucrii
Demeter
Deng
Devaki
Devapurohita
Devera
Deverra
Devi
Dewi
Dhanapati
Dhanistha
Dhanvantari
Dhara
Dharma
Dharti Mata
Dha-shi-zhi
Dhatar
Dhatri
Dhisana
Dhruva
Diana
Di-cang
Di-guan
Dionysus
Dirae
Dis Pater
Disciplina
Discordia
Disen
Dius Fidus
Djeheuty
Domfe
Dongo
Dong-yue da-di
Dosojin
Dou-mu
Dozoku-shin
Dua
Duamutef
Dumuzi
Durgha
Dyaus Pita
Dyavaprthivi
Dylan
Dziva
Ea
Ebeh
Ebisu
Edinkira
Egestes
Egungun-oya
Ehecatl
Eir
Eirene
Ekchuah
Ekibiogami
Ekkeko
Elli
Ellil
Emma-o
Empanda
Endovelicus
Enekpe
En-kai
Enmesarra
Ennead
Ennugi
Enyo
Eos
Epimethus
Epona
Erato
Erebus
Ereshkigal
Erinyes
Eris
Er-lang
Eros
Erra
Erzulie
Erzulie Dantor
Eseasar
Eshu
Eurus
Euterpe
Evan
Eventus Bonus
Fabulinus
Fama
Fan-kui
Faro
Fauna
Faunus
Faustitas
Favonius
Febris
Februus
Fei Lian
Felicitas
Feng Bo
Feng Po-po
Fenrir
Feronia
Feronia
Fides
Flora
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Fontus
Fornax
Forseti
Fortuna
Freya
Freyr
Frigg
Fudo
Fufluns
Fujin
Fukurokuju
Fulgora
Funadama
Furies
Furies
Furina
Futsu-Nushi-no-Kami
Fu-xing
Gaea
Gama
Gamab
Gandharvas
Ganesha
Ganga
Gao Yao
Gbadu
Geb
Gefion
Gekka-o
Gerd
Ghanan
Gibil
Girru
Goibhnu
Gong De Tian
Gong Gong
Gou Mang
Graces
Grand Bois
Grand Maître
Gratiae
Guan-di
Gucumatz
Guédé
Gui Xian
Gula
Gun
Gun
Gunab
Gwydion
Hacha’kyum
Hachiman
Hades
Hah
Han
Han Xian-zi
Haniyasu-hiko
Haniyasu-hime
Hanuman
Hapi
Harihara
Har-nedj-itef
Har-pa-khered
Hathor
Hatmehit
Hauhet
Haya-Ji
He Bo
He Xian-gu
Hebe
Hecate
Hedetet
Heh
Heimdall
Heitsi
Heket
Hel
Helios
Hemen
Hemera
Hemsut
Heng O
Hephaestus
Hera
Heracles
Hermes
Hermod
Hesat
Hesperos
Hestia
Hez-ur
Hike
Hippona
Hiranyagarbha
Hiruko
Hod
Holler
Honos
Horta
Horus
Hoso-no-Kami
Hotei
Hou Ji
Hou Tu
How-chu
How-too
Hu Jing-de
Huaca
Huang Fei-hu
Huang-lao
Huang-lao-jun
Huehueteotl
Huitzilopochtli
Huixtocihuatl
Humbaba
Hun Came
Hun Hunahpu
Hunab Ku
Hurakan
Huve
Hygieia
Hyperion
Hypnos
Ida
Ida-Ten
Idun
Ihu
Ihy
Ika-Zuchi-no-Kami
Iki-Ryo
Illapa
Imana
Imiut
Imra
Imset
Inanna
Inari
Indivia
Indra
Indrani
Inmutef
Inti
Ipet
Irkalla
Isara
Ishkhara
Ishkur
Ishtar
Isis
Isora
Itzamna
Itzananohk`u
Itzlacoliuhque
Itzli
Itzpapalotl
Ix
Ix Chebel Yax
Ixchel
Ixtab
Ixtlilton
Ixzaluoh
Izanagi
Izanami
Jaganmatri
Janus
Ji Nu
Jian Lao
Jin Jia
Jinushigami
Jizo
Joh
Jok
Jord
Jormungand
Jove
Juichimen
Juno
Jupiter
Jurojin
Justitia
Juturna
Juventas
Kaang
Ka-Ata-Killa
Kagutsuchi
Kaka-Guie
Kaksisa
Kali
Kalki
Kalunga
Kama
Kamado-gami
Kami-kaze
Kaminari
Kan
Kanayama-hiko
Kanayama-hime
Kan-u-Uayeyab
Kan-xib-yui
Kari
Kartikeya
Karttikeya
Kauket
Kawa-no-Kami
Kebechet
Kebechsenef
Kemwer
Kenro-Ji-Jin
Khem
Khentamenti
Khentimentiu
Khepri
Khnum
Khonvoum
Ki
Kianto
K’in
Kinich Ahau
Kishi-Bojin
Kishijoten
Kishimo-jin
Kojin
Kombu
Kon
Ko-no-Hana
Koshin
Koya-no-Myoin
Krishna
Kubera
Kui-xing
Kuk
Kukulcan
Kukunochi-no-Kami
Kulitta
Kulla
Kuni-Toko-tachi
Kura-Okami
Kurma
Kusag
Kvasir
Kwan Yin
La Sirène
Lactans
Laga
Lahar
Lakshmi
Lamastu
Lan Cai-he
Lao-jun
Laran
Larenta
Lares
Lasa
Latona
Laverna
Legba
Legba
Lei-gong
Lei-zi
Leto
Li Tie-guai
Liber
Libera
Liberalitas
Libertas
Libitina
Lima
Ling-bao tian-zong
Lisa
Liu Bei
Lleu
Loco
Lofn
Loki
Long-wang
Losna
Lu Ban
Lu Dong-bin
Lucifer
Lucina
Later equated with Juno.
Lugh
Luna
Lu-xing
Ma Wang
Maahes
Ma’at
Macuilxochitl
Magna Mater
Magni
Mahes
Maia
Maiesta
Maitreya
Malinalxochi
Mama
Mama Allpa
Mama Cocha
Mama Oello
Mama Pacha
Mama Quilla
Mami Wata
Ma-mian
Mamitu
Mammetu
Manannan mac Lir
Manasa-Devi
Manco Capac
Mani
Mania
Mania
Mantus
Marassa
Marduk
Marinette
Marisha-Ten
Mars
Martu
Maruts
Massim-Biambe
Matarisvan
Matsya
Matuta
Mawaya-no-kami
Mawu
Mbaba Mwana Waresa
br>
Mbomba
Meditrina
Mefitis
Mehturt
Mellona
Melpomene
Mena
Mendes
Menhit
Menrva
Mens
Men-shen
Menthu
Mercury
Meret
Meretseger
Mesenet
Meskhenet
Messor
Metis
Metztli
Mextli
Mictlantecutli
Miming
Mimir
Min
Minerva
Minga Bengale
Miro
Mitra
Mixcoatl
Miyazu-Hime
Mnemosyne
Mnewer
Modi
Mo-hi-hai
Moirae
Moneta
Monju-Bosatsu
Morrigan
Mors
Morta
Mu Gong
Mugasa
Mugasha
Mu-king
Mulac
Mummu
Muses
Musso Koroni
Musubi-no-Kami
Mut
Muta
Mutinus Mutunus
Mylitta
Nabu
Naenia
Nai-no-Kami
Naka-Yama-Tsu-Mi
Nakshatras
Nammu
Namtar
Nana Buluku
Nanaja
Nanauatzin
Nanna
Nanshe
Nantosuelta
Naryana
Naum
Naunet
Necessitas
Nefertem
Nehebkau
Neiterogob
Neith
Nekhbet
Nemesis
Nemestrinus
Neper
Nephthys
Nepit
Neptune
Nergal
Nethuns
Nidaba
Nike
Nikko-Bosatsu
Nin-agal
Ninatta
Ninazu
Ninedinna
Ningirsu
Ningizzida
Ninhursag
Ninigi-no-mikoto
Ninkarrak
Ninkasi
Ninlil
Nintur
Ninurta
Nirriti
Nisaba
Niu Wang
Njord
Nohochacyum
Nominosukune
Nona
Norns
Nortia
Nott
Notus
Nox
Nü-gua
Nun
Nundina
Nunet
Nusku
Nut
Nyalitch
Nyorai
Nyx
Nzame
Oanomochi
Obarator
Obassi
Obatala
Occator
Oceanus
Odin
Odudua
Oghma
Ogmios
Ogoun
Ogoun Badagris
Ogoun Fer
Ogoun Shango
Ohonamochi
Oho-Yama
Okuni-Nushi
Omacatl
Omecihuatl
Ometecuhtli
Opochtli
Ops
Orbona
Orcus
Oromila
Oshunmare
Osiris
Owatatsumi
Oyamatsumi
Pa
Pa-cha
Pachacamac
Pachet
Pa-hsien
Pales
Pamba
Pan
Pan Jin Lian
Pan-gu
Papsukkel
Parcae
Pariacaca
Paricia
Parvati
Patecatl
Pax
Paynal
Penates
Persephone
Petbe
Petro
Pheme
Phoebe
Phospheros
Picus
Pietas
Pluto
Poena
Polyhymnia
Pomona
Portunes
Porus
Poseidon
Postverta
Prajapati
Priapus
Prisni
Prometheus
Prorsa Postverta
Proserpina
Providentia
Prthivi
Ptah
Puchan
Pudicitia
Punchau
Purusha
Pushan
Puta
Qeb
Qetesh
Qi Gu-niang
Quamta
Quetzalcoatl
Quirinus
Quiritis
Ra
Rada
Raiden
Raktavija
Raluvumbha
Rama
Rama
Ran
Rati
Ratri
Ravi
Re
Renenet
Renenutet
Renpet
Resheph
Rhea
Rhiannon
Rhibus
Rig Veda
Rimmon
Robigo
Robigus
Roma
Rosmerta
Ru Shou
Rudra
Rukmini
Rumina
Ryangombe
Ryo-Wo
Sadhyas
Sae-no-Kami
Saga
Sai
Sakhmet
Salacia
Salbatanu
Salus
Sambo-kojin
Samuqan
Sancus
San-qing
San-xing
Saranyu
Saraswati
Saritor
Sarutahiko Ohkami
Sataran
Satet
Saturn
Satyanarayana
Savitar
Savitri
Seb
Sebek
Securitas
Seker
Selene
Selvans
Semonia
Sengen
Septu
Serapis
Serket
Seshat
Sesmu
Set
Seth
Sethlans
Shai
Shaka
Shakpana
Shamash
Shango
Shannon
Shasti
Shen Yi
Shen-nung
Shichi Fujukin
Shinda
Shine-Tsu-Hiko
Shiva
Shoden
Shoki
Shou-lao
Shou-xing
Shu
Shui-guan
Shulpae
Shutu
Sia
Sibzianna
Siduri
Sif
Silvanus
Simbi
Si-ming
Sin
Sita
Sjofn
Skadi
Sleipnir
Smertrios
Sobek
Sol
Sol
Soma
Somnus
Song Di
Song-zi niang-niang
Sons of Horus
Sopdet
Sors
Spes
Stata Mater
Stimula
Strenua
Suadela
Subramania
Subruncinator
Sucellus
Suijin
Suitengu
Sukuna-Biko
Sulpa’e
Summanus
Sun-pi
Supay
Surya
Susanowa
Syn
Tages
Tai-sui-xing
Tai-yi
Tai-yue da-di
Takami-Musubi
Takemikadzuchi
Taki-Tsu-Hiko
Tammuz
Tanen
Tao-de tian-zong
Taouris
Tara
Taranis
Tatenen
Tatsuta-hime
Taurt
Taweret
Tecciztecatl
Tefnut
Tellus
Tempestes
Tenenit
Tenjin
Teoyaomqui
Tepeyollotl
Terminus
Terpsichore
Terra Mater
Teteoinnan
Tethys
Tethys
Teutates
Tezcatlipoca
Thalia
Thalna
Thanatos
Themis
Thesan
Thor
Thoth
Tiamat
Tian Hou
Tian-guan
Tian-mu
Tiberinus
Tinia
Titlacauan
Tlacolotl
Tlahuixcalpantecuhtli
Tlaloc
Tlaltecuhtli
Tlazolteotl
Tohil
Tonatiuh
Tore
Toyo-Uke-Bime
Toyouke-Omikami
Trimurti
Trivia
Tsui
Tsuki-Yumi
Tuamutef
Tuatha De Danann
Tuchulcha
Tu-di
Turan
Turms
Tvashtri
Tyche
Tyr
Tzakol
Tzitzimime
Uba
Ueuecoyotl
Uga-Jin
Uga-no-Mitama
Ukemochi
Ull
Uma
Umunmutamku
Umvelinqangi
Uneg
Uni
Un-nefer
Unumbotte
Unut
Upanishads
Urania
Uranus
Urcaguary
Urvasi
Ushas
Uttu
Uzume
Vach
Vacuna
Vali
Valkyries
Vamana
Vanadevatas
Vanth
Var
Varuna
Vasus
Vayu
Vedas
Veiovis
Veive
Venus
Veritas
Verminus
Vertumnus
Vesta
Vichama
Victoria
Vidar
Viracocha
Virtus
Vishnu
Visvakarma
Vivasvat
Voltumna
Volumna
Votan
Vulcan
Vulturnus
Wakahiru-me
Wang Mu niang-niang
Wata-tsu-mi
Wei Cheng
Wei-tuo
Wele
Wen-chang
Wen-shu
Wepwawet
Wosyet
Woto
Wu Guan
Xaman Ek
Xi Shi
Xi Wang-mu
Xian
Xilonen
Xipe Totec
Xiuhcoatl
Xiuhtecutli
Xochipilli
Xochiquetzal
Xocotl
Xolotl
Yabune
Yacatecuhtli
Yaksha
Yaluk
Yama
Yama-no-kami
Yamato
Yang Jing
Yangombi
Yan-lo
Yansan
Yao-shi
Yemaja
Yen-lo-wang
Yi-Ti
Yoni
Yuan-shi tian-zong
Yu-huang
Yuki-Onna
Yum Caax
Yu-qiang
Zakar
Zao-jun
Zaramama
Zephyrus
Zeus
Zhang Fei
Zhang Xian
Zhi Song-zi
Zhi-ni
Zhong kui
Zhu Rong
Zi-yu
Zotz
I assume since you believe in the Christian God, you don’t believe any of the aforementioned gods exist.
October 25th, 2008 at 19:24
Hi Rich,
As I’ve already said (#275) – I don’t see how one can prove that ‘god does not exist’, just as one cannot prove ‘god does exist’. Both statements are outside of scientific study.
That’s why, in the end, I’m happy with ‘probably’ in the message, since a definite statement is not scientific. Dawkins would have preferred ‘almost certainly’, which has a well-defined in mathematics, and would be the rigorous version.
To be frank, I think you (Rich) are mistaken to even engage in attempting to ‘prove’ your beliefs. Theists tell me that faith is all one needs.
October 25th, 2008 at 19:25
I’ve seen at least one of those on a sushi menu.
October 25th, 2008 at 19:28
DSK,
You missed Edusa, goddess of nourishment who guarded over children as they learned to eat solid foods.
October 25th, 2008 at 19:32
Wow, that’s some list.
Do you guys have these lists (transitional forms and gods) to hand, or are you seasoned atheists?
Where you get this information so quickly?
P.
October 25th, 2008 at 19:40
Barry #285
Psalm 34 Verse 8 says “taste and see that the Lord is good”
I used to be like you but I did taste and found that the Lord is indeed good. You should try Him for yourself.
Instead of being so insulting take up my challenge…or are you afraid of what you might find?
October 25th, 2008 at 19:49
Richard, these pointless debates have been conducted hundreds of times before on the internet and neither side ever changes their position. I’m not interested in arguing this again; it’s a waste of time. I have a PhD in molecular biology; I’m hardly likely to be swayed by some frothing loon quoting from some work of fiction.
October 26th, 2008 at 0:17
Whew! What an exchange. First, let me say that it is wonderful to see such a campaign and I just wish it could happen in the USA. Get back to us after November 4…
Ariane and Jon – great job. I just want to say (if an American vote counts) that I too prefer “almost certainly” to “probably” in my gut – but I understand why the latter is better/less adversarial, at least for the first go. However, I do strongly agree with the suggested modification t the slogan by Sebastian (#74), that it be changed to “There is probably no God, so relax and enjoy life!” (i.e., change “now” to “so” and delete “your”). Also, I think it is good to make the first statement all upper case; that way whether or not god/God is capitalized does not matter.
Bravo for the efforts! And I want the bumper sticker!
Nancy in Houston TX
October 26th, 2008 at 4:34
@Richard,
If you really can disprove evolution then why are you on this site asking for a debate you know won’t happen? Why aren’t you writing a journal paper or a book and letting the evidence speak for itself? I’ve got a funny feeling it’s because you know nothing about evolution except for the skewed and tired arguments used by creationists (oops I mean “intelligent design theorists”) in their lame attempt to disprove one of the most successful theories of modern science. Just accept it, we evolved!
October 26th, 2008 at 5:45
@238 Barry Young.
Really, I don’t believe you’re that silly. White noise it may be to Dr Doctor, but God (not just ‘my’ God), is by definition, non-physical, and so the category hermaphrodite is meaningless for God.
Debbie K
October 26th, 2008 at 6:06
Oh theres the hiss of that white noise again.
It is Sunday, now do your Bible study:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
October 26th, 2008 at 6:08
@Rich Savage 242
“The reason you believe in god is because billions of other people do.”
Er, that doesn’t mean that belief in God is wrong…
In fact, I would say that billions of people are unlikely to be as wrong as you want to think they are…
You really should read CS Lewis, but I’ve noticed that internet-atheists, of the activist variety, are pretty well impervious to any books, links etc, you go armoured against them, by a tremendous will to not believe… Therefore, you don’t read with open minds.. because you believe it’s all about ‘blind’ faith, but really, you couldn’t be more wrong!
Debbie K
October 26th, 2008 at 6:32
Oh and boys, being insulting isn’t going to help your case one teeny little bit. Don’t tell me you aren’t making a case, because you are. Or what is the bus, and your patron saint Richard of Dawkins’ book for, hey?
Mr “White Noise” Dr Doctor, I am well familiar with the Skeptics (sic) Annotated Bible. It’s pants. Now, as you’ve pointed out, it’s Sunday, on a public holiday weekend, and I’ve better things to do, such as going down the dairy for some chocolate…
Have a good day, ragazzi… don’t strain the brains, eh?
Debbie K
October 26th, 2008 at 8:20
Its pants because Debbie calls it that. What is it with theists and their addiction to making assertions?
I think the radio station analogy is fitting, like a kid twirling a dial most of the time it is white noise with the odd moment of clarity.
I think Debbie needs to relax, and enjoy her life.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:25
It’s about time the atheists of the world united against indoctrination and actively promoted logical, rational thought.
I’ll be teaching my kids there is nothing new about Jesus or the following of God, but that it’s simply a psychological need mixed in with astrological charting of the sun.
Has anyone seen “Zeitgeist”? I would urge you to watch it.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:34
In response to some comments here, there are actually a number of car stickers in existence for we atheists. It’s the Fish logo from Christianity (which is actually taken directly from the Zodiac) but with legs on it….depicting your belief in evolution, not creationism.
Very cool and can be found via a simple Google search.
October 26th, 2008 at 9:20
@88 Samantha: such eloquent ramblings by a supposed Christian. Your god must be very proud!
@291 Barry: I love this post!
@189 Atheist: the worship of God can be traced back to the worship of the sun, which in effect is Jesus.
There are many many other supposed Gods who fit Jesus’ description including all his main attributes which make him who he is, and he is absolutely traceable back to the Zodiac. Check out Horus, Mythra and Krishna for the same story as Jesus.
Then watch a movie called “Zeitgeist” for a fuller explanation.
Religion is absolutely explainable and an inevitable consequence of our primitive minds, but some of the atheists here are saying we have evolved, but our beliefs haven’t, which I agree with.
It will take a few more generations of lazy Christians and other religions before science prevails, but it eventually will, and “God” will cease to exist.
October 26th, 2008 at 15:16
RedCitrus #284
The Tsunami in 2004 was a terrible event and so I would like to look at your scenario’s.
1. I do NOT believe God made it happen. However to use the term cruel and vengeful God and not worthy of our worship is completely wide of the mark. As you can see from the flood of Noah, God will and does judge.
2/3. God could have prevented it happening and he clearly had reasons for allowing it to happen. What his reasons are I can’t answer. All I know is that following the fall of man in the Garden of Eden God’s Creation became marred.
This will change with the new heaven and the new earth – Revelation 21 Verse 1.
4. God does not exist. By sending His Son Jesus to die on the cross for your sins He demonstrated how much He loves you. You would be better off saying “I haven’t found Him” and start looking.
DSK #286
You are right. As a Christian I believe in one God but more than that I have a personal relationship with a personal God. The good news is you can too…
What sets Christianity apart from other religions is that there is nothing I can do to earn my salvation. Jesus did that for me when He died on the Cross and rose again on the third day. All I have to do is repent and believe…it really is that simple!
There is only one way. Can I suggest that do an Alpha Course at your local church?
Barry #291
As you have a Phd in molecular biology why not accept my challenge? It would be great to get this subject properly debated.
Oli #292
The reason I’m asking for this debate is that I find it amazing how passionate people can get about a cock and bull theory. Imagine how passionate you can get when you find the truth! As for me writing a book can I refer you to the following books:
And God said by Dr Farid Abou-Rahme
The Dawkins Delusion by Alister McGrath
Tornado in a Junkyard by James Perloff
the Lie: Evolution by Ken Ham
Also take a look at Answers in Genesis on the web.
I appreciate the fact evolution has been one of the most successful theories of all time. My guess as to why, is that people just do not want to believe in God or try to find him because they are scared of what they may find.
I must say though that I think this is a great campaign as God will use this campaign to spread the Good News of Jesus and so the campaign WILL backfire!
October 26th, 2008 at 17:12
I just read through post 298 from Richard
All I can say is poor deluded man… I’ve read some of that claptrap he’s referring too. I fail to understand how a rational human being could
1) write that blurb and
2) believe in the “intelligent design” so called theory
3) take a book of fairy tales as the guide to disprove all the past centuries scientific discoveries.
4) I’ve never seen a vicar/imam/rabbi do a heart transplant have you ?
Anyway I’m damned anyway..christians, muslims and jews don’t like gay atheists at all !!
October 26th, 2008 at 17:22
Oh Richard I feel sorry for you. Still looking at the world as if a child, believing in fairy tales of a magic guy living in the sky knowing and seeing all, it is quite funny if you look at it with an adult point of view, you know one with sense and a little intelligence.
I hope that you grow up soon and see the truth, good luck to you
October 26th, 2008 at 17:57
Debbie, you make some pretty stupid generalisations there, to say “You really should read CS Lewis, but I’ve noticed that internet-atheists, of the activist variety, are pretty well impervious to any books, links etc, you go armoured against them, by a tremendous will to not believe” is just an idiotic comment.
Athiests are not all the same, they are different also they don’t all follow a book they have individuality, so to generalise the billions of people around the world who don’t believe in this particular religious fairy tale is just plain stupid to be honest.
How about you think before you speak from now on? How about not trying to show other people how stupid they are but using a stupid comment to do it?
Athiests are not people who just refuse to believe things although I am sure there are some, most athiests would be the first to believe it if there was any evidence because that’s what most believe in, facts and evidence.
And the fact is there is no god, this is the real world, not fairy land. So people should start living their lives and being happy and not keeping hopes on a fairy tale.
We have only one life, and it is short, enjoy it!
)))
Good luck to all the fairy tale believers I hope one day you see the truth, good luck
October 26th, 2008 at 18:41
Poor, poor, Richard #298. The extent of his delusion is so deep and intense he has zero chance of recovery. The pope has a better chance of enlightenment.
Luckily Richard has been deluded by xtian myths, and so is rather unlikely to commit a terrorist act. That’s about the best that can be said of his state of mind.
October 26th, 2008 at 19:34
Richard – I’m disappointed in your answers. Respect is a two-way process, and if God expects me to respect him, I would expect some in return. The old “God moves in mysterious ways” cliche is a bit pointless.Claiming that of this nature is like covering one’s ears and shouting “la la la” rally loudly. You say that “What his reasons are I can’t answer”, but that’s not good enough. I’m not willing to worship a god who would wipe out so many lives in such a dreadful manner without some explanation as to why.
In fact, I find your passive acceptance of this quite offensive – no different to the Germans in the second world war who knew of the Nazi mass-extermination programmes yet did nothing to challenge it, believing it to be for the “greater good”.
October 26th, 2008 at 20:33
Peter Theakston #299
You don’t have to be damned as you put it. Can I recommend you read the book:
A guy who was gay by Richard Oostrum with Hans Frinsel.
October 26th, 2008 at 21:06
@Richard,
Regarding the book list you gave in your last post. What is Alister McGrath’s book doing in that list? Alister McGrath believes in God, but he fully accepts evolutionary theory as do MOST Christian scientists. It’s only an odd ball bunch of Christians that don’t accept evolution in the UK (I’m guessing your not from the UK). On a purely theological level, I have read Alister McGrath and C.S. Lewis and have found their arguments weak and unconvincing.
You completely missed what I was saying when I said evolution is a successful theory. I didn’t mean it was successful because a lot of people have heard about it. I meant it’s successful because it has made MANY prediction which have ALL turned out to be CORRECT! It’s not successful because people don’t want to believe in God, it’s successful because using it we can understand a hell of a lot.
For example, look at the amazing work on “ring species”, look at the wonderful work on chromosome fusion that proves Humans share a common ancestor with Great Apes (I know you won’t, but please check out this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk), look at Endogenous Retroviral DNA (this isn’t the right place to go into modern genetics but take a look at the positioning of ERV’s in Human and Chimp DNA). What about vestigial organs, why do we get goose-bumps, why do men have nipples, why do we have an appendix for goodness sake? What God just wanted to make it look like we evolved to test us?? Come on, this is totally stupid.
The list of evidence supporting evolution goes on and on and on and on and on. You need to lift your eyes up from that bronze age book you’ve become obsessed with and look around! Go to the Natural History museum and ask to see the fossil and geological evidence for evolution, goto the library and read some papers from a journal like Nature (or even a magazine like New Scientist for that matter). If you do this, you’ll find that there isn’t some big cover up, there isn’t a global conspiracy going on to stop people believing in God.
October 26th, 2008 at 21:16
Richard post 303
No thanks..I’m quite happy as I am !!! Why do christians always assume it’s their right to push their crap on gay people and try and change them ?
October 26th, 2008 at 21:36
Thanks, Peter (305), was waiting with somewhat ‘bated breath. Very restrained of you.
The answer to your question is, of course, because all religious people believe that they and only they are RIGHT! It goes with the territory, once you have FAITH, then the (insert [ir]relevant imaginary sky pixie here) is on your side and your opinions inevitably overcome those of anyone else.
Surely you must have spotted this by now?
October 26th, 2008 at 22:00
Rational scientific logic WILL prevail and God will cease to exist.
It may not happen in my life time, but I pray it will.
hehe
October 26th, 2008 at 22:18
yeah I had spotted that Simon ….
As for your bated breath comment…I did rewrite the post a few times before posting…but decided to restrain myself as the poor deluded man can’t help being brainwashed…
October 27th, 2008 at 1:37
please put the much shorter slogan in much bigger letters:
BLAME GOD FOR ALL STUPIDITY.
watch believers argue against omnipotence.
lulz ensue.
btw- u most certainly can prove there is no ‘god’
only that which does not exist is ineffable, duh.
it’s the mystery of mysteries and the fraud of frauds. Goedel tells you how to get out of it, not provide you excuse for wallowing in it. Eff that!
October 27th, 2008 at 1:54
How often do you find the word “PROBABLY” in anything written by religionists of any colour or creed? The more passionate the conviction, about God and religion, or even otherwise, the less likelihood that it is true. Take a true religionist. Apart from God and religion what else is he passionate about? It will almost certainly be something for which there is no good ground.
Someone made the distinction between atheism and agnosticism. That atheism is about faith or the lack of it while agnosticism is about knowledge or the lack of it. Excellent and well put.
October 27th, 2008 at 3:46
I’m not sure this is the right thread to post this in, but here’s Ariane being interviewed on BBC Radio 4’s Sunday programme :
(Direct link / Download link)
October 27th, 2008 at 5:06
Peter, really! “4) I’ve never seen a vicar/imam/rabbi do a heart transplant have you ?”
And why would you? They’re a vicar etc, not a cardiac surgeon. I’ve never seen a shop keeper give a language lesson… and my assertion is just as relevant to the case.
Debbie K
October 27th, 2008 at 5:28
@320 Sharad – You’ll actually find the word “probably” used a lot by what you call “religionists”. McGrath and C S Lewis for two…Do read their books, and pay attention, because you’ll find, provided you actually want to, that their arguments do indeed make sense. It’s the actually wanting to be open minded, that’s the problem.
318 Darren Stevens – you admit then that God exists? But God isn’t going to disappear to please you!
Debbie K
October 27th, 2008 at 7:25
I’m worried about the souls that post “thanks & great idea” on this website. If you are atheists then you’re not supposed to protest and make as if atheism is a religion.
You should all pray and have faith the God will lead you in the way that you’re supposed to go. Maybe there’s a reason that you all are doing this and donating to a cause.
Mamon is your god it seems.. enjoy your banner…
October 27th, 2008 at 8:52
“If you are atheists then you’re not supposed to protest”
Is it written somewhere?
“You should all pray and have faith the God will lead you in the way that you’re supposed to go.”
I think you are terribly confused about what atheist means.
“Maybe there’s a reason that you all are doing this and donating to a cause.”
Yes, there is, and it seems to be beyond your limited world view. I pity your small mindedness, but given you don’t understand what an atheist is, perhaps it is founded in ignorance and we should blame your upbringing instead.
October 27th, 2008 at 10:07
Debbie K,
The point is that when a religious person is ill, they don’t find remedies in ancient texts. They look to science to cure them.
There are exceptions of course – people who would rather their child died than have a blood transplant – I hope you’re not in that category.
October 27th, 2008 at 10:26
ujvnalb chgewdle
October 27th, 2008 at 11:15
Richard, you have just confirmed what so many know, that Christianity was invented to pave the way to atheism. In other religions you have to do something to show you belong, in Christianity all you have to do is repent and believe. That way you can hedge your bets and be both an atheist and a believer at the same time by paying lip service to a god who keeps out of your way.
Six days a week the vast majority of Christians ignore all gods including the one they pay lip service to on Sundays.
If you want to be devoutly religious then Christianity is not the religion for you, if you want to be able to ignore all gods then that is atheism.
October 27th, 2008 at 12:21
Crowth
I think that is very relevant as the host for Sunday is the same Roger Bolton who hosts Feedback.
Lets deluge Feedback with demands for an atheist voice on Thought for the Day
October 27th, 2008 at 18:35
If you were to destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion.
October 27th, 2008 at 18:40
“When 1 person suffers from a delusion it is insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion”
Sorry, I thought we were all posting things we take solace in. Apologies but I’ve got no numbers in my magic book though
October 27th, 2008 at 22:10
I don’t think the religionists posting to this quite get it. The upwelling of, and speaking out by, atheists is a reaction to the smug, know it all attitude of those who would ram religion and all its myopic, stone age superstitions down our throats. Make no mistake, the religionists in each and every culture are exactly the same, they all resemble the Taliban. Look at all the bloodshed and wars, the Crusades etc, all in the name of religion. Look at the Muslim treatment of women, and then look at the fundamentalist in the western world, with men trying to run the lives of women, they who are never pregnant saying no to abortion. I could go on and on, but it would only be repetition of points and arguments already stated. I just want the smug taliban bastards of all religious persuasions to get out of my face.
October 28th, 2008 at 18:42
Just listened to the R4 interview. Thought you came across well on that Ariane. Keep up the good work for this cause
October 28th, 2008 at 20:36
Atheist should check out William Lane Craig and see your weak arguments crushed. Richard Dawkins will not face him in a debate.
October 28th, 2008 at 22:12
Atheists should indeed check out William Lane Craig, because he is hilarious! He is making a bit more of an effort, totally undermined, as ever, by the common failing – he believes, Lord, he believes! Shocking pics, too….
October 29th, 2008 at 12:33
Your best argument is the fact that William Lane Craig believes! Thats weakness for you. Can you refute him with this reason I often hear of? Or would you hide from debate as Richard Dawkins does?
October 30th, 2008 at 22:26
kde
Interestingly, I have seen videos of a man called William Craig, in which people who do not follow his opinions refer to him by name. I accept this as adequate evidence of his existence, even accepting that I have never met him. Christian philosphers have been arguing about the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin for millenia and constructing more & more fanciful ideas to support the unsupportable, in the wake of the more simplistic religions of previous ages. It would be asy to refute William Craig with reason & I should happily debate with him, but you have to remember, it is up to him to provide proof of something he claims exists, not up to me to disprove that for which there is no evidence. Remind me, does he believe in the IPU or the FSM?
October 30th, 2008 at 22:27
Sorry, kde,
I meant Thor or Mars?
October 30th, 2008 at 22:29
Or the Christian God (retired vicious Crusading deity, except in the good ole’ USA) or Islam’s Allah (apparently still active as a vicious jihadi deity)?
It’s so obvious, isn’t it?
October 31st, 2008 at 14:53
Thank’s Jesus for my life, my wife and my son.
November 1st, 2008 at 2:15
Why assume Jesus had something to do with them? I spoke today to a man who was a serving soldier in Afghanistan when he heard his wife and only child had died in a car crash. Was he just out of favour with Jesus that day?
November 1st, 2008 at 13:53
I just had a nice chat with a jehova’s witness, in which she tried to give me a copy of “The Truth” and I enquired whether she thought that the right way to deal with a rape victim who subsequently got married was for the men of her city to stone her to death on her father’s door step. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)
Amazingly, she effectively declared that stoning people to death was A OK with her, as long as they’d been naughty enough — marvellous — I guess she’ll be getting a spot of retraining when she gets back to base.
I expect I’ll have the pleasure of chatting to one of their heavier hitters next time they’re round.
November 1st, 2008 at 14:37
Great campaign, let’s get it going national and create a real debate about the over-importance that religious mumbo jumbo has within our society.
I’m sick to death with the way we so often have to pussy foot around issues of religion in case we cause offence. Sod em! For too long have they got away with peddling their lies (especially to children) without being challenged.
It amazes me that in the 21st century people still believe in sky fairies – when will they wake up and smell the roses and learn to think for themselves.
On a practical note: would love bumper sickers etc and some fun atheist events to launch the campaign.
November 1st, 2008 at 19:05
I wish I could donate, I really do.
Unfortunately, I can’t afford to do so at this point in time.
I will cheer for this as loudly as my voice is able, though.
November 3rd, 2008 at 0:41
A Johovah’s Witness once came to my door and told me that some people actually believe in evolution. I replied that evolution just meant that if any creature did not live long enough to reproduce it would not pass on its characteristics to future generations. She thought about it for a bit and then said, “Well, that seems to make sense.” I wonder what happened to her.
November 3rd, 2008 at 14:46
Your bus has square wheels.
November 4th, 2008 at 16:04
[...] atheistcampaign.org: atheist bus «there's probably no god. now stop worrying and enjoy your life.» hihi. (tags: spenden uk bus kampagne religion atheismus atheistcampaign) [...]
November 6th, 2008 at 20:20
Rev. David said, “Your bus has square wheels.”
No. It hasn’t.
November 6th, 2008 at 21:09
If he did exist, what would God think of your posters?
November 10th, 2008 at 11:02
Religion is just ignorance dressed up as elightenment.
November 11th, 2008 at 3:01
I’ve seen similar bus slogans to these in Bath, and the faint blurred logo in the corner looks like Bath & Avon council, unless the London one is very similar.
Was pleasantly surprised to see it anyway.
November 11th, 2008 at 17:53
||It’s worth donating £2 just to say: probably? Probably? PROBABLY? You twits!! At least come out and say there DEFINITELY isn’t!! Oh dear, oh dear! – Nick Whittome||
Of course, never pause to consider how others will respond to your crass and doctrinaire attitude, you shithead. Just leave the PR to others.
_____
November 20th, 2008 at 13:08
“Probably” – so you are not sure then..? Now that’s interesting!!
November 20th, 2008 at 13:55
Phil, why is it interesting?
Do you have a view yourself?
The statment ‘God does not exist’ is as unprovable as saying ‘God does exist’. Being dogmatic and unscientific is for religious people.
November 20th, 2008 at 14:19
Paul N – Yes I do have a view point on this. I wouldn’t call myself religious – but do believe in God. I think I should have commented on the second part of the slogan really…
“Now stop worrying and enjoy your life”
My belief in God is the reason I don’t worry about my life!! Also my belief in God helps me to enjoy my life and give me a purpose and a hope for myself and the people I meet.
In a way, I think this slogan could be really upsetting for some people – I have done some work with bereaved parents who wouldn’t call themselves religious or christian – but the thought that their child is in a better place with God gives them massive comfort – these views have come from themselves not pushed on them by others – it is a way they have found to help deal with the grieving process.
Paul N – Do you know if all the money from this is purely to pay for more advertising around the country..? Or is some going to charity..? It seems a real shame if such a big campaign is not going to be used in a charitable way..?
Phil.
November 20th, 2008 at 14:31
Hi again Paul N and anyone who has supported this by donating money…
I have just checked on the site and to my dismay have found that every penny of the money donated is being spent on doing more bus ads around the country… I think this is a very sad waste of money that could have been used in a much better way. For example: Childrens Hospices, Cancer charities etc etc…
The campaign site says…
“The more adverts we’re able to run, the greater a difference we can make. All donations will be administered by the British Humanist Association and used directly to place ads on buses saying “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life”, along with links to atheist websites.”
“the greater difference we can make” – sadly, none of this money is going to make a “greater difference” for a sick child who needs expensive specialist care or a cancer patient etc etc.
I really hope that all the people who have donated also donated the other night towards the Children in Need appeal – if you didn’t – I think you need to have a look at your priorities in life…
Phil.
November 20th, 2008 at 14:38
Hi Phil,
The thing is, I don’t believe in god, and I don’t believe that, for instance, my father, who died recently is sitting in heaven somewhere.
So I don’t need preachers, vicars, shaman, popes, bishops, rabbis, mullahs, buddhas and all the concomitent rubbish that comes with that mob.
Saying that it helps some people some time is not an argument, just an observation about human nature, not about divine beings.
Either one believes in an omnipotent being or not. You could ask these people the question (although I too would not want to upset bereaved parents) of why took their child away in the first place?
The real issue is we are dominated by religious espousing their views, most of which are patronising and some of which are very dangerous indeed. I, for one, am happy to contribute to putting the other view across for once.
And please don’t tell me that every penny given to churches etc get’s spent on charity – have you seen some of the churches out there – more like palaces.
November 20th, 2008 at 15:01
Phil – you just made my case.
You say -’I really hope that all the people who have donated also donated the other night towards the Children in Need appeal – if you didn’t – I think you need to have a look at your priorities in life…’.
As I said, patronising gumph.
Generosity is not linked umbilically to religious belief. Why don’t you ask the pope to give up a few of his jewels or the Archbishop of Canterbury to pay his salary all to charity?
November 20th, 2008 at 15:13
Hi Paul N
I was not using the bereaved parents comment as an argument about if there is or isn’t a God – just that I thought the statement could be upsetting to some people. I also agree that some religious literature and advertising can be hurtful and dangerous too.
Yes – I have seen some very posh churches and mosques etc and I am sure that a lot of their fundraising goes towards that. BUT not that many religions have a nationwide advertising campaign of this scale. So it seems a shame that this cannot be used as a fundraising tool for needy charities…
You would “probably” get more people donating if they knew that a percentage was going to charity.
“Generosity is not linked umbilically to religious belief” – did I say it was..? No, I didn’t!!
Paul N – You seem very argumentative – all I am doing is posting some comments – which this will be my last – it is a shame I can’t post my comments without getting an online mouthful…
November 20th, 2008 at 15:29
Hi Phil,
This is what makes me argumentative …
‘I have just checked on the site and to my dismay have found that every penny of the money donated is being spent on doing more bus ads around the country… I think this is a very sad waste of money that could have been used in a much better way. For example: Childrens Hospices, Cancer charities etc etc…‘
This campaign is to try to make clear that there plenty of people out here who do not believe in god(s). It has nothing to do with what you mention above. I merely pointed out that to try and say so is patronising and very annoying.
Please read through the older posts, and you will find that I try to respond in as reasonable way as I can, in contrast to many posts (of both persuasions, by the way).
November 20th, 2008 at 17:44
Phil, when I donated money, I presumed it was going towards atheist adverts. I didn’t give my money to the atheist bus campaign so that it would be giving to a completely unrelated cause that the campaigners had decided! I think it would be a bit cheeky if my money was used for anything other than the cause for which I intended it to be used!
If I want to donate to Cancer research, then I’ll donate to Cancer research! It’s my prerogative! Anyway, why aren’t you giving Christians hassle over their adverts filling peoples minds with the vision of a vengeful Sky Fairy???
As it happens I’m a member of two charities that I pay monthly donations to… And I’m an atheist, go figure! So stop being so bloody condescending by telling me that a cause which I think is very important is a “sad waste of money”. Get off my back!
November 20th, 2008 at 17:47
If a percentage of donations were given to charity then people would complain that this was a cynical move exploiting charities for political reasons. They would be right too.
I am not an atheist but I have seen several wearing poppies, know several who gave to children in need. The reason donations here have dried up is that they’ve had their say and will now get on with doing other things with their money. I think the woman promoting Child’s Play at my workplace is an atheist for that matter.
November 22nd, 2008 at 4:10
I’m a convinced & passionate atheist who just loves that litotic ‘probably’ – really makes it zing! Sorely puzzled over the fuss. The playfully courteous usage, though, would be a nicety better highlighted by adopting the rewording suggested earlier – Comment#54 above – the simple addition of a pluralising ’s’ packing a far heftier punch.
_____
January 8th, 2009 at 16:24
Congrats, the bus has made it to today’s biggest Polish newspaper! http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomosci/1,80269,6132166,_Boga_raczej_nie_ma____niecodzienna_akcja_brytyjskich.html?nltxx=856991&nltdt=2009-01-08-08-12
Now please, can we have one of these in Poland? While in the UK atheists are at least accepted, in Poland if you say that you don’t believe in god people look at you as if you had just said that Pope JPII had eaten a steady diet of raw baby every morning…
January 27th, 2009 at 21:25
I am a true and committed athiest and felt enlighted to see your poster on the tube. I finally felt that people are standing up for Athiesm. It is just as much as important as any other belief and although we are perhaps in the minority, it doesn’t mean our voice our opinions should be heard.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:14
Hey guys – great way to get everyone talking about God. Well Done! Haven’t seen any buses up north though..?
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:48
Thank you Abba Father, Messiah Yeshua (Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit for every person who reads or adds comments to this website. Thank you Abba Father for the web host, the moderator and the person who engineered this website.
Abba Father, in the Name of Messiah Yeshua, I bless every person, member, moderator and every reader of this website with a double blessing of being born again. Abba Father I bless them with Health, prosperity and peace. Abba Father, I ask your forgiveness for every person, for they know not what they are doing. In the name of Messiah Yeshua, I come against every evil spirit that is holding these people in bondage, confusing them and blinding them to your truth. I ask now Abba Father that you remove from every individual these spirits and to send these spirits where You want them.
Abba Father, I Bind every person to Your Perfect will. I bind Every person’s mind to the mind of Christ, Messiah Yeshua and I Bind every person’s raggedy emotions to the healing balance of the Holy Spirit. I pray this in the mighty name of Messiah Yeshua.
Abba Father, I now loose from them the works of Satan that are causing hatred, confusion and feelings of despair, in the name of Messiah Yeshua. I loose from them wrong thoughts and feeling about Your provision or Your character or who You are, in the name of Messiah Yeshua. Abba Father I now further loose from them the confusion about You and your people that they think is the truth in the name of Messiah Yeshua.
Almighty Abba Father, you are capable of doing all things, shattering strongholds and making people see. Abba Father I ask, in the name of Messiah Yeshua, that You will fill every person with Your Holy Spirit, give them a Heart of Flesh and reveal Yourself, Your Everlasting Love, Your never ending Mercy and THE TRUTH about who you are to them.
Abba Father I pray for TRUTH, YOUR TRUTH to fill their hearts and minds in the name of Messiah Yeshua.
I Thank you Abba Father for what you are going to do. I thank you for Hearing the pleas of Your people. I thank You that You do not want anyone to get lost but to get saved.
Thank You Abba Father, Messiah Yeshua and Holy Spirit for your faithfulness.
In Messiah Yeshua name.
AMEN.
February 3rd, 2009 at 20:08
Comment # 368 Werner Rossouw – Another nutter. Or is it one of the old nutters in disguise? Sounds familiar – did he call himself matthew or samir? Thought of looking back to find out, but was afraid of losing the will to live. And I love life – if only these idiots would leave us alone.
February 3rd, 2009 at 20:28
Hmm, can anyone tell Me what the rules are for capital letters in preaching posts? If They are going to use such rules, They should at least be consistent.
On a lighter note, I saw three of ‘our’ buses pass by one after the after the other day. Two 38’s and one 73 on the Essex Road in London.
Put a smile on my face.
P
February 3rd, 2009 at 21:09
Paul N, you wait for 1 bus and 3 come at once!! Were they all late then..? hehe!!
February 5th, 2009 at 11:37
@368:
When you say “Abba Father”, do you mean Benny or Bjorn? Shouldn’t it be “Fathers”, so as not to leave one out?
February 5th, 2009 at 21:56
Hi Phil,
Yeah – thought that myself!
But now I’m seeing them all the time.
I have to stop myself cheering (it’s not that I’m so anti-religion, it’s just nice that there is a another, rational, way of looking at the world).
Cheers all round,
P
February 6th, 2009 at 9:45
# 372
The reason for “Abba Father” is so that there is no cofusion about who we are talking about. We mean the One and True God the Father.
As for Benny or Bjorn…Don’t mock someting you don’t understand. We don’t worship man or believe in man. We don’t see those as fathers.
The message behind Christ is not one of eternal damnation and a ‘lake of fire’.(although this is the reality) The message is about love, forgiveness, grace and mercy. My Prayer for you is that this Truth will resound in your mind and heart.
Let me ask you a question – and i am humouring your point of view here – if there was a 50% chance that God was real, including heaven and hell and a life after this one – wouldn’t you rather want to go to heaven? Wouldn’t you rather want to spend eternity in peace, in a place without suffering?
February 6th, 2009 at 9:58
Werner,
Its great that you came to the site – thats what this is about getting you to explain why you belief what you claim.
Can I ask you…..do you believe in the Hindu gods? If not, can you explain why you dont believe?
Thanks very much.
February 6th, 2009 at 10:13
Hi Werner,
People say their religion is all about love and forgiveness, but usually, you only have to question their beliefs and out comes the hell fire and damnation – you couldn’t resist it.
With regards to your asking to make a rational decision about an irrational belief – I thought it was all about faith.
P.
February 6th, 2009 at 10:30
Indeed, a lot of Christians feel they need to ‘warn’ people about the eternal damnation in order to ‘get them saved’. ‘put the fear of God in them’. Although this works with some people, it’s not what one is supposed to do. lead by example. I can tell you all about the truth of God and you can shrug it off and go on with your life. When you ‘experience’ truth however – that is a different ball game, emotions are involved and you start asking the question….what if?
it is absolutely about faith. Faith in something other than yourself. Believing ‘only’ in yourself is arrogance and self glorification. you cannot possibly do all things in your own power.
Irrational belief is again your point of view – ‘let’s play pretend’ – Where would you want to go – heaven or hell…
February 6th, 2009 at 10:51
Just another note on the ‘It’s all about Faith’ comment.
You were given free will. so in a way – you can choose to go to heaven. Faith alone does not get you into Heaven. You are saved through Grace and Faith. If you confess with your mouth and believe with your heart that God is real, Christ died for your sins and the Holy Spirit leads you day by day – then you are saved!! it’s as simple as that. When you accept the truth and make it your own, and surrender to God – His spirit start working in you, and you can’t help but grow in Him. His Grace and your faith saves you.
February 6th, 2009 at 11:07
Yeah, don’t take the piss out of Abba – I know their later hits were a bit lame, but Super Trouper was a great song.
#374
There’s a simple answer to your question. If there is a 50% chance of god existing, and heaven is full of moronic, self-righteous “believers”, then please point me in the direction of the down escalator.
Seriously, if god is going to damn people for eternity simply because they don’t believe he exists, why is he worthy of worship? That’s vanity of the highest order, and not as far as I can see, worthy of any kind of adulation. It’s just pathetic.
February 6th, 2009 at 11:43
#378
Red Citrus – your emotions are coming into play and distorting your answer. nevermind who you perceive to be in heaven.
take away all you ever believed in, all your emotions, thoughts and feelings about EVERYTHING in life. now answer the question again – suffering or peace and happiness….
February 6th, 2009 at 12:06
#374 But its not 50% is it? If one of the many other gods is “true” then Werner is in just as much trouble as we are.
February 6th, 2009 at 12:58
Why is God worthy of Worship?
Let’s explore that…and a bit more.
Look at the seasons – like clockwork they come and go, and nature responds. Animals migrate, shed coats, go into hibernation, start gathering, start mating – all pre-programmed to do what their instincts tell them to.
Look up at night. Now go to the NASA website and look at the photo’s that the Hubble space telescope took. Why would there be so many stars? Why would there be other galaxies. Look at how small we are in comparison.
How did we get to where we are today as humans – did our forefathers crawl out of some swamp slime and ‘ta-da’ they could walk and talk a couple million years later? How do you explain the human body – so complex and perfect! In all our ‘wisdom’ we would never be able to create something even remotely similar. Not to even mention the diversity. Not one human looks the same or has the same fingerprint. All animals are unique. A supercomputer would have difficulty with that. And on that note – your brain can calculate things faster than a super computer.
Look at the oceans of the world and how they react to the moon. The sheer magnitude of it and the diversity it contains. The depth of it.
Put your arrogance aside for just a moment and just think about it. How can it all be possible? With all of the human interference – how is it possible that it all still ‘works’.
Heard of people being ‘supernaturally’ healed? Healed of blindness, physical disability etc. I have seen it with my own eyes. And even today – PEOPLE ARE BEING RAISED FROM THE DEAD. Explain that. What about Angels and demons. They are real. Explain that.
The fact is our ‘science’ can only explain how it works – and have theories about how it is all possible. As an atheist you don’t believe in anyting – correct? so how is the above possible?
Take a good hard look around you and really think about the above – I mean TRULY think about it – THAT is but one of the reasons why God is worthy of worship.
February 7th, 2009 at 11:43
Werner
There is no god. Any sane person can see that. To believe, as you appear to, at best requires the complete subjugation of your critical faculties and at worst suggests a delusion that is evidence of a serious psychological condition.
The fear of losing your comfort blanket is so evident in your comments that it is pointless us “debating” with you. You are prepared to live your life in denial of all the evidence around you because you of scared of simply being one man, alive on one planet, at one point in time. A man who when he dies will probably be forgotten by all but those closest to them.
This is the human condition so make the most of THIS life as you are not getting another one.
February 8th, 2009 at 17:55
Werner,
You see, this is the problem…you make the most ridiculous statements in support of your belief, and are not prepared to be challenged when someone else points out obvious flaws in your argument.
You use the fact that the human body is “so complex and perfect!”. This statement is so wrong, it’s idiotic. If it’s perfect, why do we have a superfluous appendix? Why is the human reproductive system so unsuited for birth? Why are we so susceptable to disease? If you accept that god created the earth and all the creatures on it, do you also accept that he created the Ebola virus? Aids? Parkinson’s disease? Alzheimer’s? Cholera? Cancer?
If god is the creator of man, he didn’t do a very good job, did he? And if god created man, who created god?
The rest of your argument descends into pure lunacy. Faith raising people from the dead? Curing physical disability? Angels and demons?
Werner, you really are an idiot. Please present us with independently verifiable evidence that any of these things happened.
Maybe then we’ll listen to you.
February 8th, 2009 at 21:50
Hi Werner,
Only just seen the last posts and RedCitrus has pretty much said what I would say anyway (although in a somewhat more robust manner!!).
But I had to mention that you are unable to stop contradicting yourself … in a previous post you do it within two sentences …
Quote: “You were given free will. so in a way – you can choose to go to heaven. Faith alone does not get you into Heaven. You are saved through Grace and Faith. If you confess with your mouth and believe with your heart that God is real, Christ died for your sins and the Holy Spirit leads you day by day – then you are saved!!”
How can I choose to believe? How exactly is that possible. I could pretend to believe, but that’s not what you mean, I’m sure.
The thing is, I was brought up in a religious atmosphere – attended Sunday school and sang in the choir up to the age of about thirteen. Uptil then, I did not ‘choose’ to believe, I just assumed that what my parents, teachers and local vicar told me was true, because they were adults.
But once I started thinking for myself it became increasingly difficult to continue believing – and not because of a love science as you might imagine – but because of things like the famine in Ethiopa. I just could not accept that a benevolent and benign god could treat these people so badly for no reason at all. And you only have to read the bible with a free mind to realise that your god is not benign anyway – always a-smiting and a-burning and a-killing people, mainly for not believing in him.
So I ask you, how can you believe in such a monstrous, jealous, vain entity as the god described in the bible – he has nothing to do with love, grace or the other things you attribute to him?
I do have a lot of time for some of the things Jesus is purported to have said, though (do unto others, turn the other cheek etc) but I just don’t need to invest supernatural powers in him to agree with them.
Paul N.
One last thing – according to you, I could murder a few people, rape a few people, steal from a few people – but as long as I believe and confess, I’m in heaven – right? Maybe hell is the place to be, after all!
February 9th, 2009 at 10:17
Hi Paul…and yes Redcitrus…and Graham Davis.
Blessings to all three of you.
First of all – i cannot explain, nor do i choose to investigate, why we have famine, plaque, illness etc. On the one hand i think it could be attributed to the way we live, what we eat etc. The ’system’ of money in the world. the rich get richer …..
anyway – just one comments to God’s actions in the Bible. First of all it must be noted that all of that didn’t happen due to the Israelites not believing in God, but because of disobedience, worshipping other gods etc. Secondly – it was the old testament. God made a new covenant with the world when He sent His son to die on the cross. This new covenant allows us to enter into God’s kingdom through His son. It is now a message of Love and Grace.
as for free wil – and the whole killing and raping thing. First – let us say that you did all these things last week – and today you ask for forgiveness – God will forgive – as long as there is repentance also. Here is someting interesting – Moses was a murderer and David was an adulterer, but still God chose them to carry on with his works. You see, when you confess with your mouth and believe with your heart – you will not be capable of these things – the Holy spirit will prevent it. and pretending to believe…common…your cheating yourself.
Bottom Line – if you really are searching for God, and i mean you really want to find HIm, you will. ‘Draw close to me and I will draw close to you” Seeing is not believing, Believing is seeing.
Have a look at the following website: http://www.tangle.com/search?page=1&search_text=healed&search_type=video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMNLgJwYnu8
Please note – I don’t personally endorse anyone of these people – it’s just interesting. Also – do a Google search on ‘The lazarus Phenomenon”
I have a few pages in hard copy – articles I mean – that I will share – as soon as I figure out how.
and please don’t call me an idiot. I could call you an idiot for not believing – but I don’t – so please return the favour.
Blessings till next time.
February 9th, 2009 at 14:09
Let me take this time (while my previous comment is being moderated) to share with you my personal testimony, and how I have experienced God’s saving grace first hand.
OK, so I also grew up in a Christian home. Went to Sunday school and the works. All through my life I had the ‘God will judge you and send you to Hell’ in my face. It was only till later in life – in my mid 20’s that I realized what was going on in my life. My marriage was failing, my career was in a mess and in general – life sucked. My wife and I decided to join a local church and made a positive decision to allow God to work in our lives. To ‘throw away’ the old and allow Him to shape us into something new. Ever since our lives have been changed dramatically. Jesus said “Joh 10:10 A thief comes only to rob, kill, and destroy. I came so that everyone would have life, and have it in its fullest”
I HAVE EXPERIENCED LIFE IN ITS FULLEST. I wake up every morning with an amazing joy in me – something I cannot explain. It’s just there. NOTHING can ‘rock my world’ – no amount of stress, financial burden, deadline or anything else can make me tremble. And it’s this peace inside me that I wish all other people could feel. Looking back at the sometimes turbulent life that I lead – I am so thankful that God has intervened when I asked Him to. Life now – is a joy. Sure I still struggle with everyday life – but it doesn’t get me under anymore. I have an inner peace when I am faced with big decisions. A Peace from God. It’s just awesome!
Also need to point out that anyone (Christian or not) that says he is without sin – I believe Redcitrus referred to them as ‘self righteous idiots’ – are in fact quite deluded. Their hearts are in the right place but they are going about it all wrong. When I look inside myself I see just how dirty I am – but then I look at Jesus and he accepts me as I am. And he removes my sins as far away from me as the east is from the west. I am no better than any one person on this earth – no man is greater than another – and I don’t pretend to be either. I do not judge: “For by the same measure that you judge, you yourself will be judged” so please don’t see me here as trying to ‘convince’ you that Christians are better than Atheists. I am not here to convince you that God is real. That is not my job – that is what the Holy Spirit will do for you – I am merely a messenger with some good news…. wrossouw {at} hotmail(.)com
I am no intellectual – by human standards anyway – but I have a burning passion inside me to share with someone. And I wish, oh how I wish, you could feel what I feel.
As an atheist you believe in nothing – correct. So what about creation? What came first – the egg or the chicken? How can ‘everything’ happen when there is nothing. For there to be a beginning, there must have been nothing before the beginning… Evolution and the ‘big bang theory’ cannot be proven. For the big bang to have happened there were various gasses, pieces of rock etc that were ‘moulded together’ and in the “random chaos” – earth appeared…. Where did the Gas come from, or the rocks, or the magnetic forces that ‘held them together’…. For you to believe that there is no God or a Creator you are saying that everything happened from nothing… all of the millions of stars and the whole universe just ‘happened’…maybe you believe that there was a creator – you just don’t know who he is. What do you believe will happen to YOU when you die? Random Chaos, evolution – the ‘great scientists’ can’t prove it and that leaves the rest of the world in a bit of a dilemma….. so how DID it all begin?
Blessings to each person who reads this.
February 9th, 2009 at 14:22
Werner,
Your “first hand” experience was nothing but rhetoric. You wrote a lot but didn’t actually say anything.
As regards to how it all started… I have no idea. I’m a web developer not a scientist but I do find it VERY hard to believe some mystical bearded sky fairy waved his hands around and so it was.
February 9th, 2009 at 14:25
Oh, regards to evolution. It’s fact. It’s proven.
February 9th, 2009 at 14:33
Hi Werner
I’m pleased for you that your belief in god has made you happy, don’t get me wrong. Your god has obviously made himself known to you and convinced you of his existence.
Why won’t he do the same for me, and every other atheist on this planet? I’d be happy to believe in god, ghosts, fairies and aliens if I was presented with concrete evidence that these things exist. I’m still waiting, and until that day comes, I just can’t believe. It’s not a matter of personal choice.
Any sufficiently intelligent being will eventually come to ask “why am I here?”. God is no different – if we accept that god created man, then who created god? It’s a paradox which you seem unable to answer. Don’t tell us that god has always existed, because we can say the same about space and time, which renders your argument obsolete.
I believe that we exist because of a series of random events occurred over billions of years which happened to lead to life on this planet. We are simply the result of a series of cosmic mistakes. This makes the beauty and wonder of the natural world even more extraordinary – there’s no need to bring some supernatural creator into the equation.
As the product of a random universe, that we are here at all is a triumph – to claim that we’re the product of an all-powerful god is to demean our existence.
February 9th, 2009 at 14:41
Hi Werner,
The argument that because we don’t how the universe was created we should believe in an arbitrary god is misquided. A previous poster (to which you haven’t responded, I note) asked why this didn’t lead you to believe in the Hindu gods – who also, it seems, created the universe. The answer is simple. You, like me, were indoctrinated the adults around us into their belief system.
Paul N.
PS Eggs came before chickens, since reptiles came before birds.
February 9th, 2009 at 16:33
RedCitrus, you said: “We are simply the result of a series of cosmic mistakes.”
That makes me sad… RedCitrus, you are not the result of a mistake – God created you! He designed you even before you were born. He thinks you are amazing. He loves you like his own son and longs for you to accept him.
RedCitrus, you said: “Why won’t he do the same for me, and every other atheist on this planet? I’d be happy to believe in god, ghosts, fairies and aliens if I was presented with concrete evidence that these things exist. I’m still waiting, and until that day comes, I just can’t believe. It’s not a matter of personal choice.”
You may never get 100% scientific on paper proof that God exists – but what I would love you to do is to ask God to show you he is real. Over the next week or so each day try to remember to say to God (either in your head or out loud) to show himself to you in some way so that you can believe he exists. D It would be great if you could do this and see what happens… Maybe go along to a church or read the bible or go for a walk in the countryside or park and ask God to show you he is real.
I hope you don’t feel I am preaching at you – or ramming God down your throat – I just want you to realise that God is real and he loves you and wants you to know him too…
If anyone else is reading this too – maybe you could do the above as well – and see what happens!! Surely it’s worth a try – if nothing happens – carry on as you are – if something does happen – great!!
Thanks, Phil.
February 9th, 2009 at 17:12
Werner,
I think you are seeing “complexity” ie the human body is perfect…. and then declaring it as “designed”.
This is a problem for the rest of us. Complexity does *not* equal the existance of a designer. Your question where does everything come from is great – but just because something is complex doesnt mean it had a Designer.
Phil,
I appreciate your theme – you obviously experience a profound “love” from some being and you really want us to experience it too.
I think “falling in love” a good analogy for belief in any ‘god’. When youre in love, you tend to see things differently ie it is difficult to be objective. I’m sure you feel there is a being that loves you – however we do *not* experience this any require evidence. And no, the complexity of nature is *not* evidence of any ‘god’. Your feeling is incredibly strong – however we are not “in love” with your god and will be objective.
Its rather like parents looking at their children in the school play. As they love those kids, they think they are fantastic – however if they aint my kids, I’ll let them know if the acting is crap…..
February 9th, 2009 at 17:53
eoin, you said: “When you’re in love, you tend to see things differently ie it is difficult to be objective.”
I didn’t actually say I was “in love” with God. Most people don’t fall in love with someone straight away. They get to know them first, find out what they are like and during this process either fall in love or don’t. So actually it is more about the things I have seen or experienced of God as I have found out about him that help me to be objective. I think this is why the Alpha Course has been so good. As this lets you find out who God is etc and then lets you make your own mind up either way.
eoin – are you going to take up my little challenge about asking God to show you he is real as discussed in my last post..?
February 9th, 2009 at 18:06
Hi Phil,
No, you didnt say you were “in love” – that was my observation from the language you used. I dont believe you are, or can be objective – because of religion.
I used to belong to a church – it worked along similar lines to alpha. I did retreats, the works. People would say things like “open your mind to jesus” – and I found peoples need for evidence reduced depending on their self-esteem or need for structure/purpose. I’m sure if I did feel pretty low one day and closed my eyes – I’m sure I’d hear voices eventually. I’m sure my mind could make those voices convince me I was ‘loved’.
I’ll have a go with your challenge this week – and see if a god contacts me. However, which god should I expect? Do you hear from any of the hindu, greek, roman, mayan gods? And if you dont, does that mean you dont believe in them?
February 9th, 2009 at 18:13
I shall also take up your challenge Phil. I shall genuinely spend this week try and find your god and report back on Friday. I will try my very best to be open minded on this.
February 9th, 2009 at 18:33
wonder if the moderator will allow this one…
Thank you Phil. i want to confirm your message and ‘challenge’ to everybody, as it is the same i had on my mind the last 2 days.
you see guys – that’s just it. God said: “Draw close to me and I will draw close to you” – also the obvious ’seek and you will find, ask and you will receive, knock and the door will be opened’. this is the character of God. you need to actively open yourself up to Him. He is not just going to ‘pop’ into your living room one day (although He could do that too) instead he gently speaks to you through other people, your thoughts and your heart.
i would like to urge everybody also – take up phil’s challenge – ASK GOD to show you that he is real and he will
February 9th, 2009 at 18:42
Hi eoin, thanks for the comment back to me. Yes, I agree, that religion often stops people being objective and can be used wrongly to force thoughts and beliefs onto people.
BUT… the great thing about God is that knowing him doesn’t have to be religious at all!!
There are true factual stories of people in other countries who have never heard about God where no missionary has ever been etc coming to believe in God. There are also stories of people who have never set foot in a church or talked to a Christian etc coming to a belief in God..? Why..? Because God has show himself to them or spoken to them – so they believe.
Also, God isn’t a crutch for the week minded or those with a tough life or feeling low etc… (although, he is there for people at these times) My life so far has been pretty good actually – a few ups and downs like most people – but I don’t need to believe in God so I can have him as a crutch for when I am down.
I just know in my heart that God is real – and that he loves me and wants the best for my life and yours!! Can I prove it scientifically – no!! But that doesn’t mean he isn’t real…
Thanks for accepting the challenge!! There is only one God the creator of all. Ask him to show you he is real… All the best, Phil.
February 9th, 2009 at 19:12
Why doesn’t Phil open himself up to the Hindu gods?
February 9th, 2009 at 20:40
Hi all,
Phil & Werner – why won’t either of you respond to the challenge presented regarding the Hindu gods?
It’s not good enough just to say – ‘I don’t know’ to the difficult questions. If you can’t justify why belief in one god is not equivalent to belief in any or all gods, your statements sound very hollow indeed.
Seeing that couple of people have taken up your challenge – why don’t you have a go at this challenge?
I attribute your belief in your particular god to your being indoctrinated, however gently. A clear example of this is the portrayal (almost universally) of Jesus as a western European – a Roman, I would say. Another example of this is that god is always portrayed as a man – which has more to with the patriarchal societies than anything else.
If only you could clear your mind and see religion for what it is – a human construct for controlling other humans, and, at least in times past, a method of trying to understand the complexities of the universe that you have previously described.
And lastly, What does ‘believing in nothing’ mean?
I believe in many things, but none of them are supernatural. For example, I believe that the earth is a (somewhat misshapen) sphere and the earth is billions of years old. For a hell of a long time, your church (the church of Jesus, that is) burnt people at the stake for such views. If you were alive then, you might be lighting the match yourself. Don’t take that as an insult – I’m claiming that it would be a consequence of blind doctrinal faith.
Paul.
February 9th, 2009 at 23:14
Paul N, you said: “Phil & Werner – why won’t either of you respond to the challenge presented regarding the Hindu gods?”
Hi Paul, it’s not that I won’t take up the challenge – I was actually having my tea and then bathing my little lad. So that is why I hadn’t responded…
Anyway, in response to johnnyess, who said: “Why doesn’t Phil open himself up to the Hindu gods?”
My answer would probably be similar to that of some of the Atheists on here – simply that I don’t believe they are real… I believe that there is one true God, the God who created everything (however you think it happened: creation / evolution / big bang etc – God did it!!). So as I don’t believe the Hindu (or any other) gods are real, then there is no point in me “opening myself up to them”.
In my challenge, I haven’t forced anyone to take part or believe – just suggested to give it a go if they want to and if nothing happens and God doesn’t show up for them, then they can carry on as they were. It’s up to them!! Obviously, I hope God does turn up for them – as it will transform thier lives for the better.
With regards to Jesus being portrayed as a western european – I think if you talk to many Christians you will find we are not all that dumb and realise that Jesus wasn’t a white guy with long blond hair!!
Paul N, you said: “If only you could clear your mind and see religion for what it is – a human construct for controlling other humans” As I have mentioned previously, knowing God doesn’t have to be about religion at all – people have come to know and believe in him through never going to church and never hearing about him anywhere – God has just revealed himself to them – so this cannot be about humans controlling humans.
Also Paul, with regard to Christians “burning people at the stake”, yes many wrongs have been commited in the name of religion and none of these wrongs would have been ok with God!!
Phil.
February 9th, 2009 at 23:27
Hi Phil,
Your challenge is proceeding well. However, no supernatural beings, gods or spirits has let themselves be know to me so far. I can assure my mind is open to the idea – for a start i used to attend a church much like yours.
However, theres a problem.
‘
What happens if the god that talks to me… is not the god that talks to you? Let say ’she’ reveals herself under a different name ….say ‘Barbara’… for arguments sake. Now, you will obviously not share my belief in ‘Barbara’ – however after your challenge I now have ‘faith’. So, my question is….does Barbara exist? I have already listed many other gods – different to the christian/muslim one. You *still* have not explained why they do not contact you or why you do not believe in them.
For example, do you believe Ganesh helps you through life? He is the god of obstacles for hindus. My challenge to you is to open your mind this week so that Ganesh can speak to you. Let me know how it goes.
February 9th, 2009 at 23:36
Hi Phil,
sorry – i missed some of your post, and have just caught you said this…..
“So as I don’t believe the Hindu (or any other) gods are real, then there is no point in me “opening myself up to them”.
I’m not sure if you fully appreciate the significance of this: When it comes to the Hindu gods, youre an atheist – just as I am to your god. You simply dont believe. You do not have faith.
I asked you to open your mind for a week to let the hindu gods in, just as you asked me. Now, why should I continue to take your challenge for your god, if you wont take my challenge to open your heart to other gods?
take care
February 9th, 2009 at 23:50
Well, Phil, you’ve really shot yourself in the foot this time (#401): “I don’t believe they are real… So as I don’t believe the Hindu (or any other) gods are real, there is no point in me [I would have said "my" but I am a bit pedantic, and I've noticed that Christians tend on the whole to be less grammatical than atheists] ‘opening myself up to them.’” Extrapolate that to all the other gods (including your own) and you will have understood atheism completely. Think about it.
February 10th, 2009 at 0:16
Hi Phil,
You said -”My answer would probably be similar to that of some of the Atheists on here – simply that I don’t believe they are real… I believe that there is one true God, the God who created everything (however you think it happened: creation / evolution / big bang etc – God did it!!). So as I don’t believe the Hindu (or any other) gods are real, then there is no point in me “opening myself up to them”.
In my challenge, I haven’t forced anyone to take part or believe – just suggested to give it a go if they want to and if nothing happens and God doesn’t show up for them, then they can carry on as they were. It’s up to them!! Obviously, I hope God does turn up for them – as it will transform thier lives for the better.”
I can hear (metaphorically, of course) a Hindu saying the same thing about your god. How does a rational person decide between you? He can’t, of course, because they are equivalent. You haven’t answered this.
You say – “With regards to Jesus being portrayed as a western european – I think if you talk to many Christians you will find we are not all that dumb and realise that Jesus wasn’t a white guy with long blond hair!!”
Now you choose to be rational – why is this part of the indoctrination ‘dumb’ (your word, not mine) and the trinity not ‘dumb’, or Adam & Eve, or Moses, or walking on water and the rest. Do you believe in any of this or are reduced to saying ‘there must be *something* out there, mustn’t there’?
You say – “As I have mentioned previously, knowing God doesn’t have to be about religion at all – people have come to know and believe in him through never going to church and never hearing about him anywhere – God has just revealed himself to them – so this cannot be about humans controlling humans.” Sorry, but how has god revealed himself? This is just hearsay and irrelevant. I could tell you that a pink camel has ‘revealed’ itself to me, and you would give that the credence it deserved.
Finally, you say -”Also Paul, with regard to Christians “burning people at the stake”, yes many wrongs have been commited in the name of religion and none of these wrongs would have been ok with God!!”
The point I was making here was that religion holds back understanding of our world, sometimes forcefully. Things that I suppose even you accept to be true (the sun at the centre of the solar system) were previously taken to be heretical, using exactly the same statements as you have been making – ‘I know him, he is this, he is that, he does this, he does that’.
Paul
February 10th, 2009 at 0:51
Hi Johnnyess, that is strange – my foot doesn’t hurt at all!! Maybe God has healed it (hehe!!). As I have said before, I believe in one true God. The God who created everything – including me and you.
Just like I have one Natural Father on earth, I believe in one God who created me. There is no point me trying to find other Natural Fathers – as I can only have one here on earth – just like I only have one God who created me.
Sorry if any of the grammar is incorrect Johnnyess!! I am a designer and musician – not a literary genius.
Paul N has just said: “I can hear (metaphorically, of course) a Hindu saying the same thing about your god. How does a rational person decide between you? He can’t, of course, because they are equivalent. You haven’t answered this.”
A rational person can put them to the test… you could try my challenge with the Hindu gods as well if you like and see what happens. See who’s God turns up…
Paul N, the Trinity, Adam and Eve, Moses, walking on the water etc are all central parts of the bible – where does it say Jesus was a western european – it doesn’t – that is someting that had been added incorrectly by religion over the years.
Paul N just said: “This is just hearsay and irrelevant.” It is not hearsay when I actually know the people this has happened to and thier lives have been transformed.
Paul N, yes, religion has been used to hold back scientific understanding – BUT God has given us brains and some very clever scientists who are discovering amazing things about us, our planet, and solar system etc. Sometimes they may get it right, sometimes not, sometimes they may even contradict each other – but as each new discovery is found – it just goes to increase how awesome God is because he created it all.
I hope that answers some of your questions about what I believe – I haven’t got time to check all the posts on here all of the time. So if I don’t always respond right away – sorry!!
I am impressed with the amount of questions and comments just a few small posts can get…
All the best to those who are taking up the challenge – (ask God each morning to show he is real this week)
eoin – I am happy to say the same to the hindu gods if it means you will carry on doing the challenge with the one true God.
Thanks everyone, Phil.
February 10th, 2009 at 10:23
Phil,
I continue my ‘burning at the stake’ strand … so you believe that Adam & Eve existed, as described in the bible? That is, there was a garden of Eden, etc.
Just that story alone is pathetic – the idea that, through the curiosity of one person, the whole of humanity carries the burden of Adam’s sin of ‘knowledge’. Ignorance is equated with innocence. How depressing is that?
Even if, as I suspect you might say, it’s an apocryphal story, the idea that a thirst for knowledge is equated with evil is a repugnant idea and confirms my idea that forcing children to believe in this nonsense is merely a way of controlling them.
Paul.
February 10th, 2009 at 10:37
Hi Paul N, Take a look at…
http://www.gotquestions.org/tree-knowledge-good-evil.html
I think this explains it pretty well.
Phil.
February 10th, 2009 at 10:53
I had intended not to get involved in this debate because I know it is pointless to reason with people who have rejected reason. A believer is like a drowning man clinging to a lifebelt hoping to be rescued, he can see the shore a few hundred metres away but he is afraid to strike out for it. The longer he clings on the harder it is to let go. He has made this commitment and to reconsider is impossible.
Faith is like that, it is a drug that holds people back from reaching their true potential. Believers live in a bubble (on dear, another metaphor) that they fear will be punctured if they ever really honestly examine their faith.
As others have said not only do they believe in god but in a particular brand of god. The christian ridicules the hindu without seeing the absurd position this places him in. His god is just as ridiculous as was Thor and Mithras.
Let us hope that one day humankind will finally grow up and leave all superstition behind but until then I support your right to hold these beliefs however infantile, so long as you do not seek any special privileges for them or attempt to indoctrinate children with them.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:15
Hi Graham, if I was holding on to a lifebelt – I wouldn’t be drowning? Hey, I could always walk on the water back to shore – hehe!! No, seriously, my faith and the fact that I have God in my life is the only way I can reach my full true potential – God designed us, he has a plan for our lives, a plan that is the best for us. We can only reach our potential if we include God.
Also, I think you will find I didn’t ridicule Hindu’s – I just put across my belief in one true God. I even said to eoin that I would take up his challenge to open ask the hindu gods to show they are real – if he, in turn, asks the one true God to show that he is real over this week.
Maybe you could try my challenge – every morning for a week or so ask God to show you that he is real and loves you and see what happens – if nothing happens, carry on as you are, but if something does happen – great!! Or are you scared that your bubble of reason might burst..?
Have a nice day, Phil.
February 10th, 2009 at 13:39
Phil
I think we can agree that belief (or lack of it) is a personal, and relative, experience. My lack of belief in god(s) is no less important than your belief in the christian god, or hindus’ belief in their respective gods. No doubt hindus’ have ‘experienced’ their gods in the same way that you have ‘experienced’ yours, and these experiences are equally as valid. It’s a matter of choice – you may prefer apples to oranges, whereas I prefer the latter – neither of us is incorrect, it’s just a matter of personal choice, and no more. Had you been born to hindu parents, it’s likely that you too would be a hindu.
When it comes down to it, whether god exists or not is irrelevant, in the same way that the existence of Bertrand Russell’s celestial teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell’s_teapot) is irrelevant – it only becomes relevant when we experience it directly, or have irrefutable evidence that it exists. You say you have ‘experienced’ your god which has led you to believe; I have not, and therefore I don’t.
I don’t really understand what you are asking us to do when you say that we “open ourselves to him”. I spend an unhealthy amount of time asking myself these fundamental questions, trying to make sense of the world in which I live. I’m pretty well read, open-minded, and I have given god ample opportunity to make himself known to me. He has not – and therefore, until compelling evidence comes along to the contrary, I shall continue not to believe in him.
All of this is well and good, but the problem comes when one group takes priority over the others. Whilst many religions are protected by law, non-religion is not…and it needs to be.
No-one should be treated any differently because of what they do or do not believe. The legislative framework in the UK, however, is moving in the opposite direction; state-funded faith schools, religious discrimination in the workplace, etc. The Atheist Bus campaign is an opportunity to show the non-believing public that someone is listening to them.
February 10th, 2009 at 14:30
Sorry – haven’t been tracking the posts due to work commitments and meetings etc.
I believe in God the Father – Abba Father who created heaven and Earth. I don’t have to open myself up to any other gods – if indeed they existed. As an atheist on the other hand, you don’t believe in anything – your eyes will be opened by actively seeking God.
just a quickie – have to get back to work.
Seek Him – with everything
February 10th, 2009 at 14:37
Well put Werner – thanks!
Phil.
February 10th, 2009 at 14:44
Phil & Werner,
I didn’t think you’d have the bottle to really try and answer the difficult questions.
All you can do is draw back into your fantasy world.
Pathetic.
February 10th, 2009 at 15:01
Phil & Werner,
I am trying hard to find a form of words that is not too insulting. The divine light that you claim is actually a state of serene delusion and so riddled with inconsistencies as to be ridiculous (no offence).
I hope the blind faith that you demonstrate does not include crossing a busy road with your eyes closed, probably not (but please don’t try it to prove a point).
I will leave you with a few quotes from people far more enlightened than me.
As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.”
Michael Bakunin
[God and the State]
Ludwig Feuerbach
“Man first creates God in his own image, and after this God creates man in his own image”
[Abridged from The Essence of Christianity]
Galileo
The intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how heaven goes.
David Hume
“One may safely affirm that all popular theology as a kind of appetite for absurdity and contradiction….while their gloomy apprehensions make them ascribe to Him measures of conduct which in human creatures would be blamed, they must still affect to praise and admire that conduct in the object of their devotional addresses.”
[The Natural History of Religion]
Thomas Jefferson:
The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.
Karl Marx
“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”
[A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right]
Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu
“If triangles had a god, he would have three sides.”
[Lettres Persanes, no 59]
Michel de Montaigne
“Man is certainly crazy. He could not make a mite, and he makes gods by the dozen.”
[Essays, bk II, ch. 12]
Thomas Paine
“The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called religion.
[Abridged from The Age of Reason]
Blaise Pascal
“Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”
[Pensees]
Bertrand Russell
“I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.”
[Abridged Why I Am Not A Christian]
Jonathan Swift:
We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love.
Mark Twain:
In religion people’s beliefs and convictions are gotten second-hand, and without examination.
Abridged
Voltaire
“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”
[Letters]
Man was born free, and everywhere he is in chains
Jean Jacques Rousseau
Du Contrat social
February 10th, 2009 at 15:05
Werner
On the contrary, as an atheist, I believe in many things.
I believe in the variety and beauty of the natural world, and the majesty of the universe. I believe in love, joy and wonder. I believe in science, art, literature, poetry. I believe in man’s capacity for exploration and limitless thirst for knowledge.
What I don’t believe is that any of these things are the product of a omnipotent sky fairy.
February 10th, 2009 at 15:17
in terms of the hindu gods – which one of the 300 million (literally) should i open myself up to – how can a person serve 300 gods – how do you keep track of worship and prayer time – serving one God of all is much better – and less confusing. The bible states that there are other gods – and i believe there is – all evil spirits of lucifer – God the father is master of them all and they cower at His feet.
I’m so Glad Phill posed a little challenge – i can’t wait to hear the feedback.
for those of you who will be taking up Phils challenge – we WILL be praying for you.
Blessings in Christ.
February 10th, 2009 at 15:28
Werner
I am glad you stick to the one god and rely on his holy book so I am sure that you find that these quotes familiar:
“When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.”
Exodus 21:20-21
No child of an incestuous union may be admitted into the community of the Lord, nor any descendent of his even to the tenth generation.”
Deuteronomy 23:3
“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.”
Leviticus 20:13
“A priest’s daughter who loses her honour by committing fornication and thereby dishonours her father also, shall be burned to death.”
Leviticus 21:9
February 10th, 2009 at 15:59
Hi All,
I’m not sure how seriously you are all debating this: does either side really think it will convince the other? I suspect that is an impossibility.
So here’s the REAL challenge: How do we share this world between those who believe one thing and those who believe another, whether it is between atheism, christianity, islam or whatever? Each group knows, as deeply as it is possible to know, that their view is correct. Each side might be willing to let the other go their own way … but only up to a point. When we see people of other beliefs impose them on the defenceless, such as children, or women, or even animals, we feel we have to intervene. Believers think it unfair for children to damned to hell because their parents won’t bring them correctly. None believers are equally unhappy that women are relegated to second place in society, or that children are forced into prayer of a god they think is false.
My own thoughts are that maybe the kind of social integration, as we attempt to practice it in Britain, is not actually possible, and doomed to failure, and that the only solution is some big (very big) walls.
Anyone got a better idea?
February 10th, 2009 at 21:12
Hi Graham
It’s good to know that you know the verses of the Bible so well. Or maybe you had one close by. Or maybe you chose to memorize the ones that you like because it reflects in your opinion that God wants to completely annihilate all who do not follow His commands. Firstly, one cannot take one verse out of context of the rest of the passage, the rest of the particular book and of the Entire Word of God. a Lot of Christians do that also – claim one verse that applies to them and throw the rest away. Secondly – these verses are from the Old Testament – before Christ. Christ was the New Covenant that God made with man, and God said: “I shall think of your sins no more”. There is no more punishment for sin – go and check the new testament and you will see this. It is now about obedience. God doesn’t punish you – but through our disobedience to God, we allow Satan into our lives. Fortunately for us, Jesus did not only die for our sins but also for our suffering – physical, mental or otherwise.
Jesus loves you – and so much wants to have a personal relationship with you – if you would only allow Him to. Go ahead – search for Him and ask HIm to show you that He is real.
Last question – why would there be a roman calander that states BC (Before Christ) and AC (After Christ) if Jesus did not walk the earth….
Graham I bless you with freedom of bondage, A heart of flesh and insight into God’s Character in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen
good night…
February 11th, 2009 at 10:43
Werner
I am sure that you are a nice bloke and so it rankles to insult you yet again.
You have decided that the obscene sentiments expressed in one part of the bible are not to be taken seriously or are quoted out of context. Well that’s a relief, so god has now had second thoughts and “A priest’s daughter who loses her honour by committing fornication and thereby dishonours her father also, shall be burned to death.” Leviticus 21:9 is not really what he meant.
It seems to me that the omnipotent one should have been a little more circumspect in his choice of language. His change of heart is breathtaking, in the second part of your book he has decided that rather than punish our “sins” he will forgive them, what a relief so now I can sleep with my daughter and beat my slaves, what a relief.
The absurdity of all this nonsense is clear to me and many others here but you are so afraid to face the obvious truth that your god is a myth and his book is no more than fiction.
There will come a time when humankind will grow up and leave fear and superstition nehind unfortunately it will not be in our lifetime. Like me you will die and be forgotten, our bones may be dug up by some future archaeologist who will never know that you lived hoping for a better life whilst I lived cherishing this one.
February 11th, 2009 at 11:37
Hi Graham. Thanks for the ‘nice bloke’ comment. Much appreciated. As for the insults – I take them gladly.
You still don’t get it do you? You are completely oblivious of the thousands of promises in the word of God. In the old testament God gave His people the ten commandments. He made a covenant with them. They broke the covenant. He had to make a new plan to save them. He sent Jesus. NOW – we can approach the Father with confidence and freedom – through Christ. This does not mean that you can now disregard the laws of the Ten Commandments and all the others as you’ve quoted. It simply means that here and now – there are no ‘punishment’ for your sins – there are however consequences of them – suffering at the hands of Lucifer who you have given authority in your life. And in the Life after this one – your actions will be judged. I know you probably don’t believe in the ‘powers of darkness’ either – but that’s the reality. One day – the world will not be without religion. That day will never come. Instead there will be a ‘day of the Lord’ where every tongue will confess and every knee will bow.
Think about your previous comment – Think about it – is incest natural? Is homosexuality natural? Not even in the animal kingdom do you find these things – it’s Unnatural – against God’s design.
Life – I absolutely cherish every waking moment. I don’t hope for a better one. This one is perfect! I am assured of a life after this one too – where I will spend eternity in God’s Love and Grace.
Have you decided to take Phil’s challenge? I again want to urge you to do it.
Keep well.
February 11th, 2009 at 12:03
Werner
I am pleased that of the tens of thousands of gods that mankind has worshiped since the dawn of time that you have found the only true one. (And I use the word mankind rather than humankind as they all seem to have been invented by men).
Maybe the odds are a bit better than winning the lottery but you must have wondered whatever happened to all the Mithras followers or the Woden supporters. Sorry I forgot they got it wrong.
In the long history of our species so many “got it wrong” but your god was happy for them all to die in blissful ignorance of their mistake, he sounds like a rather unpleasant sort of chap so I cannot understand why a nice bloke like associated with him!
February 11th, 2009 at 12:10
Werner
I didn’t break any kind of covenant with anyone. That god blames me for this seems a little unfair. At least Adam & Eve had a choice – they spoke with god directly and therefore had some indication that he actually existed. If god wants to do the same for me, then I’ll happily believe in him. If he can’t be bothered, then that’s up to him. I don’t care either way.
Why is it that god’s message is always passed through other people? He must realise by now that most people consider Christians as fruitcakes (please refer to your numerous posts, many of which sound like the ramblings of a madman); you would have thought that he’d provide them with a little more in their armoury – a few minor miracles here and there would help your cause no end.
February 11th, 2009 at 12:43
Werner
My multi-tasking skills are not great, as can be seen by the mistakes in my posts. I have to get back to my “day job”.
I wish you all the best
Graham
February 11th, 2009 at 12:57
Hi Graham. nough said then? fine. Take up Phil’s challenge. Please do so. till then.
Red Citrus – your right – you didn’t break the covenant – The israelites did – approx 1000BC. Because of them – there is a new covenant. God does not blame you for it, and it is because of Adam and Eve that we are were we are today. God DOES want to speak to you. Maybe your just not listening.
Minor Miracles – do yourself a favour and seek out when there will be a healing and deliverance service in your area again – and attend it. I can also suggest you contact Ellel Ministries in the UK. They do those kinds of services all over the UK. If seeing is believing for you – go and see, and then believe. Do a web search on aricles of healing ministries and actual accounts (independantly verifiable) and you’ll see.
and for you too – take up Phil’s challenge – and hear and see – and then believe.
Blessing till next time.
February 11th, 2009 at 13:17
Ahh, Werner, it’s starting to become clear.
There’s no point continuing this discussion now you’ve raised the spectre of “spiritual healing”.
There has NEVER been a single case of independently-verified healing that is not either a) psychosomatic, or b) illusions.
Funny how these miracle cures never include the replacement of lost limbs and are always for blindness or stiff backs and suchlike which are much easier to fake.
I saw David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear once. Of course he didn’t really: it just looked that way. I don’t worship David Copperfield as a god.
Werner, you are more gullible than I thought.
Goodbye.
February 11th, 2009 at 13:31
Britain Capitulates To Terror
This is appalling!
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/arts/3344161/britain-capitulates-to-terror.thtml#comments
February 11th, 2009 at 21:31
Wow, after reading Werner’s last post, I’m starting to think Rik GG’s bricks and mortar are gonna be needed.
OK, let’s get down to the nitty-gritty.
Werner and Phil, if your god told to you to kill someone – Abraham style – would you do it?
Paul.
February 12th, 2009 at 1:02
Well these past few days I’ve had this song in my head and this morning I awoke to find…Thor!
Now don’t need to sing…
‘If I had a hammer…
I’d hammer in the morning…
I’d hammer in the evening…
All over this land……’
because I’ave one!
Thanks Thor!
February 12th, 2009 at 7:32
Hi Werner,
I took up a challenge you set – to see if your god would contact me. Unfortunately I have to report no contact – in fact not only did your god not appear, but neither did any of the 10s of 1000s of gods that humanity worshipped. I guess they were busy elsewhere.
Now, I gave you a challenge. To open your mind to the Hindu gods. Did you appear to you? Did you feel Ganesh or Siva?
On a another point, I want to ask you why you place bible quotes in your arguments to atheists? Those words mean a lot to you but *nothing* to me. You could use Harry Potter. You believe these words are from a god – I dont. So, why should I be persuaded by your argument if these words have no value?
For example, I could use the Hindu scriptures for my argument – would that convince you? I doubt it – unless youve heard from Ganesh recently…..
So, from now, please dont use the bible – use your experience instead. Using the bible simply says that youre not listening to me and dont care what I think – which is annoying. And I’m sure thats not your intention.
February 12th, 2009 at 7:53
Hi Eoin.
Indeed – my intention is not to annoy you, nor to ‘not listen’ to you. As i have said in a previous post – i have already found God Almighty – it would be pointless for me to now open my mind to other gods.
I recall Phil said that you should do it for a week, and if nothing happens – go on with your life. So please persevere for the remainder of the week. Find a quiet, peacefull and relaxing place, sit down and talk to God. It will feel stupid at first, but talk to Him and ask Him.
Do you really want to find Him? or do you merely want to ‘give it a go’? Search your heart and find what your true motive is for doing this. That should already give you some direction. My prayer for you is that you will truly ‘want’ to find Him. Eoin I bless you with freedom from Bondage and a heart of flesh in the Name of Jesus. Amen.
February 12th, 2009 at 7:58
Comment on #428.
Isnt’ it interesting that you always here of ‘islamic Extremists’ of ‘Hindu Extremists’ – these groups go and Kill – in the name of religion. Isn’t it interesting how you never hear of Christian Extremists that cause mass histeria and panic, you never hear of Christian Extremists who show up in their ten thousands to teach someone a lesson…. why is that i wonder? Could it be that we, as apposed to islam and hindu groups, serve a God of Love.
interesting…
Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship.
February 12th, 2009 at 8:28
Hi Werner
thanks for your post – does that mean you will no longer use bible quotes to back up arguments? I’m sure they are useful in prayer groups – just not with me!! Each bible quote simply says that youre ignoring what I say.
Second – our challenges. Now, I’m having some difficulty here. You say… “i have already found God Almighty – it would be pointless for me to now open my mind to other gods.”
However, you expect me to open my mind to “your” god. Now, why should I take a challenge that you openly refuse to take? Also, how does the Hindu feel now that you blatantly refuse to believe in his god? And you havent even tried to see if Ganesh will speak with you?
February 12th, 2009 at 9:50
Hi Eoin.
I KNOW other ‘gods’ exist – except, i don’t call them gods, but evil spirits. I don’t want to open my mind to evil spirits, or ‘let them in’. Through Jesus I have authority over these spirits, and don’t need to fear them – but should also not make room in my life for them. You seem to know a lot about the hindu religion. what I don’t like about it is that so much of it revolves around sexual acts and pictures, kamasutra etc. If i had to ‘choose’ a religion, it certainly wouldn’t be hinduism. Islam is the other extreme (as per my previous post) and Budhism doesn’t really acknowledge a god at all…so looking at that – Christianity makes sense to me (emotions and relationship with God aside here) and is by far the most ’sensible’ of the lot. Why do I refuse to take such a challenge – i think the initial challenge was for you – who don’t believe at all. A reverse challenge? I believe in those gods, i don’t serve them, but i know they exist…
later…
February 12th, 2009 at 11:07
Werner
No, the most sensible of the lot is NOT to believe.
And by the way, I have a feeling that the Crusades were pretty unpleasant for Muslims in the middle east, so violence has never been limited to Hindus and Muslims.
And even now there are Christian fundamentalists firebombing abortion clinics in the US.
And the pope himself is singularly responsible for thousands, if not millions of deaths by banning catholic followers in the third world from using condoms. If anyone’s an extremist, it’s him. So let’s not pretend that christian extremists do not exist.
And as I said in a previous post, had you been born in India, chances are you’d be a Hindu. If you’d been born in Pakistan, more than likely a Muslim. If you’d been born in Bhutan, you’d probably be a Buddhist. Your choice of faith is simply a result of your geographic location.
February 12th, 2009 at 11:18
Werner has never heard of christian extremists? Has he heard of the wars of religion in France (e.g. the St. Bartholemew Day massacre)? Or of auto-da-fe in Spain? Or the Spanish inquisition? Or the hanging, drawing and quartering (or perhaps burning alive) of Catholics by Protestants and vice-versa depending on which monarch was on the throne in sixteenth-century England? Or of Northern Ireland in the 20th century?
February 12th, 2009 at 13:25
Maybe we should define ‘Christian’. A Christian is a person who FOLLOWS the teachings of Jesus Christ and has a PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP with God the Father. A Christian is not necessarily someone who only says he believes in God, or someone who goes to church on sunday – or someone who fireballs an abortion clinic. These are hipocrites. I agree, a lot has been done – ‘in the name of Christianity’ half of it being an attempt by one ’self-righteous’ person to “Christianize” another, or area, country, world etc. Maybe i should have clearly specified what i mean. Take a fully devoted muslim and a fully devoted Christian and put them side by side. Now insult their god and see what happens. A fully devoted Christian will probably respond in love (i would) where the other party would probably pull out a dagger – because his ‘holy book’ says it’s ok to kill someone if they do that. The point guys – is a matter of behaviour. The bible states that all men were created equal, where in the other religion – i am the infidel who needs to be annihilated…
hope this clears up the comment.
February 12th, 2009 at 13:55
Hi Werner,
Lets try another exercise in “belief” – and this is particularly one for a christian.
- Do you pray to Mary?
- Do you believe in Transubstantiation?
Now, if your a catholic – dogma tells you that you do believe these things. Evangelicals believe this is not the case.
So, Werner which side are you on? From the above, what do you believe and what do you NOT believe?
February 12th, 2009 at 14:12
Werner,
You said that a “A fully devoted Christian will probably respond in love” – not quite sure, eh!
But glad to hear that you said you would yourself!
P.
February 12th, 2009 at 14:46
Hmm…Transubstantiation… I don’t call it that – but do it as part of my faith. Jesus said that we should do it in ‘rememberance’ of Him. So we do it. the bread and wine resembles the body and blood – and don’t transform into it. Mary?? NO – i don’t pray to mary – she was the mother of Jesus and carries no power in this life or the next. she was only the woman whom God chose to bear His Son. See – again – A Christian is not necessarily a Roman Catholic – or a protestant or a methodist or whatever. I am neither of the above. And ‘dogma’ is the correct term you used.
Hi Paul – i obviously cannot account for the reactions of any one person. Each person would react differently. I can give you a list of at least a 100 names of people i know personally that will act in love…depends on the persons commitment and obedience to God.
February 12th, 2009 at 15:46
exactly Werner….
you say..
“NO – i don’t pray to mary – she was the mother of Jesus and carries no power in this life or the next. she was only the woman whom God chose to bear His Son.”
I’m just exploring your disbelief. You dont believe in praying to Mary – other Christians DO! There are some things you DONT believe in. We just dont believe in your god.
February 12th, 2009 at 17:27
Hi Werner,
I was just teasing really – you weren’t sure about ‘fully devoted Christians’.
Anyway, what’s the problem with transubstantiation, apart from good taste (no pun intended)? Is it because it’s nonsense, by any chance?
P.
February 12th, 2009 at 21:12
Hi everyone – wow you have all been busy on here over the past couple of days!! Sorry I haven’t posted anything – work commitments etc…
On the many, and various questions you have posed I would agree with Werners answers.
Hi eoin, thanks for giving my challenge a go (and anyone else who is too)… although, like Werner reminded you, I did say a week… Which would be Monday 16th Feb. So for those who don’t work weekends it gives you a great opportunity to try and find some quite time and space to genuinely seek God and ask him to show you he is real. An important word here is “genuinely” (not that I am saying anyone isn’t doing it genuinely!!). From your point of veiw – if God is real and he loves you and wants the best for you and wants to transform your life for the better – then surely it is worth giving this a go and doing it genuinely.
With regards to the post saying that there have never been any verified supernatural healings… I would have to disagree. I have met a chap who I am sure would be happy to show you his documented healing… He had stomach cancer and had to have most of his stomach removed – but he got worse and was given a few weeks to live – he went to a Christian conference and got prayed for and a miracle happened – the parts of his stomach that were removed grew back – he has the scans to prove it – the doctors can’t explain it.
Found some interesting medical research that has been done on weither prayer helps people recover from mental or physical health problems…
http://www.physorg.com/news93105311.html
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html
Maybe we could pray for you guys about something in your lives that is difficult for you – that you want breakthrough for..?
Thanks, Phil.
February 12th, 2009 at 22:47
Just forgot to say hi to Alistair too… Again, thanks for accepting to do my challenge genuinely – all the best!!
Also, I realise my last post about maybe asking us to pray about certain things that are difficult in your, or your families lives might be too private to post up here… So maybe you could email them to Werner – as he put his email on an earlier post… (is that ok Werner..?)
Ta, Phil.
February 12th, 2009 at 23:15
“The parts of his stomach that were removed grew back.” (Phil #444). Impressive: but if I were God I’d really show my existence by growing back an amputated arm or leg. Far more convincing.
Mary was “only the woman whom God chose to bear His Son.” (Werner #441) Werner, this statement alone would have been enough to have had you burned at the stake or at least tortured to death in some other unspeakably disgusting manner by CHRISTIANS at any time from the age of Constantine, when Christianity became the state religion until the Reformation (when Protestants started persecuting people who continued praying to the Mother of God). Just think yourself lucky that Christianity doesn’t still have that kind of power. If it did, it would “probably” use it as it did in the past.
February 12th, 2009 at 23:34
Hi johnnyess,
By growing back this mans stomach God wasn’t trying to prove he existed – he was meeting the need of that person – the chap had all his limbs, so he didn’t need anymore!! (hehe!!) I think for this man – having a new stomach was very convincing of Gods love for him!!
Also – in response to your comment to werner saying he would have been burnt at the stake etc by “Christians” in years past for his comment on Mary – the key here is in what you also said:
“when Christianity became the state religion”
RELIGION – this is the key word here… like we have admitted many times on these posts – yes – many wrongs have been committed in the name of religion – yes that includes Christianity – BUT this is religion, not a personal relationship with God. If you have a personal relationship with God and follow his ways you would never do anything like this, as God is loving and forgiving – “love your enemies” “turn the other cheek” etc etc…
Phil.
February 12th, 2009 at 23:43
Hi Johnnyess…
I just said: “God wasn’t trying to prove he existed – he was meeting the need of that person.”
I think for some people – even medical proof of an amputated arm or leg growing back wouldn’t be enough proof as I am pretty sure some people would still think it was a hoax or something.
What is key here, is that God wants to meet with individuals and pour his love on them and meet their needs. I am sure that if you needed a new stomach and God gave you a new one you would believe in him and want to know more about him.
So maybe you could post a prayer request to Werners email – and see if God can meet your need… (remember – you don’t need that nice red ferrari!!).
Thanks, Phil.
February 12th, 2009 at 23:58
My point about state religion is that these people only have the power we give them. When they had that power they abused it. I’m afraid they would (will?) do so again if they had the chance. We must never give that power back to them, even though they whinge and whine and feel that our refusal to obey their wishes amounts to persecution and “marginalisation”. As if Atheists hadn’t been marginalised for 2,000 years! There are idiots in Northern Ireland today demanding a creationist exhibition to counter an exhibition showing the discoveries of Darwin.
As for an arm or leg growing back after amputation, why not, if a stomach can do so? The answer must be that the former is impossible according to the laws of science (otherwise it would have been brought to our attention by the tabloids, like the miraculous faces on the pizzas and slices of toast), the latter, (as you say it has happened) presumably not.
I don’t need a Ferrari, and I don’t need an imaginary being.
February 13th, 2009 at 7:28
Hi Phil
As before I’ll take your challenge as long as you can do the following…..
So for those who don’t work weekends it gives you a great opportunity to try and find some quite time and space to genuinely seek Ganesh and ask him to show you he is real. An important word here is “genuinely” (not that I am saying anyone isn’t doing it genuinely!!). From your point of veiw – if the Hindu gods are real and they love you and want the best for you and want to transform your life for the better – then surely it is worth giving this a go and doing it genuinely……
Now, Phil if you can open your mind to the Hindu gods, I will continue to see if your god will contact me. Do you think you can do this?
February 13th, 2009 at 11:56
Hi eoin,
I have looked at some Hindu websites and realise I have a problem… it says about Ganesh:
“How can you reach Ganesh and get his assistance? Very simple. To contact Lord Ganesh, hold his form steady in your mind with eyes closed. Now you can talk to him. He will listen, but not speak back. You simply must put all of your questions and problems at his feet and then open your eyes. Ganesha answers you not in words but by his influencing events and decisions slowly and in unseen ways. Situations will change for you and doors will open through your prayers to him.”
So Ganesh can’t speak directly to me..? Also – having to concentrate my mind on the form of Ganesh – what does he look like..? So if you don’t know what he looks like – you can’t contact him..? I have found an image online – but concentrating on a boy with the head of an elephant sitting on a rodent is proving quite difficult. It says he answers slowly through changes of events..? (Is a week going to be too quick for Ganesh..?) My God the true God can act quickly if needed… for nothing is impossible for him – he is the creator of all.
Remember – this challenge was for you who don’t believe in any God – I already believe in God so I don’t need to seek after anything else…
All the best…
Phil.
February 13th, 2009 at 12:13
Hi phil
I’m glad to see you gathering evidence thats a great habit to keep up. However, if I’m not mistaken I can summarise that what you have done is research the evidence and you simply find it ridiculous to believe in the existence of Ganesh.
You just dont believe in him. At all. Its just not true.
Funny that – because, thats the way I feel about your god – all gods in fact. It seems that we do share disbelief. When it comes to Ganesh – Phil, youre an non-believer.
When it comes to all gods, I’m a non-believer.
February 13th, 2009 at 13:12
Hi Johnnyess…
Atheists marginalised..?
Have you not seen these recent news stories..?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4590870/Primary-school-receptionist-facing-sack-after-daughter-talks-about-Jesus-to-classmate.html
and…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4446935/Nurses-prayer-suspension-Sign-petition-for-Caroline-Petrie-here.html
So we are not even allowed to show love and concern to others by offering prayer for fear of losing our jobs now!!
I find this really interesting when in America their health service has actually been doing some clinical studies into the healing power of prayer with some signs that it works – see my other posts with links…
So maybe as an Atheist living in 2009 you are not quite so marginalised after all.
Phil.
February 13th, 2009 at 13:24
Ganesh? When did the conversation turn around to the existence of Ganesh. I thought we were talking about God Almighty…Maker of heaven and earth!!
anyway – something interesting to ponder. 1 – the bible is the only ‘holy book’ of all the religions in the world that contains prophecy. 2 – nineteen books of the bible are basically prophetic. 3 -With the Birth and Death and Resurrection of Jesus, more than 50 old testament prophecies were fulfilled. Most of them being written 700 years before and some 3000 years. Apparantly, the odds are billions to one.
We can then with great certainty say that the prophecies in the new testament will ALSO be fulfilled. Oi – we live in exciting times!!
February 13th, 2009 at 14:15
Hi Werner,
I was interested in your disbelief. You keep trying to get us to believe in your god. So, I’ll keep trying to get you to believe in a god you dont believe in.
By doing do, we’ve seen that you and phil are non-believers too. We share disbelief in Ganesh.
You find it ridiculous to believe in him. I just continue your thinking and find it riduculous to believe in any gods.
So, our discussion on Ganesh, Siva, Thor…. and all the other gods you dont believe in will always continue while you try to get us to believe in your god.
February 13th, 2009 at 14:22
Phil,
Hmm, earlier you said my criticism of ‘western european’ values and portrayals were obviously dumb (your word).
Now, you say (in reference to ganesh) – “So if you don’t know what he looks like – you can’t contact him..?
So, what does your god look like – you have a personal relationship with him – is he a white european, by any chance?
February 13th, 2009 at 14:39
Paul N…
My point was quite clear – The Hindu websites said that to contact Ganesh, you had to picture his form in your mind – which means you need to know what he looks like… Whereas to contact God you don’t have to picture him at all. No-one knows what God looks like – the white european ideas from religious paintings etc were normally images of Jesus – who we know would not have been a white european!!
Phil.
February 13th, 2009 at 14:43
eoin… are you a Hindu – Has Ganesh spoken to you and transformed your life..?
February 13th, 2009 at 14:51
It’s been (almost) a week since I took up the challenge. I’ve tried praying and believe it or not, even went to church this week! That was interesting. I’ve got to be honest, I can’t say I feel any different or feel like anyone has spoken to me and I’ve certainly not had any blinding lights coming from above. I have genuinely taken up your challenge, there’s still a few days left and I might consider church on Sunday again – where better a time and place to become a convert?
After the first few days of feeling quite sceptical and a little weirded out about praying, I genuinely tried talking to god but honestly, so far nothing has changed in my life, I feel no different than I did at the start of the week. Still, I’m being as open minded about this challenge as I possibly can be.
Will keep you updated.
February 13th, 2009 at 14:55
Hi Alistair,
Thank you for being so honest, upfront, and genuine about this challenge. I hope the weekend goes well for you. Yeh – go along to church on sunday – see what happens… I am impressed – you are a brave guy – doing something new like this!! Well done!!
Phil.
February 13th, 2009 at 15:18
So Phil,
You have a personal relationship with god. But, you’ve never seen him and don’t know what he looks like.
OK, what does his voice sound like? Do you actually hear a voice – or what? Does he speak English?
P.
February 13th, 2009 at 15:25
hi
if youre not happy using Ganesh for our discussions – then there are plenty of gods to choose from – see godchecker.com
and remember, people used to believe these gods existed.
February 14th, 2009 at 8:27
Phil,
The most highly regarded study into the effect of prayer was the MANTRA II study, which appeared in the Lancet. No statistical significant effect of prayer was found:
“Neither masked prayer nor MIT therapy significantly improved clinical outcome after elective catheterisation or percutaneous coronary intervention.”
This was a multi-centered, randomised trial, with multiple patients (748) – all crucial parts of the scientific method.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673605669103/fulltext
I see prayer as the minds way of equiping yourself with hope. If it makes you feel good, please go ahead, however dont pray for me. Simply tell me you hope things will go well.
February 14th, 2009 at 12:33
Hi eoin,
I have read the linked article and have found a key issue…
“prayer by established congregations of various religions”
Those who had prayer were prayed for by various religions. Now as you know – I believe that there is only one true God and the only way to know him is by accepting him into your life (becoming a Christian). So this study can’t be used to show that Christian prayer doesn’t work as it was “various religions” who were praying – how many Christians were there..? It doesn’t say.
If you don’t believe in prayer or God then you won’t mind us praying for you..?
Have a great weekend,
Phil.
February 14th, 2009 at 12:54
phil #453
Had the nurse offered to pray for me I would have politely declined the offer, and not reported her unless she had become really offensive.
As for the child telling her little friend about hell, I blame whoever filled her mind with such poisonous nonsense in the first place (her mother?)
There seems to be no indication that the people who suspended these employees were themselves atheists.
I seem to recall that in the Duke University prayer experiment those who knew they were being prayed for got slightly worse. So if you must pray for people please don’t tell them.
February 14th, 2009 at 13:09
Hi Johhnyess, just thought I had better clear something up for those who may be reading this forum and not know about the story of the little girl in school…
The article in the Telegraph states:
“Her daughter Jasmine had been overheard by a teacher discussing heaven and God with a friend and had been pulled to one side and told off.”
So not talking hell and damnation etc!!
Here is the link again:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4590870/Primary-school-receptionist-facing-sack-after-daughter-talks-about-Jesus-to-classmate.html
Johnnyess also said:
“There seems to be no indication that the people who suspended these employees were themselves atheists.”
I didn’t say they were atheists – I was just making the point that although supposedly the uk is a Christian nation – you can get suspended for talking about Jesus or offering prayer.
Phil.
February 14th, 2009 at 13:29
Hi Phil,
The MANTRA II study did include Christians – see below. Your reply to the paper on prayer is a good example of selective reasoning. When other religions pray you claim its pointless and this doesnt work – however Christian prayer… well, now thats different. How do you provide a critique of this paper? – by faith and dogma. You disregard other religions and believe in yours……simply because that is what you believe.
You cant criticise a respected scientific paper in a journal as respected as the Lancet – by using *faith*.
The study include did include Christians – Charismatic Christian, Baptist and Catholic. Below are the churches involved in the primary group. There also was also a 2nd group which I havent shown. The study showed that prayer did not work.
Abundant Life Christian Center Charismatic Christian 30 Sanford, NC, USA
Baptist Prayer Congregations Baptist 30 Elkin and Durham, NC, USA
Carmelite Sisters Catholic 15 Towson, MD, USA
Kopan Monastery Buddhist 50 Kathmandu, Nepal
Nalanda Monastery Buddhist 150 Lavaur, France
Moravian Church Christian 15 Raleigh, NC, USA
Rifa’i-Marfi Sufi Muslim 10 Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Unity Church Unitarian 30 Unity Village, MO, USA
Virtual Jerusalem Jewish 10 Jerusalem, Israel
Rowan Christian Assembly Christian 1 Salisbury, NC, USA
Victory and Dominion Fellowship Christian 30 Kinston, NC, USA
Prayer Work Group Christian 10 Durham, NC, USA
Partners in Prayer Christian 5 Wake Forest, NC, USA
February 14th, 2009 at 14:53
Hi eoin,
I didn’t say that there were no Christians in this study and I wasn’t critiscing a “journal as respected as the Lancet”. I was merely saying that because this wasn’t a study specifically into Christian prayer it can’t be used to prove that Christian prayer doesn’t work.
I have seen with my own eyes people healed physically and drug addicts saved from addiction – alcholics lives turned around – all through prayer and God working in thier lives. Yes, maybe I can’t prove this on paper with medical proof – but I know it has happened.
So maybe if seeing is believing for you – I could pray that you would see God move in your life or your family and friends etc… so you can see he is real. Maybe you could email to Werners hotmail email some prayer requests like I have suggested earlier..?
Thanks, Phil.
February 14th, 2009 at 15:00
Hi Alastair – (sorry, I have realised I have been spelling your name wrong!!)
Just thought it would be good to tell you that many many Christian friends are praying for you as you seek to find out if God is real. From musicians to designers, from mum’s to people in government, from business owners to radio dj’s the list goes on.
We are praying for you (and the other members of this forum) because we want you to see that you are special, that you are not a mistake, that God made you and loves you and wants the best for you. I hope that know this doesn’t freak you out!! I hope that this encourages you in your journey of discovery!!
Thanks, Phil.
February 14th, 2009 at 19:44
Hi Phil,
“I was merely saying that because this wasn’t a study specifically into Christian prayer it can’t be used to prove that Christian prayer doesn’t work.”
Why?
Why cant a randomised, controlled trial which includes a range of different Christian Churches be used to study if Christian prayer?
You cant set criteria for an experiment just because you dont like the result. The study included a range of different religion – there was no prejudice or favouritism. I am sure if the study *had* demonstrated some slight positive result – you would have jumped on it immediately.
“I have seen with my own eyes people healed physically and drug addicts saved from addiction – alcholics lives turned around – all through prayer and God working in thier lives”
Phil, SEEING something is NOT proof. Even if, the whole of your church – say 100s of people saw this – it is still not proof. You need to deal with the difference between correlation and causality.
When you do something (ie pray) and there is a “result” ( ie person is healed physically) – you need to prove what you “did” was the direct cause of what happened and not something else that happened ie was what you did simply correlated to the result? It is extremely important to understand the difference.
Causal proof would show that prayer in some way had a particular molecular level effect on the disease of the person. Then, you would need to prove that molecular level effect led to a cure.
February 14th, 2009 at 20:28
Phil # 466
Well, Phil, the Telegraph chose not to mention Hell on Thursday 12th (why not, I wonder? Selective reporting? The Telegraph has a distinct Christian bias, as I’m sure you’ve noticed) but got around to doing so on Friday 13th:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4604205/Archbishop-speaks-in-support-of-primary-school-receptionist-facing-sack.html
February 14th, 2009 at 22:32
eoin…
Weither these healings I have seen and know about were or were not down to prayer – something would have had to happen at a molecular level for the healings to take place. Is it just coincidence that these healings happened at the same time as prayers were said for them..? If that is the case then I and friends of mine must be the luckiest people on the planet to have witnessed so many natural healings or that many coincidences!!
I doubt we could ever get causal proof to show you that prayer can cause molecular change, because I think you would just put every prayer that seemed to work down to coincidence…
Phil.
February 14th, 2009 at 22:47
Hi Johnnyess,
Well spotted, I hadn’t seen fridays article – well done!! Although, there are 2 sides to this…
“The school has insisted the Jasmine was threatening an older girl, saying that she would “go to hell” if she didn’t believe in God.”
and…
“Mrs Cain denied that her daughter had “frightened” another student by telling her she would go to hell. She said Jasmine had been discussing God and going to Heaven with a friend, when an older girl joined in and asked “so how do you get into Hell then”. Mrs Cain claimed her daughter then replied: “By not believing in Jesus,” but added she never mentioned the words herself.
So two sides – who’s side is factual – don’t know.
But if you remember – the reason for me posting these newspaper articles was not to argue about what the little girl said or didn’t say – it was to show that by speaking about your Christian faith (or offering prayer like the nurse) you can now end up having disciplinary action taken against you!!
Thanks, Phil.
February 14th, 2009 at 22:58
Phil,
Regarding these spiritual healings that you’ve been involved in, has the healing occurred immediately – literally in front of your eyes – or over time? Ie. did a limb, (or perhaps just a limp!) grow back (or cease to exist!)? You didn’t give any specifics on what kind of physical problems had been cured by prayer.
As far as drug addicts or alcoholics being cured by prayer, I don’t doubt this is possible – not necessarily the actual act of the prayer but a person being so affected and so overwhelmed by the occasion that their addiction doesn’t seem important in their lives any longer.
Still no revelation here.
February 14th, 2009 at 23:30
Mrs Cain implicitly admits that she had taught her toddler that if she didn’t believe in Jesus she would go to Hell. Indoctrination? Brainwashing? What would you call it? What would you call it if a child of 5 or 6 was taught that the truth was socialism or conservatism, or fascism or communism, or Islam or Judaism or Hinduism? And moreover, that anybody who didn’t accept that as the truth would go to Hell? Such fundamentalists are being marginalised? Well, about time, perhaps.
February 15th, 2009 at 0:32
Hi Phil,
“Is it just coincidence that these healings happened at the same time as prayers were said for them..? If that is the case then I and friends of mine must be the luckiest people on the planet to have witnessed so many natural healings or that many coincidences!!”
Youve struck the heart of the matter. Is it just coincidence or…. is it something else – i dont know.
However, to assert something you need statistically significant *causal* proof – simply saying “I have witnessed so many natural healings” is NOT enough. It is crucial you appreciate this. “Seeing” something is not proof.
“I doubt we could ever get causal proof to show you that prayer can cause molecular change, because I think you would just put every prayer that seemed to work down to coincidence…”
Agreed.
February 16th, 2009 at 6:19
You guys have been busy…
Right – # 463, 467, 470 – one cannot put God in a box – or in some ‘experiment’ to prove His (or prayer’s) existence. let me tell you something. For the person to be healed by prayer – that person must also believe, in faith, that Jesus can heal him/her. It’s not a quick fix to a problem that we can ‘bottle’ in some lab.
# 472 – agreed with Phil – cannot just be coincidence.
You want ‘proof’ – like i said, go to Ellel ministries – there in the uk (do a google search) and check out when the next healing and deliverance service will be in your area. go and attend and you will have your ‘proof’.
May you all have a fantastic week! God Bless.
February 16th, 2009 at 6:53
Hi Werner,
“one cannot put God in a box – or in some ‘experiment’ to prove His (or prayer’s) existence. ”
“You want ‘proof’ – like i said, go to Ellel ministries – there in the uk and check out when the next healing and deliverance service will be in your area. go and attend and you will have your ‘proof’.”
This is total nonsence – if you want to claim that event A is the cause of event B – you need CAUSAL proof. Simply going to “Ellel ministries and SEEING” is NOT enough.
I’ll repeat that – SEEING something with your own eyes is NOT PROOF. I’m sure it is sufficent for your prayer group – outside in the real world it is not.
February 16th, 2009 at 8:05
Hi Eoin.
So let’s say you are walking next to the street – and a car comes speeding by, hits someone who does a backflip over the car, lands on his feet and walks off. You saw the whole thing – but cannot prove it. you know it’s real but no one believes you. YOU SAW IT, so you know it’s real. If, however you were not in the area you would not have seen it. If you were wearing a blind fold you would not have seen it. if you were looking down you would not have seen it. I agree – to prove to the ‘world’ you need causal proof. To prove it to YOUR HEART you just need to see it. No one is going to believe you anyway – but you know it’s real.
that’s why i suggested Ellel ministries. You don’t need to prove it to the world – YOU just need to know it’s real.
Blessings.
February 16th, 2009 at 8:43
Hi Werner
Fantastic example – one that I take on with relish….So, a car accident – how does this fit in with my idea of ‘causal proof’
Well, if I was the only witness, how could I find evidence?….
- Cameras – many accidents appear on cctv and this is commonly used as ‘criminal court’ evidence.
- Tyre marks on road – I’m not an expert in forensics but I remember from my uni days that the trajectory of a skid mark can show the speed and direction of a car.
- Injury on the patient – X-rays will provide evidence of injury. It may also show the stance of the patient as the car hit them.
- Damage to car – again this can often demonstrate the direction/speed of the car.
and so on….
The point with causal proof is that you have sufficient evidence to say the accident is the CAUSE for the patients injuries. In fact, often in some criminal cases – causal proof becomes the discussion. Sometimes, a victim will claim an particular injury resulted from the accident – however there is not enough causal proof for this. Maybe they had that injury *before* the accident and want to get a payout?!
A car accident provides PLENTY of causal proof. Prayer does not. Oh, and I prove nothing to my heart. Causal proof is debated in my mind.
February 16th, 2009 at 9:33
He Eoin.
Your not a lawyer by any chance are you…
Look, i’m not trying to debate on the ‘facts’ of prayer etc. all i am saying is that if you saw something happening for yourself you would believe it wouldn’t you? If you knew someone who had been blind all their life, and after prayer that person can see again – and you saw the whole thing – you would believe it wont you? Now, all i’m saying is that you won’t be able to see all these things if you don’t go where these things regularly occur…. where do you go for your causal proof – to the accident scene right? So – if we want to see – we have to visit the scene – where the healing takes place – The Church…
cheers.
February 16th, 2009 at 10:44
Hi Alastair,
I hope your weekend went well and that you enjoyed you time at Church. Remember that I said lots of people are praying for you as you seek God..? Well one of those people has contacted me and said (this may seem weird – but stick with it!!) that whilst they were praying God set a verse from the bible on their mind which was “Daniel chapter 10 verse 12″. They didn’t know what it said – so they looked in their bible and this is what it says:
“Then he continued, “Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them.”
So, I don’t know what has happened over this weekend for you – weither in your opinion God has turned up, or not..? BUT, because you have genuinely come to seek God this week… He has heard your words and will respond to them!! Just wait and see – don’t give up!! He loves you…
Phil.
February 16th, 2009 at 11:22
Phil,
I really want to pursue how god actually makes contact. You’ve already said that you don’t actually see him, and I’m assuming it’s not ‘voices in the head’ since in your last post you mentioned that “God set a verse from the bible on their mind“.
It’s all a bit vague. How does someone know when a thought is not just their own – rather than one ’set in their mind’ by your god – or even some other god?
You’ve previously said that obedience to your god is the crucial thing – would you kill someone having had that thought ’set in your mind by god’?
Really, if you want to have any hope of convincing people like me to bother wasting a nanosecond on trying your challenge, you’ve got to give us some concrete idea on how to decide between thoughts.
Paul.
February 16th, 2009 at 11:55
Hi Paul N,
‘voices in the head’ – well yes, God can speak directly to you as audible voice. But he can also speak in many other ways too, such as words of knowledge… Now this is an interesting one – say I had never met you before – but you were really struggling with something in your life, or you needed to know what decision to make about something really important etc… God could give me a word of knowledge about that situation for you that humanly I could not have known about, with infinite details that would be impossible for me to have just guessed at. You see – God knows what is on our minds – what we are struggling with – what we need – he wants to meet our needs for our own good because he loves us.
Paul N also said:
“would you kill someone having had that thought ’set in your mind by god’?”
Come on Paul – we have been through this in other posts!! God is a God of love – not destruction – remember the Ten Commandments – “Do not murder”..?
Phil.
February 16th, 2009 at 12:22
Phil,
I’m trying to find out how you know your god has spoken to you and how you validate it.
OK you say you’ve literally heard the voice of god in your head. So, did he speak in English? What accent did he have – brummie, perhaps? Did he use any slang?
Also, re the ‘would you kill’ question – lot’s of people have ‘told by god’ to murder people (yorkshire ripper, for example).
I assume you’ll say they were misguided in some way but they will have the same kind of blind faith and unquestioning certainty that you display. I just want to know if you would react to Abraham’s predicament in the same way he did.
Paul
February 16th, 2009 at 20:00
Hi Werner,
you say..
“all i am saying is that if you saw something happening for yourself you would believe it wouldn’t you? If you knew someone who had been blind all their life, and after prayer that person can see again – and you saw the whole thing – you would believe it wont you? ”
Let me be clear – 100% No. Let me say it AGAIN – “SEEING IS NOT PROOF”. In the above example, I would investigate if the patient had been permanently blind, what molecular level changes in the eye during and after the prayer and I would carry out the same experiment on 100,000 other blind people to see if the same result occured.
Werner, we seem to have a problem with you fixating on “seeing” something and regarding it as evidence. I have tried to explain why this is wrong. Just because you SEE the prayer and there is a “result” DOES NOT mean the prayer is responsible for the result – you need statistically significant causal proof.
Here is an overview that may help:
http://www.stat.tamu.edu/stat30x/notes/node42.html
It ends will a good rule – “To establish causation, a designed experiment must be run.” ie SEEING is not proof.
February 17th, 2009 at 20:54
Phil? Werner?
Are you still there? We’re all beginning to miss you. Has Ganesh spoken?
Well, probably not. Who could believe in a boy with an elephant’s head? About as likely as a talking snake, or a virgin birth.
February 18th, 2009 at 0:19
Hi Johnnyess and all…
Nice to know you have been missing me (and Werner). Sorry – but work is busy at the moment and I haven’t had much chance to check these posts.
Hey – me and Werner may not be available to talk all the time – but I know someone who is… God longs to speak to you, to know you, you can talk to him anytime, anywhere!!
Phil.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:11
Hi Phil,
Another point – not only do you believe in a particular ‘god’ (not Ganesh) but you also believe that it “longs to speak to you, to know you” and that “you can talk to him anytime, anywhere!!”
So not only do you believe in its existence but you know its thoughts too? Where is your causal proof for that? Please dont offer bible quotes – that gets us nowhere.
Werner – our discussion on causal proof – have you read the summary I provided to you? You could also telephone any academic in economics, statistics or science in any reasonable university. They all deal with correlation vs causality and could give you a brief introduction.
February 18th, 2009 at 14:22
eoin, so where is the causal proof that CAM therapies work (acupuncture / herbal / crystal / magnetic therapies etc)..? As far as I can tell the studies that have been done are mainly inconclusive… but many people still use them and are refered by various faculties of the NHS..? So on this evidence can the NHS refer people to Christian prayer as a therapy..?
Who is going to fund the study into prayer with 100,000 blind people..? How long is this going to take..? I don’t think anyone is going to fund this sort of research… so does that mean prayer doesn’t work – no – it just means that you can’t have your causal evidence.
Phil.
February 18th, 2009 at 14:24
Phil,
Crystal healing, magnetic therapies etc. are all as much a crock of crap and have no respect in scientific communities. If I was referred by an NHS doctor to have those kind of treatments, I’d ask them to try again.
February 18th, 2009 at 14:35
Hi Phil,
I couldnt have picked a better example myself. There is NO causal proof that alternative methods work.
Its interesting that you bring it up as example to compare to religion. People gain solace from the fact that a crystal or a god might help them in some way.
However, there is no CAUSAL proof.
Good example.
February 18th, 2009 at 14:47
As I understand it, when an alternative form of medicine is proved to work it ceases to be “alternative” and becomes an accepted form of medicine. Not before.
February 18th, 2009 at 14:49
Phil, you say:- ‘so where is the causal proof that CAM therapies work..?‘ – there isn’t any. They rely on the same sort of reasoning as you do.
Then :- ‘I don’t think anyone is going to fund this sort of research‘. No, of course not. An atheist wouldn’t because he would consider it a complete waste of time and money, and a theist wouldn’t because evidence is actually irrelevant to faith, and searching for it might actually be considered ‘unfaithful’.
P
February 18th, 2009 at 15:17
Hi Phil,
We’re definitely making progress here.
“so does that mean prayer doesn’t work – no – it just means that you can’t have your causal evidence.”
Yes, youre right I dont have any causal evidence – so I dont believe your argument. 100,000 people would be ideal – but I’d be curious with a smaller sample as long as the scientific method is applied.
So yes, no evidence as of yet that prayer works. However, many academics are still investigating this – some religious, some atheist. There are also studies using MRI resonance to identify the area of the brain that gets activated during prayer.
So, prayer may not work. But we may get interesting data on why humans have done it for 10s of thousands of years.
February 18th, 2009 at 15:26
Wow – that got you all talking and yes I agree with your posts!! Hey – we agree on something!!
eoin: As I have said in a previous post – I don’t think you will ever believe in the power of prayer to God, as you would put any possible causal proof (as we don’t have funds to do large scale research) down to coincedence. I think the only way you will believe is for God to show you he is real. One day your causal proof and rational reasoning will be challenged and you will have to rethink what you believe to be true.
I am not on this forum to argue with you all, and I am sure Werner would agree – we are on here because we care for you and want you to realise that God loves you.
Alastair – great to hear from you.
Phil.
February 18th, 2009 at 16:11
Hey guys, have a look at this when you have time… It is an article in the Times Newspaper by an Atheist who has seen how belief in God has transformed peoples lives in Africa… very interesting…
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.ece
Thanks, Phil.
February 18th, 2009 at 17:31
Hi Phil,
“I am not on this forum to argue with you all, and I am sure Werner would agree – we are on here because we care for you and want you to realise that God loves you.”
I understand your stated aim. However, in responce I ask for causal proof and you have none – ALL you can do is to provide your own SUBJECTIVE experience. As Ive said many times – this is not proof, therefore I fear your aim becomes somewhat redundant.
February 18th, 2009 at 19:31
Hi all
sorry – been out of town with a laptop and no power cable – so limited time and overloaded with work.
What if something happened to you and you were healed – would you believe then….
Thanks PHil – yes – we are here because we care deeply for you guys and don’t want anyone to be lost. How is it going with those challenges.
Eoin – the conversation about causal proof will go on for all centuries. What i saw i believe, i know the people personally – and i don’t need to write a discertation on it
Great discussions – i’ll be back on Friday on a regular basis.
Blessings in Christ.
February 18th, 2009 at 21:08
I meant to post earlier about my challenge, but this week has been a bit of a hectic one!
Anyway, it was an interesting challenge and I went through a few different emotions but I’ve got to be honest, and I did genuinely approach this challenge with an open mind , and despite going to church twice (interesting experience – different to how I remember church being as a kid), I’ve simply not had any revelation. Literally, despite my attempts at praying, I didn’t feel remotely like anyone was listening (perhaps the neighbours, but that’s it) and certainly didn’t feel like I had any response to those prayers. I feel no different and no more enlightened than I did prior to this exercise.
I’m not going to say “well, I didn’t feel anything so you must be imagining it”. I find it hard to believe that so many people are “imagining” god speaking to them, but I’m still unconvinced, perhaps more so in fact, of any higher being or power.
The more I think about it, the more I just find the idea of a god so unreasonable as to be beyond doubt.
Anyway, it was an interesting week and not something I regret trying out but for me, no cigar.
Alastair
February 18th, 2009 at 23:55
Hi Alastair,
Thank you so much for getting back to us about how your week has gone. Thanks for being honest too about how you have felt. I really respect you for giving this week a go!
Although you may not have had any ‘revelation’ over this week – remember God has heard your prayers and will respond. I believe that because you have done this challenge with an open heart and mind, God will honour you and will respond in time. So please keep checking this forum and posting from time to time so we can all keep in contact and see whats happening.
All the best, Phil.
February 19th, 2009 at 7:04
Hi Phil,
You keep on falling into the same trap in your argument – not only do you believe in a particular supernatural being – but you also know its “thoughts” too….
“remember God has heard your prayers and will respond.”
Where is your causal proof for this? How are you any different from a tribal elder who believes “the spirits from the Forest” are talking to him?
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:11
Hi Eoin. I think you misinterpreted what Phil was saying. We know that God heard his prayers due to the other people we asked to pray for him. People receive certain words of knowledge and scriptures that related to Alastair’s situation. God confirmed He heard alastair’s prayers by giving a specific scripture to a lady as she was praying for Alastair. This is one of the ways that God works. We cannot begin to comprehend what God is thinking, but we understand and know his Character to a degree…mainly based on the Revelations in our own lives and because of the Promises in His Word.
laters…
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:45
Hi Werner,
I dont see how I’m misinterpreting anything. You say..
“People receive certain words of knowledge and scriptures”
Ok. Wheres the causal proof of this? If I say Siva or Ganesh or Thor has spoken to me – I would think general society would think I’m barking mad.
If you say the abrahamic god speaks to you or to a jew or a muslim, then we have to ‘respect’ that. Well – actually, no I dont respect that. In a democracy, I believe you have the right to do it, but I dont have to respect it.
I demand proof – otherwise my position is that your minds psychology is creating ‘voices’. It is absolutely 100% no different from the tribal elder who believes “the spirits from the Forest” are talking to him.
February 26th, 2009 at 15:34
Hi Guys, hope you are all doing well.
There are people praying specifically for you guys on this forum from around the world. You see, we care about you and want to share the most amazing thing in this universe with you – to show you that you can have a relationship with God who loves you.
Did any of you take a look at the article in the Times Newspaper that I put the link to a while back..? About the Atheist reporter who has seen that belief in God has transformed peoples lives in Africa..? This is the link again…
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.ece
Some of his quotes…
“As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God
Missionaries, not aid money, are the solution to Africa’s biggest problem – the crushing passivity of the people’s mindset”
“But travelling in Malawi refreshed another belief, too: one I’ve been trying to banish all my life, but an observation I’ve been unable to avoid since my African childhood. It confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit my world view, and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God.”
“Now a confirmed atheist, I’ve become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people’s hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.”
“Faith does more than support the missionary; it is also transferred to his flock. This is the effect that matters so immensely, and which I cannot help observing.”
“In the city we had working for us Africans who had converted and were strong believers. The Christians were always different. Far from having cowed or confined its converts, their faith appeared to have liberated and relaxed them. There was a liveliness, a curiosity, an engagement with the world – a directness in their dealings with others – that seemed to be missing in traditional African life. They stood tall.”
“Whenever we entered a territory worked by missionaries, we had to acknowledge that something changed in the faces of the people we passed and spoke to: something in their eyes, the way they approached you direct, man-to-man, without looking down or away. They had not become more deferential towards strangers – in some ways less so – but more open.”
There is more to this article if you want to read it all. I thought it was important to post parts of it here for those who might not have clicked the link last time. Remember – this is an atheist reporters views here… quite interesting don’t you think..? Maybe seeing is believing after all eoin..? Hey, but has he got your “Causal Proof” well maybe, maybe not – but he has seen that there is a common link between the positive effect that Christianity has on the lives of those living in Africa.
Thanks, Phil.
February 26th, 2009 at 16:07
WOW – Praise God for that report and for what He is doing in Africa. it’s interesting that one never hears of hindu or muslim missionairies hey? Always christian missionaries. I’d like to believe it’s because the Christian person is filled with love and wants to take that love to the corners of the earth. – as for the other guys – i don’t think they care whether you believe or not – as long as they are sorted the rest don’t matter. pretty selfish if you ask me….
February 26th, 2009 at 21:04
Hi Guys,
Wondered when we’d here from you next.
Phil, I did read the article. Strange to hear you two praising an atheist’s views. I note how he appreciated these people’s generosity of spirit and ‘thought’ it probably was to to with their faith. How reasonable – he’s probably right.
Didn’t convert him, though, did it? Why not? Hmm, it might be because he is reasonable.
And Werner, you’re up to your tricks again, comparing religions – don’t you remember our earlier evidence of Christian savagery?
And whilst we’re on that subject, I wonder if Matthew Parris hung around for long in the north of Nigeria, where Christians and Muslims regularly set each other’s communities on fire (literally).
Paul
February 26th, 2009 at 21:27
Thanks, Paul N – I’m so glad you chipped in to counter the arguments of these two blinkered individuals. I felt I ought to, but in the end I couldn’t be bothered. Banging your head against a brick wall – it’s such a relief when you stop. But somebody’s got to do it. Thanks again.
February 26th, 2009 at 22:45
Hi johnnyess,
Thanks for the back-up. I did hesitate but thought the same as you – someone’s got to do it.
And hang on a Minute – we have Had some success – Werner has (almost) completely Dropped the Inappropriate capitals.
Paul.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:26
Hi There is a new book out in U.S.A. “Losing my religion” written by a religion writer for the L.A.Times. It contains quotes from many of our founding fathers that makes their fear of religion as a component in democracy clear. Their fears have been realized in the past couple of decades here in the U.S.A. as the rise of the christian right has strongly influenced politics. We have become more and more divided as a nation and less and less open to rational discussion on any issue. I have expressed this to my neighbors and co-workers and now am expressing to you.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:32
Hi Guys…
Paul… We don’t know where the reporter is with God at the moment but he does say:
“It confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit my world view, and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God.”
So his “reasonable” thinking has been challenged. Watch this space!!
Anyway guys, I hope your heads are not hurting too much from “banging your heads against a brick wall”… Sorry, but this wall isn’t going to crumble – you see, it is built on the firm foundation of truth. Maybe you could stop banging your heads and accept the invitation to walk through the open door!!
Phil.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:41
Phil,
This is the worst argument youve yet had.
Some journowrites an article that hes found god so we have to give up and believe too??!! Please! I think youre wrong and I think hes wrong too. His position that religion is good for Africa is immoral. Religion has done untold damage to African society. The Vatican has done everything it can to ban sex education and the level of homophobia there is as a result of religion. He should be ashamed of the article.
For you to use him as a method of challenging us is…. embassing.
“Sorry, but this wall isn’t going to crumble – you see, it is built on the firm foundation of truth.”
No. its built on a found of “your opinion” – you have a “book” and you hear “voices” thats it. We return to causal proof and you claim its impossible to provide any. Big surprise there.
I still disagree with your opinion – I do not believe in ANY gods. Including yours.
February 27th, 2009 at 13:16
Phew….i can feel the heat in here…
Guys – let’s make one thing clear. Phil and I are not trying to attack you or persuade you – WE can never do that. all we are doing is to try to show you that what you KNOW about Christianity is not all there is to it. You probably had the wrong examples of a Christian – as so many other have. Phil’s right – the door is open – all you have to do is walk through. God is on the other side with arms wide open just waiting to embrace you.
February 27th, 2009 at 13:40
Earl,
Good point – the US is great example of the damage of religion. Many churches there worship ‘dogma’. You simply cannot have a debate as they refuse to inform their opinions with evidence – instead they rely on ancient texts.
February 27th, 2009 at 13:44
Werner,
this is exactly the problem…
“the door is open – all you have to do is walk through. God is on the other side with arms wide open just waiting to embrace you.”
I dont agree with your position – you CLAIM there is a being and you CLAIM it is waiting for us.
We have debated a lot. But I have yet to see ANY causal evidence.
All you have is opinion. So in future write “I believe there is a God is on the other side and I believe it is just waiting to embrace you.”
Thats your CLAIM. But youve no proof.
February 27th, 2009 at 16:14
Hi all,
Here are some lovely African Christians from a year or so ago.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4748154.stm
Look at the harmony and the generosity of spirit on display. Looks a bit ‘old testament’ to me!
P.
February 28th, 2009 at 8:48
Hi Paul. Looked at the pictures and read the article. Very sad indeed. Once again – looking back at the ages – and countries like nigeria – you were either a ‘christian’ or one of the other religions. being called – or calling yourself a christian – is an absolute farse if you do not live your life by it as well. I have met ‘christians’ who on sundays are the nicest people alive – but come the week they commit fraud, step on people on their way ‘up’ and do EVERYTHING a christian is not supposed to do. These individuals merely silence thier own conscience. This is not the example that Jesus brought to earth. and unfortunately, people like yourself, classify all christians based on what these people (or the churches in the past) do or have done. Being a disciple of Jesus – i condemn these actions and anything related to it. IT’S NOT CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOUR. I wish that you could see the difference – looking past your own convictions and beliefs – and seeing us (Phil and I) for who we realy are – and why we are on this forum….
February 28th, 2009 at 9:49
Werner,
” IT’S NOT CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOUR. …”
Erm… nonsence. You wish to CLAIM christians are about love and peace and understanding etc etc. Its simply not true. For every example you give about someone in your church receiving the love of god, I can show you a dozen examples of christian nutcases expounding their bigotted views, being homophobic and generally attacking all other religions. It gets even better when inside christianity you ask protestants about catholics and vice versa. Ive even hear catholics described as ‘theyre certainly not christian’.
Christians talk about love – but boy are there conditions for you to get it from them. Its tribalism pure and simple.
Another example of christianly behaviour. Oh… and they are christians and their behaving in this way….ergo ITS CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOUR.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2EYN78zsEk
February 28th, 2009 at 10:29
Hi Werner,
So can you appreciate what the difficulty is, then?
The people in those pictures have exactly the same beliefs as you and Phil. Adam and Eve, Moses, Jesus et al.
You yourself constantly refer to the Old Testament, but you have to pick and choose very carefully which bits fit in with your Western European cultural view. The Nigerian Christians merely pick other parts of the ‘truth’ to fit their requirements.
The Nigerian Christians claim that they are doing god’s work with exactly the same sort of conviction as you and Phil.
Phil didn’t like me asking you guys to say how far you would go in obedience to god – not a very nice question in normal polite (Western European) society, but the Nigerian Christians wouldn’t have a problem answering it.
You should feel lucky to live in the UK – where, at least currently, our secular laws and values don’t allow religions to have real influence.
Paul
February 28th, 2009 at 12:30
Paul,
Couldnt agree more. Christianity has been forced to compromise, to pick and choose as society has progressed. It still condems the entire gay community. A hypocritical move, considering the number of gay catholic priests.
Werner, you are simply forced to pick and choose from your philosophy – there is plenty in it that is simply reprehensible. You CLAIM ‘goodness’ comes from your philosophy – I’m sure there is. However, there is AT LEAST AS MUCH damage done by it.
February 28th, 2009 at 13:05
Paul N said:
“Phil didn’t like me asking you guys to say how far you would go in obedience to god – not a very nice question in normal polite (Western European) society, but the Nigerian Christians wouldn’t have a problem answering it.”
Urmm – not true!! Have a look back at my response – I didn’t mind you asking me that question at all. God has placed us here on earth to share the good news of his love with those we meet – like you guys on this forum. We are here to share good news, to bring peace, hope, and love.
I think you would find many people would call themselves Christian (I know people myself). Some because they think that the UK is a Christian country so that makes them a Christian, others think that going to church makes them a Christian, others because they were confirmed/baptised as a child etc… BUT the real meaning of a Christian is someone who has accepted God into their own lives and who lives to do God’s peaceful, hopeful, loving will on earth. You see Christianity isn’t a Reigion – it is a relationship with God. SO, violence etc done in the name of religion and Christianity is not condoned by God, it is not what he wants!!
Phil.
February 28th, 2009 at 13:32
Phil
So, how do you know you’re not a Hindu, then? How do you know that the god with which you have a relationship is not a Hindu god?
Your definitions of what it is to be a Christian could equally be applied to a Hindu God.
According to your post, the methodology of worship is irrelevant – being baptised, confirmed, attending church, etc. You say that none of these things mean that you are a Christian, but you’re wrong…our definitions of the various religions is defined by how we choose to exercise that belief.
If you claim that you have a direct relationship with god which transcends accepted methods of worship, then there’s nothing which suggest that you are not worshipping the same god as Muslims, Hindus, etc., unless god has actually told you that he is the god of the bible, in which case we are back to square one.
You seem to know an awful lot about what god wants…where did you receive this information from?
February 28th, 2009 at 14:22
Phil,
Ahem, this …God has placed us here on earth to share the good news of his love with those we meet – like you guys on this forum. We are here to share good news, to bring peace, hope, and love. … is not an answer to any question I posed.
I’ll tell you why you spin your way out of answering it. If you obey the voices in your head and do something that goes against the law, or even against the norm, you’ll be considered a nutter. But if you say you wouldn’t do such a thing, it calls a lot of what you say into question, not least your own personal ‘obedience’.
Phil, I’m afraid you are in a state of indoctrination. Either it was forced upon you as child, gently or not, or you chose to be indoctrinated as an adult. Either way, you get a chance to suspend reason and live in a fairy-tale world.
The common requirement in your version of Christianity and all the versions you claim to be false is exactly this suspension of reason.
But luckily you are from a liberal secular society, that is tolerant and frowns on violence, so you can tweak your version to fit the culture, by leaving out all nasty bits.
Paul.
February 28th, 2009 at 14:31
“Nasty bits” such as God’s instruction to Abraham to murder his son. What is your moral take on that? Was God’s behaviour admirable? Or cruel?
February 28th, 2009 at 15:09
Phil,
“Some because they think that the UK is a Christian country so that makes them a Christian”
Nonsence. Church attendence is around 12% of the country. The UK is certainty NOT a Christian country. It HAS a Christian history…. but then again it also has a Pagan history and a Celtic history….. so.
February 28th, 2009 at 17:19
Hi all,
RedCitrus… I know I am a Christian and worship the one true God. The only way to God is through Christ who died for each one of us.
John 3:16 (The Message)
16-18 “This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. God didn’t go to all the trouble of sending his Son merely to point an accusing finger, telling the world how bad it was. He came to help, to put the world right again. Anyone who trusts in him is acquitted; anyone who refuses to trust him has long since been under the death sentence without knowing it. And why? Because of that person’s failure to believe in the one-of-a-kind Son of God when introduced to him.”
You see guys – Jesus died for you so you can have a relationship with your creator – God.
Just going to church isn’t what makes you a Christian (although it is a good thing to do – a place to learn – a place of social action etc), no – to be a Christian you have to accept God into your life and realise that he loves you that much that he sent Jesus to die for you.
eoin… Please read my post again!! I didn’t say that I thought this country was a Christian one. I said that SOME people think that this country is Christian and that they think this makes them a Christian. I know this to be true as I have done a street survey myself and this was some peoples answer.
Phil.
February 28th, 2009 at 17:32
Phil,
I may have misread your post – but Im glad we agree the UK is not Christian – and in my opinion all the better for it.
You are still giving bible quotes. I ask you again to stop. If I dont regard your ‘book’ as evidence, why should these quotes have ANY influence on me? You may as well use harry potter.
How much influence does the Koran have on you? None I presume?
February 28th, 2009 at 19:38
Phil,
We could go on all night quoting meaningless passages at each other. Like these…
Leviticus 20:9
If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.
Leviticus 20:10 If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
Exodus 35:2
For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.
Exodus 21:20-21
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
…and, there are of course, plenty more examples.
You keep falling back on the bible as some kind of evidence that your god exists, and I don’t see the connection.
Now, if you really believe that your god has “spoken” to you, did he confirm to you that he was indeed the god of the christian bible, and that you should ignore the Torah, Koran etc.? If that is the case, then I don’t understand how you can pick and choose what sections of the bible you wish to follow, as to do so must contradict his word?
February 28th, 2009 at 19:47
RedCitrus,
Totally Agree.
Paul – if the Bible is youre evidence for us, well im embassed for you. You simply pick and choose which bits you ‘think’ sound ‘christian’ (as you define it) – but its a work filled with the tribalism of human beings – throughly nasty book. Oh and dont claim the New Testament as the solution – its only there that we get eternal damnation. Stop with the bible quotes – evidence it aint. Embassing, it certainly is.
February 28th, 2009 at 20:37
Er eion …
Hope you didn’t mean me!
P
March 1st, 2009 at 2:44
“And Werner, you’re up to your tricks again, comparing religions – don’t you remember our earlier evidence of Christian savagery?”
Oh dear, I do find it very amusing the way atheists regard their own assertions as constituting evidence of something, and therefore they feel entitled to insult someone for not accepting their assertion! As I recall his ‘evidence of Christian savagery’ was of the “because I say it’s true” variety!
March 1st, 2009 at 2:48
@eoin, who says “A hypocritical move, considering the number of gay catholic priests.”
That’s a revolting lie, and a sneering nasty assertion, characteristic of some atheists. You ought to be deeply ashamed of such snaky twisty low cunning! It clearly shows where you’re coming from, however, which can only be a good thing.
March 1st, 2009 at 2:56
To Eoin, Paul, RedCitrus etc…
I understand why you guys always cite the OT, and why you’ll do tortuous back-flips to keep from knowing that when Christ came a new Covenant was instituted rendering all the OT passages you love to hate, historical and irrelevant!
It’s not safe to criticise Jews or Judaism, which is why you don’t.
But come on men, do be honest, even if only with yourselves! You’ve been told often enough (I know you have RedCitrus, I’ve seen you on the Dawk site), that the OT passages that make you wet yourself with joy, and always quote in the KJ version, because its known inaccuracies serve your obsessive cause so well, have been superseded.
Where would you be without Mr Dawkins or the Skeptics Annotated Bible to hold your hands? You accuse us of being brain-washed and indoctrinated, well as my old Mum would have said – “Pot. Kettle. Black”.
March 1st, 2009 at 9:57
Hi Debbie,
You say -”As I recall his ‘evidence of Christian savagery’ was of the “because I say it’s true” variety!”
Did you look at the link to Nigerian story – or do you think atheists fabricated this evidence?
Just read the posts with your eyes open – even Phil and Werner accept that atrocities are done in the name of Christ but go on to say that the people who do them cannot actually be Christians. The argument I am trying to put across is that it’s secular culture that determines whether we massacre each other or not.
And Werner and Phil constantly refer to ‘texts’ – I can’t remember if you do too. Phil believes that Adam and Eve actually existed. Er, isn’t that the ‘OT’? Are you saying that Adam and Eve didn’t exist?
Paul
PS If a Jew, Muslim or member of any blind faith comes on to this forum, I will try and counter their suspension of reason too.
March 1st, 2009 at 10:16
Debbie,
I agree the OT is useful as evidence of the kind of things that Christians believe – but it is not until you get to the NT where we are told of the idea of ‘eternal damnation’. So, the NT is just as bad.
And I’m not ashamed at all of describing the fact that many catholic priests are gay. It stands to reason within any global organisation that some will be. Why should I be ashamed? – the Vatican as even acknowledged it is the case. I would have thought it can only liven the Vatican up….;)
You also claim we do not provide evidence. Well, this is a philosphical point – it is you who claims a supernatural being exists, created everything and loves you. Its your claim – we feel there is not sufficent evidence to believe this. So, it is *you* who needs to provide evidence. And quotes from the bible, OT or NT dont come close to evidence.
Finally, you claim we insult you. Thats not my intention – I regard this as a debate. I think youre wrong and althought I respect your right to believe in whatever you wish to – I certainly do not have to respect it.
Final thought – if it wasnt for the atheist bus campaign we’d wouldnt be having this debate. I think its definitely a move in the right direction.
March 1st, 2009 at 10:24
Paul,
Just read your post – opps!! of course I was challenging Phil on constant bible quotes.
March 1st, 2009 at 10:55
Hi Eoin,
Thought so – but just wanted to make double-sure!
Heh-heh!
P.
March 2nd, 2009 at 0:48
Debbie
It’s not difficult to find stupid passages from the bible. Just google “stupid passages from the bible”. Easy. There are plenty of them.
I have to admit to a certain selfishness in posting to this forum. Being a relatively well educated person, I don’t know a single person in my extensive network of friends who believes in “god”.
Now, I realise that education is the enemy of religion and all that, but this forum really is a rare opportunity for me to discuss the nature of faith with those who don’t share my point of view. It’s not an opportunity I get very often.
Let’s face it, the most eloquent individuals on this site aren’t the ones batting for Team Jesus, are they? Your side can barely string coherent sentences together, let alone assemble a reasonable argument. Prove us wrong by providing us with a compelling argument that doesn’t just rely on chunks of biblical text. We’re all ears.
I am fascinated by why people believe this stuff, as it just doesn’t make any sense whatsoever to me. I mean, you *really* believe a big man in the sky made the world around us? Really?
My problem is that if, as you say, Jesus’ arrival on earth effectively tossed the Old Testament in the bin, what does that mean for the millions of Christians out there who do still follow it? We’ve been talking a lot about what separates Christians from Hindus, but what separates Catholics from Protestants; Baptists from Presbytarians; Methodists from Mormons? Which one are you?
You can’t all be right, so why do any of them have to be?
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:14
@Paul N who said ” even Phil and Werner accept that atrocities are done in the name of Christ but go on to say that the people who do them cannot actually be Christians. ”
That’s true. People who commit atrocities are acting contrary to Christianity, and ergo, are not Christians.
“Phil believes that Adam and Eve actually existed. Er, isn’t that the ‘OT’? Are you saying that Adam and Eve didn’t exist?”
I believe they are allegorical, yes.
Many Christians, perhaps most, are neither Creationists nor Biblical literalists, although I am aware that Mr Dawkins insists we all are. A bizarre example is another atheist site, h2g2, where a young woman, a Catholic and a working astronomer, is being deluged with orders to read primers on evolution, as the default assumption seems to be that she’s a Creationist, when she’s already said that she isn’t! Hands over ears, and not listening to any believer, I suspect…
” If a Jew, Muslim or member of any blind faith comes on to this forum, I will try and counter their suspension of reason too.”
I believe you’d “counter” a Muslim, but not a Jew. As for ‘countering’ a Jew, I’ll believe it when I see it, although 99% of the things you claim to find so appalling are Jewish beliefs not Christian.
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:28
@RedCitrus, who said “Now, I realise that education is the enemy of religion”
Please, give me a break! I am highly educated, as are many thousands of believers. The elitism of atheists is well-known, you pride yourself on your superiority, especially educational, but look at Francis Collins, Alister McGrath and many others I could name. Education is not the enemy of religion. As you know (but wish you didn’t), the first schools and universities were all affiliated with churches.
” Your side can barely string coherent sentences together, let alone assemble a reasonable argument.”
Your assertion. You dislike the people on “Team Jesus” (all 3 of us!), and do your level best to keep us away… (What Adriane S called a ‘technical glitch’ kept me from posting for more than two months. Technical glitch, yeah. Of course.)
“”
Big man in the sky? No. That’s what Mr Dawkins asserts, but even people on Team Dawkins are now willing to admit that the Christians he argues against are “straw men” as is his idea of God. No one thinks God is a “big man in the sky”. God is not corporeal to start with!
“My problem is that if, as you say, Jesus’ arrival on earth effectively tossed the Old Testament in the bin, what does that mean for the millions of Christians out there who do still follow it? ”
The answer to that is, these ‘millions of Christians” take note of it, but do not follow it, apart from such midguided people as the Seventh Day Adventists who believe they still have to follow OT dietary laws.
“We’ve been talking a lot about what separates Christians from Hindus, but what separates Catholics from Protestants; Baptists from Presbytarians; Methodists from Mormons? Which one are you?”
Not that it’s relevant, but I belong to the Open Brethren, and the Anglicans and I tend towards Catholicism. In other words, I am a Christian. I am not a Hindu, because I chose to be a Christian. I was brought up, as you may remember me saying on the Dawk site before I was thrown off for, as far as I know, being too articulate, I was raised in an atheist household. Some there chose to insist that I was lying about being brought up by atheist and agnostic parents, but to say I lied about that is simply absurd!
Deb
You can’t all be right, so why do any of them have to be?
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:29
RedCitrus…
Being a relatively well educated person myself, I know many people in my extensive network of friends who believes in “God” (Sorry, you forgot the Capital).
I have a first class honours degree, many of my friends are teachers (heads, department leaders etc), solicitors, business owners… I could go on. We are not all dim people who believe the first thing we hear. You see, we have reasoned too and have realised that God is real.
Phil.
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:16
Phil, Debbie (and Werner),
Seems like you guys disagree on quite a fundamental issue.
Debbie considers Genesis an allegory whilst Phil thinks it actually happened.
Both consider themselves Christians. Both consider ‘other’ Christians – ie those who don’t agree with them – not real Christians. In other places and other times Phil and Debbie would be calling each other heretics. They might still do!
My point still stands – the reason Debbie and Phil aren’t torching each other is because they live in a tolerant secular society – one that, as far as possible, only pays lip sevice to religion. The idea that we all give this up and succumb to fantasy is not very appealing.
However flawed our society is, at least attempts at reason are made in deciding how our country is run. We can all see what happens in other countries when this attitude is dropped.
Paul.
PS Debbie, since you consider Genesis an allegory, would you say that evolution is at least a reasonable hypothesis?
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:17
Phil
Maybe I should have used the word “gods” instead, as there are some who don’t believe in the same god as you. It’s not a proper noun in this context, and therefore the use of a capital is incorrect.
I wasn’t suggesting that belief in god(s) is restricted only to those who have not had the benefit of a university education – it’s still possible to study theology! – but that, in general, a more highly educated populace is less likely to follow religion. This is why religion flourishes in those countries with a less comprehensive education system – third world countries, for instance. Generally speaking, as a country becomes educated to a higher level, religious belief reduces.
Debbie – yes, I agree that many of the country’s educational institutions were started by the church, but by control of the education system the church has the opportunity to instil a religious viewpoint at an early age; it’s in their interest. This is why there has been such a rise in “faith schools” across the UK since the rules about private sponsorship have been relaxed. Some of this is no doubt partially philanthropic, but it’s difficult to swallow when people like Peter Vardy have control over the education of young people.
To me, your belief in a god is no different from, say, the Aztec’s belief in a sun god. Through the introduction of Catholicism – and the education programme that accompanied it – these religions were pretty much wiped out across Central and South America. One day this will happen to Christianity as well, as a more educated population reject superstition in favour of scientific progress. Thanks to Copernicus, just as we no longer belief that the world is at the centre of the universe, the idea that there is some “divine creator” will soon be as laughable as the idea of a flat earth.
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:22
By the way, very interesting report in the Guardian today.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/02/charles-darwin-creationism-intelligent-design
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:26
Hmm Debbie, just read this again …
You say – “I believe you’d “counter” a Muslim, but not a Jew. As for ‘countering’ a Jew, I’ll believe it when I see it, although 99% of the things you claim to find so appalling are Jewish beliefs not Christian.”
Two things –
1. Why not a Jew? What’s the difference?
2. The 99% you talk about – the ‘OT’ – has been spouted by ‘Team Jesus’ on quite a few occasions in these discussions. We have responded to it by quoting other parts of the same book that contradict the original ’spoutings’. Are you saying that this is unreasonable on our part?
March 2nd, 2009 at 14:17
Yet more survey based evidence (not causal) to suggest creationism is a minor trend in the UK – fantastic news – as long as methodology.
http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/mainnav/theos-news.aspx
Some thoughts…
- where is the highest number of believers of creationism? Northern Ireland – who’d have guessed that one eh?!
- a heartwarming finding is 42% of people believe that evolution presents some challenges to Christianity but that it is possible to believe in BOTH. Now, aint that just interesting….
Sample size was 2,060 and they also used a second control group of 1000. So method seems ok.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:22
@Paul N, who said ” Both consider ‘other’ Christians – ie those who don’t agree with them – not real Christians. In other places and other times Phil and Debbie would be calling each other heretics. They might still do!”
Where did you get that idea? I’ve never called anyone an heretic in my life, not even as a joke. From his postings, I consider Phil a good man, and if he disagrees with me on this issue, it doesn’t make either of us any less or more a Christian than the other! Where on did you get the idea I don’t accept evolution? I do, of course, and always have. What I don’t accept is Mr Dawkins’ insistence that if evolution is true, then atheism inevitably follows! Try telling that to Francis Collins or to this guy…
http://fritchie.wordpress.com/2008/05/30/christianity-vs-evolution-a-false-debate/
Frank Ritchie a friend of mine.
Debbie
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:30
@Paul N who said “Two things -
1. Why not a Jew? What’s the difference?
2. The 99% you talk about – the ‘OT’ – has been spouted by ‘Team Jesus’ on quite a few occasions in these discussions. We have responded to it by quoting other parts of the same book that contradict the original ’spoutings’. Are you saying that this is unreasonable on our part?”
You ‘counter’ Christians by being abusive. Abusing Jews is a very risky thing to do, politically speaking. QED. (Please note, I am using plural ‘you’, not talking about ‘you’ in particular’)
What’s unreasonable is not your quoting Scripture, but your quoting it out of context, and for the purpose of claiming to find contradictions or atrocities. Look at any history book, of any culture and you’ll find ample evidence of discreditable events. You ignore as hard as you possibly can, any place in the Bible where the atrocities you feed on are condemned or stated to be superseded. You always quote the KJV because of its known inaccuracies and infelicities. You ignore (though I am sure you know) that Christians don’t claim any translation, especially one as late as the KJV to be inerrant.
Deb
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:58
Jews and Judaism are as much up for criticism as any other religion, in my opinion and I could care less whether it’s risky or otherwise.
It’s no more risky to criticise Judaism as Islam. Perhaps less so, as Jews, in this country, aren’t overly renowned for marching through London waving banners calling for the downfall of the west.
I find it interesting how within the Christian faith there is an incredible amount of contradiction and disagreement. Indeed, some of the comments on this blog have claimed that such and such a person isn’t a christian because of this reason or that reason. I’d wager they’d claim you are not a christian for opposite reason.
Taking the God Hates Fags lunatics. They certainly back up their beliefs with strong evidence from the new testament of the bible.
http://www.godhatesfags.com/written/reports/20060331_god-loves-everyone-lie.pdf
You will no doubt say they’re not christian, they’d say you’re not christian. Who’s right? Have they also taken bible quotes out of context?
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:39
No, I wouldn’t claim the “God hates fags” loonies aren’t Christian. I’d simply say that they are acting in ways contrary to God’s will, not to mention contrary to common sense!
They have a very small following and 99% of their fellow Christians, even in the USA, where extremists tend to gather, they are not approved of by other Christians.
Hence, they are no more to be taken as representative of all Christians, than Osama Bin Laden is to be taken as representative of all Muslims.
Deb
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:52
Using a less extreme example, catholicism vs. church of england vs. methodists vs. jehova’s witnesses. Who’s right there? Each denomination has their own idea of what god wants of his followers. Why has god given each group of christians different messages and who is right?
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:16
For some of those you mention there’s very little difference (Catholicism vs Church of England for instance) and for others, the difference is so wide as to mean they’re simply not Christians (Jehovah’s Witnesses). I know it’s a Dawk site requirement to lower case God and all groups of believers but alistair, how do you like being lower-cased? Bad spelling however, is just silly!
God hasn’t given different groups different messages. In the case of Christian denominations where there actually is a difference – Catholics and Methodists for instance, neither would like my saying so, possibly, but it’s simply a matter of emphasis.
Debbie
March 3rd, 2009 at 7:34
Hi Debbie,
I dont agree on your capital G argument. This highlights the difference in our arguments ….and the difference in ‘common and proper’ nouns. A word can work both as a common and proper noun. A common noun, ‘gods’ denotes all deities that humans believe in, wheras ‘God’ refers to the monotheistic god that you believe in.
I use ‘god’ as I am also directing my comments at Hindu etc followers who believe in a range of gods. You use ‘God’ because its your opinion that there is only supernatural being. We’ve spoken before here that Christians and non-believers share the idea of disbelief. You dont believe in Ganesh – the hindu god. I dont believe in your god or Ganesh.
I’m very glad to hear to accept evolution. In that case, our differences are quite small, yet deep. The dangerous problem is Christians who feel the voices they hear or ancient books they read overrides the weight of evidence of modern day science. I take it you feel evolution can sit alongside belief. I would suggest thats a great start.
Once you begin to accept evidence that challenges faith, you begin to have rational debate. For example, do you believe in transubstantion? ie that the communion wafer transforms into the body of Jesus? Do you believe in miracles? Once you take a position of why you believe in things ie evidence – its very difficult to continue with these ideas.
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:29
@Eoin, who said “Once you begin to accept evidence that challenges faith, you begin to have rational debate. For example, do you believe in transubstantion? ie that the communion wafer transforms into the body of Jesus? Do you believe in miracles? Once you take a position of why you believe in things ie evidence – its very difficult to continue with these ideas.”
I find it very strange that everyone assumed I was a young earth creationist. Most Christians actually accept evolution, quite happily.
I don’t believe in transubstantiation, I am not a Catholic! But I do believe in miracles. I’ve experienced some of them.
There are different kinds of evidence, and face it, the evidence for evolution isn’t watertight. There are many problems with it, and I accept it in spite of these things.
Debbie
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:44
Hey Debbie,
Well, its great youre not a young earth creationist – youre a great example for other believers. However, many christians globally are. Outside of Christianity, there are even more in Islam. Its simply dangerous.
However, you move on and say some interesting things.
“I don’t believe in transubstantiation, I am not a Catholic! But I do believe in miracles. I’ve experienced some of them.”
Why dont you believe in transubstatiation? I find this fasinating. When believers state what they dont believe. We share disbelief
However, you then lose credibility – youve experienced miracles? Is your ‘experience’ evidence? No, its not. I’m sure you have seen people prayed for and then healed. ‘SEEING’ these things is not evidence. We’ve discussed this before on here. ‘SEEING’ something is not evidence – I can’t say it enough. You need rigourous, competitive (other people do the same investigation), published research using a validated method. Its very hard to do this for things like pray. So far, there is no study based evidence. Only what you claim youve ’seen’.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:20
I have never had the experience of seeing anyone prayed for and healed (though other people I trust, have). When I said I’d seen miracles, I meant I’ve experienced one or two.. and no, I don’t want to go into too much, or to be honest, any detail..
I know from h2g2, that atheists don’t accept anyone’s word for their own experience, and I ask why not? There are some things for which someone’s word simply has to be enough..
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:31
Hey debbie,
this is good -we’re getting to the heart of this….
“There are some things for which someone’s word simply has to be enough..”
Absolutely not. I cant stress this enough. You may believe you have seen something ie a miracle. However, seeing is not enough. What if you were simply mistaken or tricked? (Do you believe in magic?) Whose word do we accept? What if you had very low self-esteem and had a longing to believe in something ie you needed to believe in miracles? What if you were dying and dearly hoped for a cure? Of course you would believe whatever gave hope. Crystals, herbs etc are all believed by really ill people because it gives hope.
We must follow the evidence used in economics, history and science, finance, etc We need data. We need to question what was seen. Is the witness reliable? Are they of sound mind? Did other people see this? etc etc.
So, absolutely absolutely not – seeing something or someones word is 100% NOT enough.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:35
oh and if you want to find out what non-believers think – dont look on h2g2 – ask me or any other non-believer! Just as I can learn exactly what you believe – you can do the same. Thats why this is interesting
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:32
Hi Debbie,
Haven’t had a chance before now to get back to you on a couple of things …
I really don’t see people being abusive. I don’t think asking Phil or Werner to justify their beliefs is abusive, although I have gently mocked a few things both of them have written.
Maybe it’s my use of the term ‘indoctrination’ to describe your beliefs that offended you? (I didn’t use ‘brainwashing’) I stick by that term – you do ascribe to a doctrine. Maybe it was the word ‘heretic’? Just look at N. Ireland. It was only a few years ago that the Rev Ian Paisley (Anglican) stood up in the European Parliament and breated Pope John Paul – calling him the Anti-Christ.
Regarding Dawkins, I prefer his scientific literature, rather than his god stuff. I certainly didn’t need Dawkins to reach my views on religion, which I did when I was a kid. Having said that, I do agree with his sentiments – especially about the rise of evangelism, and the fact that religion needs to get started on children at an early age.
One other thing – you used the term KJV. I assume you mean King James Version here – is that right?. To be honest, I have no idea what bible I was indoctrinated with. How many versions are there? Seriously, I had no idea that they were fundamentally different. They all have Genesis in them, don’t they?
Paul.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:54
Paul N – The Authorised King James Version of the bible was the English translation which began to unlock the stranglehold the Catholic Church had on the masses who couldn’t understand Latin (although it wasn’t the first English translation) as it was adopted by the Church of England as the official translation.
Looking at the varied source texts and the opportunity for misinterpretation, it’s amazing to me that anyone can refer to the bible as any kind of authority given the massive potential for errors. There are so many versions of the bible, it doesn’t seem to make sense to refer to “the bible”. Maybe we should start using the term “a bible” instead?
The Wikipedia article about this is very useful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:57
Hi all, (Hi Debbie – welcome!!)
Paul N: you say about Richard Dawkins…
“I do agree with his sentiments – especially about the rise of evangelism, and the fact that religion needs to get started on children at an early age.”
Remember our previous posts about people I know who were not raised in a Christian home, didn’t ever go to church, didn’t even know who Jesus was supposed to be etc… BUT, they encountered God and came to know him..?
You see, religion is from man – but faith and relationship with God is not. God doesn’t need to indoctrinate over many years to win your soul or to prove he is real.
I am a little concerned about peoples fixation with the use of perfect english on these postings. God is not concerned about where you put your apostrophies and how you spell!! I would like to think I can see past that and care about the person who is putting their views and beliefs across. Maybe we could post in text, wot do u fink..?
On to the differences in what we may or may not believe as Christians. I also have no problem with how the world began – was it a literal 7 days..? Who knows..? During those 7 days were things created in a Big Bang..? Who knows..? During those 7 days did man evolve..? Who knows..? You see, Genesis was written to the jews as a simple explanation to help them understand how the world began. They didn’t have modern science to help them understand, so if the creation story is just an allegory it doesn’t rock my faith one bit.
However the world began and however long it took – God did it!!
Phil.
March 3rd, 2009 at 13:27
Hi Phil,
I’m afraid is rather difficult to ascertain what it is that you believe. I asked you earlier whether you believed that Adam and Eve actually existed and you had no qualifications then.
Looking back I see you say “Paul N, the Trinity, Adam and Eve, Moses, walking on the water etc are all central parts of the bible“. Also you pointed me to this link http://www.gotquestions.org/tree-knowledge-good-evil.html
You have changed your views since this then.
@Debbie, this is my evidence of indoctrination: “However the world began and however long it took – God did it!!”
@RedCitrus – Thanks for the sp on KJV! But, just to confirm, Genesis is in all of the versions, I take it.
Paul.
March 3rd, 2009 at 13:47
Hi Paul N,
I have not changed my views… it seems you are desparate to try and prove that just because some Christians might believe slightly different things to others must make God not real!! God is God, we are humans with little intellegence, we understand things differently, we interperate things differently, but that doesn’t give you a good enough argument to prove God isn’t real!!
One thing I know for sure is that God longs for you to turn to him, to put aside your human reasoning and to take the step of faith in accepting his love for you.
We could argue about religion, the bible, evolution etc etc for many weeks, months, or years… but the important thing here is that God is real and he loves you. Simple..? It takes faith – not causal proof. I hope and pray that one day yours and others eyes would be opened to the reality and truth of God.
Phil.
March 3rd, 2009 at 14:04
Phil,
You would like us to believe what you believe – otherwise you wouldn’t say -”One thing I know for sure is that God longs for you to turn to him, to put aside your human reasoning and to take the step of faith in accepting his love for you.” and wouldn’t try posing your earlier challenge.
But in order to understand I have to have a clear idea of what you mean, no? But it’s like trying to herd cats getting a straight answer to a straight question from you.
No sign of desperation here. Exasperation, maybe!
Paul.
March 3rd, 2009 at 14:19
Hey Guys – and welcome to Debbie! sorry -i’ve been extremely busy the last couple of days…
Debbie – you have to excuse eoin (#555 & 557) if it’s not written on a piece of paper by an ‘independant verifier’ than it can’t be possible and it’s absolutely absurd…he doesn’t even believe his own eyes.
Paul N – you say ‘good thing you live in the UK’ Guess what – i live in South Africa. Yes – AFRICA You know how many reliqions we have here? We have 11 official languages for crying out loud! People kill in the name of religion. They make a mockery of everything i believe and hold dear by what they do – and the message to the world is ‘this is what christians do.” that makes my job of spreading the good news so much more difficult -because – “if that’s what a christian does – i want no part of it” It’s not about being a catholic or methodist or protestant. My Bible is my only authority. i don’t believe anything that comes out of my pastor’s mouth – i listen to him and allow the Holy Spirit to teach me – i read The Word and i become more knowledgeable about the truth. I don’t call myself a protestant or methodist or whatever! I call myself a Disciple of Jesus Christ. I have a message that i need to get out to whomever wants to listen – YES EVEN YOU – but through what ‘christians’ do, i am faced with people like you.
Don’t you believe – or don’t you WANT to believe – knowing that believing will completely turn your world around and rip you out of your comfort zone….
March 3rd, 2009 at 14:39
Hi Werner!! Well said!!
Paul N, you said:
“But in order to understand I have to have a clear idea of what you mean, no?”
How clear does it have to be..?
The one true God who created you – loves you and wants to know you!!
Take the step of faith and accept his love.
Seek and you will find…
close your mind and you won’t.
Phil.
March 3rd, 2009 at 14:58
Phil,
It’s pointless trying to discuss anything if you revert to meaningless phrases like “Seek and you will find…close your mind and you won’t.“.
Seek what? Find what? Any time I ask you a specific question I get different answers.
Debbie says the bible is allegorical, Werner says it’s not and, I’m afraid to say, you seem to sway one way and then the other.
Who do I believe?
Paul N
Paul.
March 3rd, 2009 at 16:05
Paul N said:
“Debbie says the bible is allegorical, Werner says it’s not and, I’m afraid to say, you seem to sway one way and then the other.”
I think you will find Debbie was only talking about Adam and Eve..? She doesn’t say the whole bible is allegorical. You really are desparate to try and play us off against one another in your bid to disprove God’s existance. Debbie, Werner, and Myself all agree that God is real, that he made you, loves you, and wants to be in relationship with you.
I am not swaying one way and then the other – I have my feet on solid ground – the truth!
Phil.
March 3rd, 2009 at 16:34
Phil,
Disproving god’s existence? That’s as futile as trying to prove the contrary. You’ve got me mixed up with someone else.
I’m questioning your statements and trying to ascertain what, exactly, it is that you believe.
I do not question your sincerity with which you hold your beliefs, but I’m entitled to question your belief. If it contradicts another devout Christian’s views I think I’m entitled to point that out too.
As far as Debbie’s concerned, I think it’s probably better for her to say whether she considers the bible is allegorical as a whole – I thought that, from her recent posts, she did. Maybe I’m wrong.
Paul.
March 3rd, 2009 at 18:55
Hi Phil,
I’ve noticed a theme coming through in your posts. Your emphasis is on stating your absolute conviction that your particular god loves us. However, you dont really go into how you “know” this. In terms of psychology, I think this is really interesting. You obviously focus much more on what your belief system can do for others (admirable) but not on why you hold this belief system (not admirable at all)
Its important because all the stuff you say gets ignored after a while …. I demand causal proof. Doubting Thomas? You bet – best character in the bible.
So, you claim your god loves us? How did you find out this information, exactly? Is it a feeling you get? Or do you hear a voice when you pray? Be as detailed as you can.
We all know you want to tell us your god loves us – youve done that – please, dont go over old ground.Now, explain how you know this to be the case.
We can then listen to your evidence and examine it. Are you a Christian born and bred? Or are you ‘born again’?
March 4th, 2009 at 0:30
Phil
I’m intrigued as to your definition of “truth” to which you constantly refer. You seem to accept the presence of a god who created the world. Is this where your “truth” ends? Do you not feel compelled to question this truth?
I am an atheist; however, I would be prepared to accept the existence of a god (or ghosts, or UFOs, or fairies) were I presented with convincing evidence of their existence.
Even presented with irrefutable evidence of the existence of a god, I would still have questions. If god exists, who created him? If he loves us, why is he so cruel to us?
Does your “truth” allow you to ask such difficult questions, or do you simply ignore them and accept that you’ll never know? that they are part of some greater truth to which you’ll never be party?
There are too many logical arguments against the existence of a god to make his existence a satisfactory conclusion.
March 4th, 2009 at 2:08
@Eoin, 557, who said:
“. You may believe you have seen something ie a miracle. However, seeing is not enough.”
It wasn’t sometjhing I saw, it was something that happened to me, and there’s no question of my having been tricked.
“(Do you believe in magic?)”
I take it you mean stage magic, prestidigitation. Of course I believe in it, but I know it isn’t magic.
“So, absolutely absolutely not – seeing something or someones word is 100% NOT enough”
You accept the word of your parents as to where you were born, surely? All our lives we accept the word of other people as to events, places and people of which we have no direct experience. I accepted the word of my much older cousin that our Grandmother who died before I was born, had grey hair, never left the house and drank copious amounts of milk stout brought her by her sister, when she was elderly.
Does your scepticism of other peoples’ word extend to everything, or just things that are out of the ordinary?
DLK
March 4th, 2009 at 2:19
Great post, thanks for the info
March 4th, 2009 at 2:24
@Paul N, who said: “One other thing – you used the term KJV. I assume you mean King James Version here – is that right?. To be honest, I have no idea what bible I was indoctrinated with. How many versions are there? Seriously, I had no idea that they were fundamentally different. They all have Genesis in them, don’t they?”
Yes, I mean the King James Version. That’s where I think I have the advantage of you, in not being brought up Christian, I haven’t had to “un-learn” the King James Version. As you know, it was published in 1611, and because it was based no on documents close to the originals, but on other previous translations, it’s not the best by any means. There are dozens of other newer and more reliable translations, both linguistically and historically. I remember years ago, quoting the NT to an American woman on h2g2 – and using the KJV, telling her “God is no respecter of persons” (Acts 10.34) – she took entirely the wrong meaning, and assumed I was saying that God doesn’t care about people. In fact (as newer translations make clear), I was saying “God doesn’t play favourites”. Because the KJV uses idioms from 1611, it can be quite incomprehensible and not only to Americans!
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=10&verse=34&version=9&context=verse
Contrast: The Contemporary English version
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2010:34;&version=46;
which says : “Now I am certain that God treats all people alike”.
Deb
March 4th, 2009 at 2:46
Excuse me gentlemen, I don’t want to get muddled, but I am doing C-&-P or I’ll be here all day!
“@RedCitrus – Thanks for the sp on KJV! But, just to confirm, Genesis is in all of the
versions, I take it.”
Yes, Genesis is in all of the versions…
———————————————-
“@Paul N 567, who said : “Debbie says the bible is allegorical, Werner says it’s not and, I’m afraid to say, you seem to sway one way and then the other.”
Just to be clear, I do not say the Bible is allegorical! I think parts of it are. The Bible comprises 66 books, and covers history, poetry, literature and other narrative and correspondence. It would be amazing if parts of it were not allegorical. You should read C S Lewis on the subject – as he says, he was very familiar with many different types of narrative, and recognised these different types in the Bible,
Deb
——————————————————
March 4th, 2009 at 7:47
Ok – Paul N you want to know exactly what we believe (# 569) – And I’ll quote the lyrics of a song that pretty much wraps is up!
“I believe in God the Father, the Almighty Maker of Heaven and earth and in Jesus Christ His only begotten son. Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the virgin mary, who suffered under Pontius Pilate who was crucified and dead and buried. I believe that He who suffered was crucified buried and dead where He descended into hades and on the third day He rose again. He ascended into Heaven where He sits at God’s mighty right hand, and I believe that He is returning to judge those alive and dead and the sons of man. I believe in the Holy Spirit, one holy church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, I believe in the resurrection and I believe in a life that never ends.”
This is what I believe. This is the framework under which many other things can be written. Through the ages however, most “Christian” denominations have chosen what they believe and what to discard. And because of this you have friction and ‘fighting’ even inside the church. As I have said in previous posts – you cannot choose one part that’s applicable and ignore the rest. If you choose one part of the bible that applies to you – the whole bible applies to you. As for the little bits in between like ‘transubstantiation” and “Baptism” that is up to the individual to decide, while allowing the Holy Spirit to teach him/her, what is truth and what is dogma.
Comment # 571 – “then we hy is he so cruel to us” I will try to explain as best I can – however I doubt that you’d understand – because you dismiss the idea of a God so surely you dismiss the idea of Satan as well.
GOD DOES NOT PUNISH – regardless of what the old testament says – Jesus paid the price for all our sins so that we may be ‘holy and blameless’ in God’s sight. God said ‘I will think of your sins no more’ – so there it is – GOD DOES NOT PUNISH. HOWEVER – when we sin, we open doors for Satan in our lives, we give him free reign to enter into certain areas of our lives. God allows it because we sinned (again). And here comes the awesome part – as soon as a person confesses his/her sin openly to God and repents from it – satan no longer has an open door – God shuts the door!!! He does not want us to suffer.
Hope this clarifies…?
March 4th, 2009 at 8:41
Hey Debbie, Phil
Just caught your posts – and we’re really getting to the heart of the matter. Why we believe what you believe.
“You accept the word of your parents as to where you were born, surely?”
Great example. You give many other examples too. Looking at the example of where I was born can be verified by a number of people and say a birth certificate. Personally, I dont know what you guys think, but then trust comes into it. A number of people tell me an event happened and I will consider their word. I will weigh it up.
There are two differences with miracles. First is that the ‘word’ that people give is DIFFERENT. You may have experienced something that helped you – however NOONE else did – we cant verify it. With my birthplace example I am able to verify it.
Second is the SCALE of what is being proposed. If my parents tells me where I was born in Europe, I will listen. However, lets say they tell my I was born on a far away planet?!! I will be sceptical and have questions – even though they give their word. Heres the rule….
Incredible claims require incredible evidence.
Simple. So, yes I’m sure you give your word that a miracle happened to you – that the laws of nature were broken. That is too big of an event to accept on your word. Simply TELLING me not enough.
Phil, this also applies to you. Simply “telling” us you have found the truth is NOT enough. Watch, I can do what you do too….
“Phil, I have the truth!! There are no gods – you are not loved. However, its ok – you dont need any gods to be loved! You have everything you need in your mind Its the truth!! I KNOW it…..”
See? Now, wouldnt you ask me how I “know” this?
March 4th, 2009 at 8:43
ah sorry that line at the top of my last post was meant to be “why we believe what we believe”
soz
March 6th, 2009 at 18:41
Hi all,
Thought this story might be of interest …
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7926694.stm
I suppose the question will arise: Is a Catholic archbishop really a Christian?
Paul
March 6th, 2009 at 19:24
There are so many things wrong with this story it would be laughable if it wasn’t so tragic.
“He said the excommunication would not apply to the child because of her age, but would affect all those who ensured the abortion was carried out.”
So the girl is not to be excommunicated because of her age, yet the twins that she’s carrying will go to hell? Yeah, nice one.
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7529&CFID=28801106&CFTOKEN=22928496
March 6th, 2009 at 20:48
Hi,
RedCitrus did you read the whole article you are basically claims that the aborted twins will go to hell..?
You obviously missed the conclusion at the bottom which stated…
” Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thes 5:18).
103. What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament.135 Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the church.”
Maybe you should have read the whole article…
Anyway, I didn’t think you believed in Hell..? Strange that you mention it when it suits your argument..! Are you pro abortion then..? So if these unborn babies are not real people then why would they go to heaven or hell..? Why would you care..?
I agree this is a very sad and tragic story, and by the sounds of it the doctors etc maybe did the right thing.
Phil.
March 6th, 2009 at 22:25
This just goes to show the evil that mainstream religions get away with. I couldnt care less if the writers of this ‘article’ believe a child would be saved or not. Its plain sick. And yes, tragic though it is – I do with having the right to abortion. Banning would be the wrong way to go.
What really comes out from this is the damage the writers of this article could do to young children. Imagine, telling a young child they will only be ’saved’ by baptism. Its the work of a sick mind. Religion at its absolute worst.
March 6th, 2009 at 22:49
eoin… I didn’t see where it suggested that these people would “tell a young child they will only be ’saved’ by baptism.”..?
No tradition or good deed can bring us into relationship with God and grant us eternal life. The only way is through Christ who died for us so we could know God. We need to turn from our unbelief, seek God and accept Jesus as our saviour.
I don’t personally do the infant baptism thing (those people who I know who have had their kids done – are not church goers anyway!! But think it is the right thing to do for some reason..?). Most of my church friends have their kids dedicated which is basically a way to say thank you to God for their child and promising to God and those present to try and bring up their child in a loving, caring family.
Phil.
March 7th, 2009 at 7:07
Phil,
I could not possibly disagree more. I find it really difficult that you defend defend these kind of ideas. The article states…..
“The idea of limbo, which the church has used for many centuries to designate the destiny of infants who die without baptism, has no clear foundation in revelation even though it has long been used in traditional theological teaching. Moreover, the notion that infants who die without baptism are deprived of the beatific vision, which has for so long been regarded as the common doctrine of the church, gives rise to numerous pastoral problems, so much so that many pastors of souls have asked for a deeper reflection on the ways of salvation.”
So, they are saying that ‘pastors’ have reflected on the idea of limbo and they believe that unbaptised kids are in fact ’saved’. Well, yipee! Arent we grateful for that? I think these is appalling ideas. Imagine telling a grieving mother that youve thought about it, and feel her child who has just died, will in fact get to heaven. This is not just a bad idea – its morally wrong.
I will be quite happy to keep my future children as far away from religion until theyre adults. I’ll show them all the thousands of religions that humans have believed and let them think.
March 7th, 2009 at 10:01
eoin… you assume much..!
I haven’t said anywhere that I agree or disagree with the Catholic’s Stance on this… I just thought it was important to counter RedCitrus’s post making out that the Catholic Church think the unborn twins would go to hell – when actually they conclude that they go to heaven.
Do you know what happens to Children when they die..? No, I don’t know either. BUT I know that God is a loving and mercyful God and will always do what is right. Surely knowing or believing your Child has gone to heaven (or a better place) with God is better than thinking they are just rotting into the ground..?
Phil.
March 7th, 2009 at 11:07
Sorry Phil, but you do know what happens to children when they die. They die, same as older people.
I’ve re-weighted your last sentence to read:
Surely *thinking* your child has gone to heaven (or a better place) with God is better than *knowing* they are just rotting into the ground..?
I would agree with this statement (as opposed to yours). Thinking something nice is better than knowing something nasty.
Making out the nice thing is true when you know otherwise is just fantasy.
Paul.
PS Referring back to that dreadful story in Brazil – did anyone else notice that, of all the people heading off to hell and/or limbo, according to Christian doctrine, the perpetrator wasn’t included. He’s alright – all he has to do is repent.
March 7th, 2009 at 12:25
Phil
I’m neither pro-life nor pro-abortion. I’m pro-choice.
You know as well as I do that doing away with “The Limbo of Infants” (nice term) is a relatively recent declaration. For hundreds of years the Catholic Church has been telling mothers whose children die before baptism that their offspring will spend eternity in limbo. The Pope instructed his minions to find a theological escape route from this disgusting claim once it became clear that the CC was losing followers across the developing world where the infant mortality rate was so high. Particularly as the church is partly responsible through its abhorrent banning of condom use in sub-Saharan Africa.
Doesn’t say much for so-called Papal infallibility, does it?
March 7th, 2009 at 12:36
RedCitrus said…
“You know as well as I do that doing away with “The Limbo of Infants” (nice term) is a relatively recent declaration.”
Actually, no I didn’t know that… Please remember I am not a Catholic – So I don’t know every new or recent declaration of theirs.
RedCitrus also said:
“Particularly as the (CATHOLIC) church is partly responsible through its abhorrent banning of condom use in sub-Saharan Africa.”
Yes I agree that the Catholic Church has caused a massive problem with this. Sex is designed for marriage – but if you are going to do it anyway then do it safely!!!! Reduce the spread of aids and unwanted pregnancy – use a condom – or even better – wait till you are married!!
Phil.
March 7th, 2009 at 13:34
Phil said “Sex is designed for marriage”.
Sex is for procreation. And it ain’t designed.
Phil also said “Reduce the spread of aids and unwanted pregnancy – use a condom – or even better – wait till you are married!!”
Marriage doesn’t prevent Aids.
It’s all complete drivel, but have a read of this:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702216.htm
March 7th, 2009 at 13:54
RedCitrus… Please read my posts properly.
I didn’t say that Marriage will prevent aids!!
So – teaching safe sex (condoms) and waiting for the right partner rather than just having casual sex is in your opinion “drivel”..? Hmm…
Phil.
March 7th, 2009 at 15:53
Teaching safe sex is absolutely the right thing to teach. Waiting for the “right” partner? Who knows who the right partner is. I’m still trying to find her! If I was an abstaining christian, I could have been fighting natural urges all my life.
March 7th, 2009 at 22:03
Phil, did you actually read the article? It’s nothing to do with sex (you’ve got sex on the brain!), it’s an illustration of the Catholic Church’s ridiculous attempt to reverse centuries of doctrine regarding the so-called Limbo of Infants. For example (please try to keep up):
“The church’s hope for these infants’ salvation reflects a growing awareness of God’s mercy, the commission said. But the issue is not simple, because appreciation for divine mercy must be reconciled with fundamental church teachings about original sin and about the necessity of baptism for salvation…
“It must be clearly acknowledged that the church does not have sure knowledge about the salvation of unbaptized infants who die”.
Which is not a lot of comfort, then.
It looks like it wasn’t just the bonkers Brazilian bishop who’s morally bankrupt – surprise, surprise – the Vatican has lent him its support:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7930380.stm
Back to your earlier point.
Casual sex is like skydiving. Not advisable without the necessary safety equipment, but it can be a lot of fun.
Both casual sex and marriage are possible, just as long as they’re done in the correct order.
March 7th, 2009 at 23:45
Phil,
you said….
” I haven’t said anywhere that I agree or disagree with the Catholic’s Stance on this… ”
Exactly!!. Its your silence I find totally wrong. I know youre not Catholic. So, come on – is their position morally right or wrong?
March 8th, 2009 at 3:41
“579
Paul N Says:
March 6th, 2009 at 18:41
Hi all,
Thought this story might be of interest …
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7926694.stm
I suppose the question will arise: Is a Catholic archbishop really a Christian?”
The answer is : “Yes, of course”.
Deb
March 8th, 2009 at 3:54
“@589
RedCitrus Says:
March 7th, 2009 at 13:34
Phil said “Sex is designed for marriage”.
Sex is for procreation. And it ain’t designed.
Phil also said “Reduce the spread of aids and unwanted pregnancy – use a condom – or even better – wait till you are married!!”
Marriage doesn’t prevent Aids.”
Er, yes it does, if both partners are faithful, and if they’re not going to be, why on earth would they bother marrying in the first place? It’s well -known that gay ‘marriages’ are always ‘open’ (i.e., unfaithful) and so it’s a very good question why they bother marrying. But like it or not, faithful straight marriages do prevent AIDS, if it’s sexually transmitted… Surely everyone remembers the researcher at the World Health Organisation who was fired a few years back for revealing the inconvenient truth that most sub-Saharan cases of AIDS are actually spread by re-using medical needles and inadequately-supplied health systems, and nothing at all with condoms and/or their lack? The logic of that particular accusation has always astounded me. IF most Africans were Catholic (and they’re not), and IF they refuse to listen to the church when it says “be faithful to your spouse”, then why on earth would they listen to the church when it says ‘don’t use condoms’? (I was actually thrown off an atheist site for making that point, even though months later, I saw one of the loudest, angriest atheists concede that particular point! People of reason, my left foot!
Deb
March 8th, 2009 at 10:07
Deb,
I notice you didn’t comment on the article. Do you think it’s right that the abortion went ahead?
And do you really think the the drivel in the link that Phil posted has anything to do with real life?
Whilst these bishops swan around in their robes and silly hats, debating the nuances in various ancient texts of dubious origin, doctors have saved the girls life.
Science or religion – I know which one I choose.
Paul.
March 8th, 2009 at 11:13
Debbie said “It’s well -known that gay ‘marriages’ are always ‘open’ (i.e., unfaithful) and so it’s a very good question why they bother marrying.”
What complete and utter tosh. Utter tripe. Debbie, the 1980s called and asked for their cliche back.
March 8th, 2009 at 11:39
Debbie,
This forum is for debate – you comments are insulting to an entire community. Its homophobia in its purest form and is not acceptable. I have seen many religious communities encourage homophobia, while many attending church, and also many clergy are gay. This applies to both catholic and protestant churches.
Over your lifetime, it is quite possible that you will be in a church service involving gay clergy – how do you think they would feel with your views?
March 8th, 2009 at 12:45
Debbie, you’re completely right. In the same way that it’s well known that all Catholic priests are paedophiles.
You seem to have a very simplistic world view, which may well sit with your naive beliefs but which does not bear any resemblance to reality.
March 8th, 2009 at 14:19
Debbie,
I’ve got to say I was disappointed to read your comment about gay marriages. Your (mostly) reasonable arguments (that I disagree with) have been completely undone by that one statement. You keep saying how you’ve been kicked off X many atheist forums because of X, Y, Z. If I ran an atheist forum and you made a comment like above, I’d do exactly the same.
How can you POSSIBLY say “It’s well -known that gay ‘marriages’ are always ‘open’ (i.e., unfaithful)”? Seriously. How can you say that? Have you interviewed and spoken to ALL gay couples? Your claim is completely and utterly unfounded and there is absolutely no way you can back up such a ridiculous statement.
March 8th, 2009 at 17:14
eoin I am not quite sure what you mean when you said…
“Exactly!!. Its your silence I find totally wrong. I know youre not Catholic. So, come on – is their position morally right or wrong?”
What are referring to here..? As far as I know, I have given my opinion in previous posts with regards to what we were discussing..? Have a look back at the postings…
RedCitrus said…
“Phil, did you actually read the article? It’s nothing to do with sex (you’ve got sex on the brain!)”
Umm… If you look back at YOUR own post, I wasn’t referring to the article I was responding to your extra comment that said…
“Particularly as the church is partly responsible through its abhorrent banning of condom use in sub-Saharan Africa.”
In response to what Debbie K has said…
I am not homophobic, and I do have some gay friends etc… However, I wouldn’t say that all of them have ‘open’ relationships, but a majority do. We had a talk at work too from a worker from an Aids charity who got aids whilst in a long term gay relationship (they thought they would be together for life). Basically he and his partner had been to another country and been to a party, slept around, been invited to another country for another party, slept around again and then one of them got aids through this. Very sad….
Yes, before you say it – Hetrosexuals can and often do similar… That is our point!! God’s way is best… Save yourself for marriage then stay together and don’t commit adultery.
Paul N said…
“And do you really think the the drivel in the link that Phil posted has anything to do with real life?”
Paul, what link are you referring to..? I haven’t posted a link to anything for ages..? I think the most recent link was posted by RedCitrus..?
Phil.
March 8th, 2009 at 22:07
Phil,
Apologies are in order – it wasn’t you that posted this link …
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7529&CFID=28801106&CFTOKEN=22928496
RedCitrus posted it to show what utter nonsense it is.
But, again, sorry for mis-attributing it to you.
Paul
March 8th, 2009 at 22:23
Hi Paul, thanks for the apology. No problem.
Phil.
March 8th, 2009 at 23:06
“Deb,
I notice you didn’t comment on the article. Do you think it’s right that the abortion went ahead?”
Yes, and no. Abortion is never the answer, never. (I think, that as a woman, and further, one who’s had three children, all under less than ideal circumstances) I have more right to have an opinion on this than childless, presumably single men, But I’ve no doubt that because I am a believer who opposes abortion, somehting that’ll magically translate into less right to speak about it than childless single men… )
The abortion would be just as traumatic for the child as the incestuous rape (perhaps more so. Nine year olds are not infants and she’d be well aware of what was being done to her.) There was therefore no right answer for her, nothing at all that could save the situation for her. That being said, there’s no way a nine year old could safely give birth, and no way she could bring up children.
Hence yes and no. It’s a lose-lose situation.
Oh and yes, I do believe what Phil says, is relevant to life. Absolutely,
Deb
March 8th, 2009 at 23:37
@598
eoin
” Its homophobia in its purest form ”
Not homophobia, simply a statement of fact, based on my observation of gay (male) couples I’ve known.
” in a church service involving gay clergy”
I have been having attended a branch of the ‘Metropolitan Community church” with a gay friend. The clergyman was unaware of my views, and would probably have found them irrelevant.
Deb
March 8th, 2009 at 23:41
Deb,
Your ‘yes/no’ answer doesn’t cut it for me.
These are real people living in real life – according to the doctors, the girl was in danger of dying.
Have you any empathy at all? Put yourself in the mother’s position. Go on, try.
Deb, a lot of what you say is very bigoted. You don’t seem very Christian to me. I have mentioned before that there’s a lot to admire in attitudes like ‘Turn the other cheek’, ‘Do unto other’s’, etc. whoever said them. I don’t see this attitude on display in your posts.
Paul.
March 8th, 2009 at 23:44
Debbie,
Then I would question the kind of gay males you’re associating with/befriending if they’re ALWAYS in an open/unfaithful relationship. I know if I knew any of my friends were being unfaithful, gay or otherwise, I’d certainly let them know about it.
You said gay marriages are ALWAYS open/unfaithful. To describe that as “fact” is patently wrong. You must be associating with a bad group of people. The gay (both female and male) friends I have had have always had the most stable relationships I’ve come across. It’s heterosexual couples that, in my experience, are unstable and unfaithful. I choose to avoid relationships as they appear to be doomed to failure.
March 9th, 2009 at 0:02
@Paul, 606, who said: “Your ‘yes/no’ answer doesn’t cut it for me.
These are real people living in real life – according to the doctors, the girl was in danger of dying.
Have you any empathy at all? Put yourself in the mother’s position. Go on, try.”
Oh come on! Could you possibly have been any more insulting to me? I was trying to give a reasonable balanced answer, and you attack my character head on! I have a great deal more empathy than you do, I was trying to have empathy for all involved (except the girl’s abuser). You just see it in terms of a pro-abortion, anti-church position. I acknowledged that the girl was in danger if she went ahead with the pregnancy, did you choose not to read where I said that? I also pointed out that the girl was in danger whatever happened, and that abortion was no better, that really this situation is a gift to pro-abortion people, in that there’s no good answer. But anyone who points that out is condemned as heartless.
I warrant I have infinitely more empathy than you do, especially for mothers!
D
March 9th, 2009 at 0:04
Debbie,
I think it’s safe to say NO ONE is “pro abortion”. Pro choice, absolutely, but pro abortion? No.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:09
Deb,
According to the doctors, the risks in having the abortion are massively outweighed by risks in not having the abortion.
That’s the fact that the mother was facing. My personal opinion is that she did the right thing, given the facts. I don’t need to put religion into this context. It’s nothing to do with dogma.
As Alastair alluded to, ‘pro-abortion’ is a fiction. I personally have some real difficulty with abortion in general, but this case is a stonewall no-brainer.
Being pro-choice IS empathetic – by definition. Telling someone what to do (anti-abortion) is not.
Paul
March 9th, 2009 at 2:32
@Paul N., who said “According to the doctors, the risks in having the abortion are massively outweighed by risks in not having the abortion.”
Which makes it the necessary thing, but not a good thing.
“Being pro-choice IS empathetic – by definition. Telling someone what to do (anti-abortion) is not.”
Opinion, not fact. Yes, there are people who are pro-abortion, mostly those who are making a fortune from it – in the USA mainly. Also, women who’ve had multiple abortions and feel a psychological need to justify their actions, those who who are population control fanatics (and are mostly elitists who insist that 3rd world and poor women have abortions to they can have their Porsches) and those (mostly gay men) who are simply jealous of those they contemptuously call “breeders”.
This situation (with the child in Brazil) is a positive gift to you! What about the much harder cases, say for instance a woman with one child, a good job she doesn’t want to interrupt, and a husband who insists that if she has the child, they’ll never get their house paid off? Then they discover the child *may* have sickle cell? Excuse or reason?
Deb
March 9th, 2009 at 9:40
Deb,
Gladly, you have swayed from dogma.
Originally, you said:- “Abortion is never the answer, never. ”
Last post:- “Which makes it the necessary thing, but not a good thing.”.
‘Never’ is ’sometimes’ after all.
As I said before (which you obviously didn’t read) I have real difficulty with abortion in general. I can’t be more specific than that because it won’t ever be me having to face the situation.
The idea that this case is a gift to me is sad indeed.
Paul.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:03
Sex…homophobia…abortion – my how the conversation has turned.
My 10cents worth – Sex outside of marriage is wrong, homosexuality is wrong, abortion is wrong.
and now i am of course waiting for the hordes of missiles coming my way…
I have had the most fantastic – holy spirit filled – weekend, and have renewed energy for this forum with all of it’s little challenges.
God is good….and He is just waiting for you to submit to him.
Take care.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:10
Werner,
No missiles coming your way but can I ask you why you believe those things are wrong?
Let’s pretend, for an instance, that there is no god(!) and no bible and you’ve not been told that abortion, homosexuality and sex outside marriage is wrong and a sin.
Would you still consider those things wrong and immoral and if so, why?
Abortion – I can see the arguments against, although I don’t personally believe that life begins at conception.
Sex outside marriage – I’m a strong supporter and practitioner of this! I don’t see how this is wrong, harmful or hurtful to anyone. I play safe.
Homosexuality – this, I’m particularly confused about. I see absolutely no argument against homosexuality. After all, it’s a victimless “crime”! Who are homosexuals hurting or offending and why? The love between two people is surely a good thing?
March 9th, 2009 at 12:36
hi Alastair. good to hear from you. How is it going with your challenge…
if there was no God – humouring you – i would still be opposed to it.
ok – all of the above (with the exception of sex outside of marriage you might say) is unnatural. a baby is supposed to come out when it’s ready – 9 months. removing it prior is killing it.
Male to Male intercourse is unnatural – think about the way we are designed…THINK ABOUT IT.
Sex outside of marriage, in the end, only causes hurt, guilt and pain for one of the 2 parties. it rarely ends in a nice hug and farewell – there will always be those memories…and then there are the added STD’s – NASTY!
that’s why I say it’s wrong. Hope this clarrifies.
Cheers.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:49
Hey Werner,
Well I’ve got to say the challenge, despite my best efforts, didn’t come to much. I gave it a good, honest go but no revelation!
Your comment about homosexuality is concentrating on the subject of sex as opposed to love. It is quite possible that a homosexual (or heterosexual) couple may never engage in sexual intercourse but simply have undying love for each other. How would homosexuality in this instance this be wrong? Would it be fine for two males or females to have love for each other but not engage in sex as it is, as you describe, unnatural?
There are a lot of unnatural things in life but that doesn’t make them wrong.
I totally disagree about your comment on sex outside marriage. Many, many people who have sex outside marriage then go on to marry their partner. My parents, grandparents, best friend plus no end of other friends and colleagues all had sex outside marriage and now they’re all happily married. I’d wager more happily married couples in stable loving relationships had sex before marriage than not.
Regards to abortion – in a perfect world, we wouldn’t have to abort an embryo or fetus. But then in a perfect world, we wouldn’t have to deal with rape and severe disabilities and the issue, in the case of the 9 year old girl, of the mother’s life being endangered either. While I don’t necessarily agree with abortion outside those instances, ie. the mother “made a mistake”, I support their right to choose.
March 9th, 2009 at 13:24
Werner, you’re making a fundamental error. We are not “designed”. I thought we’d dealt with that already.
So, if (to put it bluntly) homosexual sex is wrong, what about anal sex between heterosexual partners? That’s not “natural” either, as presumably – using your criteria – any sex that is not solely for procreation is wrong.
Or house about Caesarean birth? That’s not natural either. Is it wrong? Or is it just things that you don’t agree with?
March 9th, 2009 at 13:52
Werner,
It seems after your particular ‘holy’ weekend, you’re quite happy to spell out what is wrong, without providing why. Religious behaviour at its best.
You seem to focus on what is “Natural”. ie gay relationships are not ‘natural’. Why is being Natural the benchmark by which you judge right and wrong?
Also, who defines what is natural? For example, is gene therapy ‘natural’? Is IVF natural? Who is the judge? And why should humans behaviour be modelled on Nature? There is much research demonstrating homosexual behaviour within nature. But what does this have to do with us?
There is also plenty of bizarre behaviour in Nature that if humans copied, would be slightly odd and quite unethical.
March 10th, 2009 at 4:28
Okay, since I was praised for having given up dogma regarding abortion, I have to make plain that my opposition to abortion was never about dogma! I opposed abortion long before I ever even knew what Christianity was! Always the hard cases hey? But most abortions don’t involve rape, incest or even disability. In all western countries we have abortion on demand. It’s never a good thing. Ever. That once in a very long while it may be necessary, doesn’t make it a good, any more than the fact that lying, or even stealing might perhaps in extreme circumstances be necessary makes them a good.
Deb
March 10th, 2009 at 7:10
Gentlemen… i could now go on and talk about soul ties, curses, sin etc – but you dont’ believe in all that. so i’ll try my best to explain my situation in a ‘worldly view’.
Alastair – i am of the opinion that a couple could not have ‘undying love’ for each other without engaging in some form of physically satisfying exercise. One thing inevitably leads to the next – it’s the way we were designed. (Yes Redcitrus – we are – and no, we haven’t ‘dealt’ with it – your belief) Sex outside marriage – if it works for you – whooo hoo! I happen to know that it causes problems in marriage later – again – things you don’t believe in so no point in talking about them. Abortion –indeed, in a perfect world… NOT in a world created or being dominated by the Catholic Church. (I have my own opinions about the catholic church that I don’t necessarily want to share on this forum)
Anal sex, RedCitrus, IN MY OPINION, is also wrong – looking at the function of the human body (our design ?) its not supposed to work that way!!! Caesarean birth – my wife had 2 of them – both our kids – not by choice, but because there were complications.
Eoin – I didn’t say I had a holy weekend – I said Holy Spirit Filled Weekend – HUGE difference. I’ll tell you about it someday!! Alastair asked me and I answered – simple as that – and it’s not religious behaviour – see that’s the problem – you would say something like: “everyone who is a Christian must be catholic – and we hate catholics” – who’s judging now?
Natural is not the benchmark by which I judge right or wrong – Alastair asked me “Pretend there is no God” so I humoured him and didn’t quote scripture etc…
Have a blessed day all of you!!
March 10th, 2009 at 9:02
Hi Debbie,
Now you something very interesting…
“That once in a very long while it may be necessary, doesn’t make it a good”
So, you feel once in a while, unfortunately abortion is the right choice – however tragic. However, this sets a principle. If you feel there are very rare occasions where we do, unfortunately, decide abortion is the correct choice, then you cannot say it is immoral. It is simply a very very difficult decision.
Werner,
When did I say
“everyone who is a Christian must be catholic – and we hate catholics”
I cant remember saying this. I do remember highlighting your own disbelief. I understand you are not Catholic, therefore there are somethings that you do not believe in.
You say…
“I have my own opinions about the catholic church that I don’t necessarily want to share on this forum”
Why?
You also say…
“looking at the function of the human body (our design ?) its not supposed to work that way!!! ”
You then mentioned you and your wife had Caesarean births. But the human body is not supposed to work this way either. Its only because humans have worked this out that we can do it. So, now we have a problem. Who decides on how the human body “it supposed to work”? Who should be judge?
March 10th, 2009 at 11:17
Hi all, I just wanted to pick up on something Alastair said…
“Regards to abortion – in a perfect world, we wouldn’t have to abort an embryo or fetus. But then in a perfect world, we wouldn’t have to deal with rape and severe disabilities and the issue, in the case of the 9 year old girl, of the mother’s life being endangered either.”
So is it ok to abort a baby just because they are disabled..??!! Where do we draw the line between disabled or severely disabled..??!!
I work with disabled, severlely disabled, and life limited children. These kids are amazing – their parents love them so much. Some of the kids who maybe would have been aborted by some people have actually amazed doctors at how well they have done and developed. One teenage girl in a wheel chair with very little motor skills has fund raised nearly £300,000 for the charity that is looking into her condition. The world would be a sad place without these beautiful kids. Yes some of these kids will, and have died young – but I know that the families cherish the years they have with them.
Also, just wanted to state a fact about anal sex. Anal fluid houses the aids virus in much higher quantites than virginal fluid. Maybe that shows that both God and nature didn’t intend us to have sex in this way..? Just a thought.
Remember guys, even though you choose to disbelieve Gods existance – He still loves you!!
Phil.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:30
Remember Phil, even though you choose to disbelieve Ganeshs existance – He still loves you!!
Anything you can do……
March 10th, 2009 at 11:31
Debbie,
No one has ever said abortion is “a good thing”. It’s obviously not a good thing for all involved, however sometimes it’s a necessity. The 9 year old girl is a great example. The point is, while it’s not a good thing, NO ONE should have the right to inflict their moral values on others and deny them the option of abortion should they choose to go down that route.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:40
Phil,
Regards to anal sex, why would the “male g spot” – the prostate gland – possibly be placed in the anus if it’s wrong?! Why did God and nature put it there? Sexually transmitted viruses are housed quite happily in the male and female genitalia. Does that mean we’re not supposed to have sex at all? What’s God doing creating these viruses and diseases for in the first place, anyway?
I don’t disagree with you regarding disabled children but there are often clear cut cases where the unborn child is not going to have any kind of life whatsoever and is likely not to survive outside the womb anyway. I’m not a doctor though and so I’m not qualified to say where the line should be drawn.
But again, the point is that the decision should be that of the mother – the carrier of the fetus – not doctors, not the government and certainly not the church.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:42
Hi Eoin. Tell me – why do you choose to pay attention to every little petty detail that everyone posts? the big issues you seem to run circles around and act like a little jackal, trying to kill the little lambs (#623) You refer to ganesh so much that i am beginning to think you are no Atheist at all, but actually believe in Ganesh?!?!?
The point of our conversations is not to show which denominations are right and who is wrong. i don’t represent ANY denomination or support any specific one for that matter.
You did not say it Eoin – but it was implied, as with most posts on this forum!!! no black and white but a lot of shades of grey – hey?
i said that my wife had 2 ceasarian births – with our kids. I am thankfull that they exist in the medical field – otherwise i may have lost both my children – I SAID IN A PREVIOUS POST – “Natural is not the benchmark by which i judge right or wrong”.
Why is the conversation on this topic anyway? What happened to the conversation about God’s Existence….
March 10th, 2009 at 11:49
Hi Werner,
Simple really – Ganesh is a great example of a god you dont believe in. You continuously claim your god ‘loves us’ etc. So, in return I do the same. Its quite interesting the reaction that this gets. And so it will continue. Everything you claim your god ‘loves us’ we can claim things that other gods feel about you. Of course, I dont believe in either.
March 10th, 2009 at 13:35
well eoin – you don’t really have a foot to stand on then do you – you are making claims of something you don’t believe in yourself – not a good salesperson are you? I am not trying to prove that My God is better than yours.
I KNOW God lives – I had a PHYSICAL, TANGIBLE experience with Him this weekend – and i’m not the only one. There may have been close to 50 people. All i’m trying to do is to share the wonderfull gift He has given us with you. If i say He loves you it’s because He does – not because i’m trying to convince you to believe.
Take care.
March 10th, 2009 at 13:56
Hi Werner,
Your reaction here is really interesting. No, I dont believe in Ganesh. But, you know what….. thats the point. Either do you. You simply do not believe.
Claiming something is not proof or knowledge. You have claims but only your ‘experience’ to back it up.
I’m sure plenty of hindu believers could say…. “I KNOW Ganesh lives – I had a PHYSICAL, TANGIBLE experience with Him this weekend – and i’m not the only one. There may have been close to…..”
I’m sure you get the idea. The point is – you dont believe. Their claim is not evidence for you -and your claims are not evidence either.
March 10th, 2009 at 16:52
This latest series of posts sums up nicely why it is that we need the Atheist Bus campaign at all.
Personally, I have no problem with consenting adults doing whatever they like behind closed doors. I have no problem with gay marriage. I believe in a woman’s right to choose abortion. I believe that gay and lesbian couples can make perfectly good parents. I am a supporter of embryonic stem cell research.
I am against religion interfering with our way of life. I’m sure that Debbie, Werner and Phil are perfectly good people, and whilst I don’t agree with them on many issues, I respect their decision to believe whatever they want to believe.
Where I draw the line is when religion and politics become combined.
It’s clear from some of the posts above that Debbie, Werner and Phil have strong views about a number of things. Fine. Fortuntely, they are not in a position to be passing legislation in this country. When homosexuality is declared a crime (legal in the UK since 1967), or abortion is banned (like the republic of Ireland), it becomes a problem.
Werner, Phil and Debbie – would you support a ban on these things if you had control of the legislature?
We have one of the highest levels of integration between church and state in Europe – as far as I am aware, second only to Italy. We have unelected bishops in the House of Lords, who have a degree of power over legislation. We have enforced “acts of collective worship” in schools. We have state-funded “faith schools”. The list goes on.
Only when we can cast off the shackles of religion will the need for campaigns such as the Atheist Bus no longer be needed. We’re getting there; there’s still a long way to go.
March 10th, 2009 at 19:51
Hi Deb
Responding to your earlier post …
Okay, since I was praised for having given up dogma regarding abortion, I have to make plain that my opposition to abortion was never about dogma! I opposed abortion long before I ever even knew what Christianity was!
Opposing the ‘idea of something’ and opposing it in terms of not allowing it are obviously very different things. The issue I was highlighting by posting this link was that the Catholic Church was against the abortion per se. They wanted the birth to go ahead, in spite of the massive risk involved, but didn’t have the power to enforce it. So they excommunicated the mother of the little girl (and the doctors). On top of that, the unborn children were, by doctrine (their word, not mine), being sent to limbo – whatever that is.
To me, this is mediaeval, brutal, nonsense. That highly educated, intellectual people can actually entertain this stuff defies reason. Forgive me but it also doesn’t sound very Christian – if the mother believes in god in the same way that you, Phil and Werner do, it then I feel very sorry for her indeed. Maybe this will make her question her belief.
Always the hard cases hey? But most abortions don’t involve rape, incest or even disability.
But many do, and are (in my opinion) why absolute laws are wrong. These cases must be taken into consideration when framing laws.
In all western countries we have abortion on demand. It’s never a good thing. Ever. That once in a very long while it may be necessary, doesn’t make it a good, any more than the fact that lying, or even stealing might perhaps in extreme circumstances be necessary makes them a good.
I pretty agree with you here although probably my ‘necessary’ would be different. But, wherever my line is drawn, I’m still pro-choice for the reason above.
Paul
March 10th, 2009 at 19:54
Man, I messed up the last two quotes …
Always the hard cases hey? But most abortions don’t involve rape, incest or even disability.
But many do, and are (in my opinion) why absolute laws are wrong. These cases must be taken into consideration when framing laws.
In all western countries we have abortion on demand. It’s never a good thing. Ever. That once in a very long while it may be necessary, doesn’t make it a good, any more than the fact that lying, or even stealing might perhaps in extreme circumstances be necessary makes them a good.
I pretty agree with you here although probably my ‘necessary’ would be different. But, wherever my line is drawn, I’m still pro-choice for the reason above.
Paul
March 11th, 2009 at 1:08
“Now you something very interesting…
“That once in a very long while it may be necessary, doesn’t make it a good”
So, you feel once in a while, unfortunately abortion is the right choice – however tragic. ”
I don’t think you are understanding me. Abortion is always immoral. That it is sometimes, once in a very long while, the lesser evil doesn’t make it a good. Ever. We live in a fallen world (and whether you accept the idea of ‘fallen’ isn’t really relevant, you can see it’s a non-optimal world!)
Deb
March 11th, 2009 at 1:17
@Alistair, who said: “Phil,
Regards to anal sex, why would the “male g spot” – the prostate gland – possibly be placed in the anus if it’s wrong?! ”
Simply because the prostate has a clear purpose, and that purpose is not to be a sex toy! Give me a break, that argument is simply absurd. Nipples are erogenous zones, but that’s not their primary purpose.. but even that’s not a good analogy. Using nipples for sexual purposes isn’t harmful. Anal sex is. My son was a student nurse on the urology ward at the main hospital here, you should talk to him sometime about the things he learned about the harm done by anal sex.
“But again, the point is that the decision should be that of the mother – the carrier of the fetus ”
“Carrier” of the “fetus” (sic)… Are you one of those people who regards the unborn child as some kind of horrible parasite? I tend to regard that view as simple envy of womens’ child-bearing capability. Studies have shown that women are much less enthusiastic about abortion than men are.
Deb
March 11th, 2009 at 1:27
“Debbie – would you support a ban on these things if you had control of the legislature?”
Abortion yes, homosex no. It’s impossible to legislate morality. And anticipating your counter-argument, abortion isn’t just an issue of morality any more than any other type of murder is.
Deb
March 11th, 2009 at 1:57
Debbie,
Whether you think anal sex is harmful or not – actually it’s not as a general rule (it can be but so can any kind of sex), my sister is a nurse of 14 years specialising in sexual health and has confirmed this with me – what two consenting men are doing in their bedroom is not harmful to YOU.
This is the point! This is what the whole argument is! Abortion, homosexuality, sex outside wedlock is NOT something that has any effect on anyone else outside the people involved. The church has absolutely NO right to inflict it’s morals on other people. Religion around the world continues to dictate it’s misplaced and ancient morals onto others and fails to recognise that times have moved on and we’re no longer living in the dark ages. Thankfully we’ve moved on somewhat from those times. Just not quite enough unfortunately.
And your “envy of child bearing capability” is absolutely laughable. It really doesn’t deserve any response. Than the world is over populated as it is, the last thing we need is more breeding.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:11
@Alistair who said: “Whether you think anal sex is harmful or not – actually it’s not as a general rule (it can be but so can any kind of sex), my sister is a nurse of 14 years specialising in sexual health and has confirmed this with me – what two consenting men are doing in their bedroom is not harmful to YOU.”
Oh dear, so I am not allowed to care about the health of people who are not me, is that it? Granted what men do to each other’s health doesn’t affect me personally, but it’s a weird argument to say that I should just watch them merrily harm each other and say “not my problem, la la la”…
So, I should be happy about drunk driving, because the people killed in motor crashes aren’t (so far) me or mine? I should be quite unconcerned about hit-and-run drivers because the brain injured boy is my student and not my son?
“And your “envy of child bearing capability” is absolutely laughable. It really doesn’t deserve any response. ”
I take your remarks as indicating that my arrow hit home.
Deb
March 11th, 2009 at 2:27
Deb,
By your argument car companies, aircraft manufacturers, manufacturers of cutlery, bleach, pills and rope are all also immoral as these are all capable of causing harm and death.
I’m not sure what the point you’re making is. Are you comparing drunk driving with homosexual sex? Please tell me you’re not. It certainly reads that way.
And, Deb, no I don’t have any envy whatsoever of women’s child bearing capability. Really, I don’t. You’ll have to take my word for it.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:12
Alistair, you said: “Deb,
“By your argument car companies, aircraft manufacturers, manufacturers of cutlery, bleach, pills and rope are all also immoral as these are all capable of causing harm and death.”
No, that’s a distortion of what I said. People who drink alcohol then drive, who run red lights etc, are in a different category and you know it.
“I’m not sure what the point you’re making is. Are you comparing drunk driving with homosexual sex? Please tell me you’re not. It certainly reads that way.”
You said that because homosexual activities don’t affect me directly, I’ve no right to be concerned. I was using drunk driving as an analogy, as you probably know, to get home to you why I care about activities that potentially cause harm to others when I am not directly affected. Please, don’t pretend to be stupid, you know what I meant! (In fact, you’re probably distorting what I said, in order to drum up indignation against me in those who read not what I said, but your interpretation of it. Homosex and drunk driving have in common, the potential for harm – destruction isn’t guaranteed, but the risk should give one pause. If the wowsers in ASH feel entitled to insist on trying to ban smoking on the grounds of harm that is far more potential than actual, far more potential than they’ll ever admit, and the same is true of those who want to tax ‘junk food’ because it might make some kids fat, and these fat kids might get Type 2 diabetes, then the same case might be made against risky sexual behaviour – but to make that case is political suicide!
Deb
And, Deb, no I don’t have any envy whatsoever of women’s child bearing capability. Really, I don’t. You’ll have to take my word for it.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:18
You also said (and sorry, I forgot to answer this) “And, Deb, no I don’t have any envy whatsoever of women’s child bearing capability. Really, I don’t. You’ll have to take my word for it.”
I do take your word for it, but I wasn’t referring to you as an individual, but to those who sneer at women as ‘breeders’ (as if that’s all there is to them), and deride unborn children as parasites. In many cases, these remarks come from those who’ll never have children unless they steal them (which is what ’surrogacy’ and stranger adoption are) and the cliche “sour grapes” springs to mind.
“come la volpe con l’uva’ as I said to a friend of mine yesterday,
Deb
March 11th, 2009 at 7:11
Eoin.
Please check my previous posts. i have said that i do believe that Ganesh and all these other ‘gods’ exist. the difference is i call them Evil Spirits and don’t worship them – because they are not God.
laters….
March 11th, 2009 at 8:40
Hi Werner,
You said
“i have said that i do believe that Ganesh and all these other ‘gods’ exist. the difference is i call them Evil Spirits and don’t worship them”
First – now I’m confused. You believe Ganesh exists?! Seriously?
Second – so you believe other peoples gods exist but you call them “Evil”?!! Have you ever discussed this with any Hindus? What is your basis for calling the Hindu gods “Evil”?
March 11th, 2009 at 11:38
hi Eoin.
Here is what i believe. God (Yahweh) is the almighty creator of Heaven and Earth. He threw Satan out of heaven along with a third of the angels. These angels became Demons.
Everywhere in the world we find people worshipping something. If it’s not God (Yahweh) it must be Satan…or his demons – conveniently called ganesh, budha, allah – whaterver.
I call them Evil because they are emmisaries of satan. his servants. demons.
Take Care.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:15
Werner,
Fascinating. How do you know all this?
March 11th, 2009 at 12:24
Werner,
I agree with jonnyess – this is fascinating. You are quite clearly not a typical christian believer – you have also acquired knowledge that every other religious believer ie Hindu, Buddists etc – are worshipping the Devil or Satan as you put it?!
You are quite clearly a rolemodel for world peace. I can imagine how enlightened the other religions of the world would be if we were to inform them that they are worshiping the devil.
Thankfully, you are on the fringe of Christianity with some seriously bizarre views.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:30
Werner
You’re views would be laughable if they weren’t so insane. I truly fear for your mental health if you really believe that crap.
Do you find it any surprise that western civilisation is gradually coming to reject religious superstition when exponents of Christianity spout such utter nonsense?
March 11th, 2009 at 12:54
i didn’t think you’d believe a word i’d say in the first place. Which is one of the problems we have now isn’t it. because it’s not independantly verified and there isn’t any proof and…
Hmmm…..
March 11th, 2009 at 13:17
This is what religion is up against. It’s about faith rather than proof, which is fine for some and not for others. At the end of the day, simply due to the nature of religion, it’s never going to be possible to prove it unequivocally. You could have a 100 people in a room who all say they’ve experienced X, Y or Z but that’s taking someone’s word for it as opposed to being able to prove it scientifically.
You may well believe you experienced X, Y or Z but the body and mind is an incredibly complex machine and it doesn’t take much to convince your mind that something unusual or unnatural happened.
At the end of the day, it’s impossible to prove the existence of any kind of god and as such, I’m hedging my bets on non-existence until something convinces me otherwise. For me, there’s far too much evidence against and really no evidence for other than hearsay.
March 11th, 2009 at 13:25
Alastair
Well said. I’d happily believe in God if he made his existence known to me without relying on a third-party who is, quite frankly, not very convincing.
If God exists, let him prove his existence outside the charade of “healing miracles” in questionable churches, appearing in currant buns and “visions”.
Turn the sky green or something spectacular. Let us know that you’re really there!
Of course, the argument against this is that “God won’t be tested in this way”, but quite frankly, if that’s the case, then he doesn’t deserve my worship!
I’m willing to believe…just give me concrete proof!
March 11th, 2009 at 18:04
Alastair. i have to admit – that pretty much sums it up. and if it’s up to eoin with his ‘independantly verifiable’ proof – than God would never exist. lucky for us this is not the case. and lucky for you as well…
funny, i just read ‘believing is seeing’ in a magazine….ha.
The day the “concrete proof” falls from the heavens – when every tongue will confess and every knee bow – then, regretabbly my friends, it will be too late…
March 11th, 2009 at 19:00
Hey Werner
“and if it’s up to eoin with his ‘independantly verifiable’ proof – than God would never exist…….”
im taking that as a compliment!
March 11th, 2009 at 19:29
Werner,
You are succeeding in doing what I have been trying to do for ages: you are making religion look silly. Please, keep it up.
March 11th, 2009 at 19:33
Werner@642
“Here is what i believe. God (Yahweh) is the almighty creator of Heaven and Earth. He threw Satan out of heaven along with a third of the angels. These angels became Demons.
Everywhere in the world we find people worshipping something. If it’s not God (Yahweh) it must be Satan…or his demons – conveniently called ganesh, budha, allah – whaterver.
I call them Evil because they are emmisaries of satan. his servants. demons.”
Of all the ways to reply to this, the best repost I think is this:
A good education is a fine thing-more people should have it.
March 11th, 2009 at 23:13
@RedCitrus who said: “You’re views would be laughable if they weren’t so insane. I truly fear for your mental health if you really believe that crap.”
Tut tut RedCitrus, how typically insulting of you! Werner’s views are not on the fringe of Christianity, no matter that you are trying to make him feel isolated.
Your tactic of harassing him with demands that he acknowledge Ganesh have had a result, just not the one you wanted, hey? It’s funny!
Deb
March 11th, 2009 at 23:19
It’s not funny, Debbie. The man is deranged. If his views are not on the fringe of Christianity, then Christianity is even less rational than most of us thought.
March 11th, 2009 at 23:20
@RedCitrus (again) who said “I’m willing to believe…just give me concrete proof!”
If I had $1.00 for every time I’ve heard atheists say this, I could afford that world trip I want… One of them (on h2g2), kept bleating about how he’d be satisfied if God would just re-unite the two halves of the supermarket receipt he’d torn up, and left on his bedside table.
Man, what an ego! He wanted God to do what God doesn’t do, and suspend the laws of physics just for him personally.
There’s a very good chance that God has been trying to reach each and every one of you, but the ‘hands-over-ears-la-la-la-I-can’t hear you’ approach has made sure God can’t get through.
God never gives up, luckily for you-all!
Deb
March 11th, 2009 at 23:34
@Johnnyess who said: “If his views are not on the fringe of Christianity, then Christianity is even less rational than most of us thought”
It’s not about being rational, surely you realise that? Why should religion be what you want it to be? H2g2 atheists are very fond of accusing believers of self-importance, even solipsism, but from my observation, it’s the atheists who’ve cornered the market on self-importance.
Christianity is reasonable, and internally consistent, but it isn’t “rational” in your sense of the word. You gentlemen are never going to understand until you choose to, and it seems to me, that for mostly discreditable reasons, you’d die rather than!
At least, for the moment. The sub-section of the Dawk site notwithstanding, there are few atheists in foxholes, and even fewer in critical care wards.
Deb
March 11th, 2009 at 23:46
Hi all,
I think you will find that Werner wasn’t saying that all these other religions knowingly worship satan. You see satan is a deceiver… he is deceiving these people into worshiping what they think is good and true – just like he is deceiving you atheists into your ‘rational’ thinking and ‘causal proof’. He doesn’t want you to know the love of God.
Phil.
March 11th, 2009 at 23:56
Debbie,
I’d never heard of G2g2 until you mentioned it. Thank you very much. It looks very interesting. And you seem to think everyone is afraid of dying. I’m not. Why should I be? I’ve never met anyone who was even slightly perturbed by the knowledge that he/she didn’t exist for countless aeons before conception, so why should I be concerned about countless aeons of extinction after death?
Phil,
Same question as to Werner (still unanswered). How can you possibly know all this? As Mr Hitchens said, “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” The burden of proof is on the believer.
March 12th, 2009 at 0:14
@Johnnyess, 698, who said: “658
johnnyess Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 23:56
I’d never heard of G2g2 until you mentioned it.”
It’s h2g2, and it’s so much less interesting than it seems. Discussions go around in ever-decreasing circles, people insult each other, throw hissy-fits, and eventually ban every believer capable of stringing a sentence together, because of their intense fear of being convinced by anyone articulate. The usual atheist site in other words!
” And you seem to think everyone is afraid of dying. I’m not. Why should I be? ”
On the Dawk site, there are pages and pages of people begging Mr Dawkins to help them overcome their terror of oblivion. Why should I believe you’re any different?
” As Mr Hitchens said, “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” The burden of proof is on the believer.”
Although you addressed Phil, I’ll put my two pence worth in.
Mr Hitchens is a particularly bad person to quote – he’s a seething mass of prejudice, especially against Islam, who constantly makes assertions without proof himself! He sets up straw men and knocks them down claiming them to be Islam and Christianity. Gullible people think he’s credible, but he’s no more reliable on the topic of religion, than he was on the topic of Iraq.
At least he’s honest enough to admit that a the bottom of his hatred for religion is his desire for sexual licence!
Deb
March 12th, 2009 at 0:37
Yes, Debbie, G2g2 was a slip of the finger, which I realised as soon as I’d clicked “Submit comment.” So I’m not infallible then.
By “The Dawk Site” perhaps you mean http://richarddawkins.net/
I often look at it, but I’ve never seen any expression of “terror of oblivion.” Perhaps you could provide chapter and verse?
Your ad hominem argument against Mr Hitchens (who, I admit, would never win a charm competition) does not even begin to counter his, well, I suppose I will have to call it assertion. Or is it just a counter-assertion? Would Touchstone have called it the Reply Churlish, the Lie Circumstantial or the Lie Direct? Certainly not, in any case, the Retort Courteous or the Quip Modest. Perhaps it was the Reproof Valiant? Whichever it was, it has not yet been satisfactorily answered.
March 12th, 2009 at 0:50
“By your argument car companies, aircraft manufacturers, manufacturers of cutlery, bleach, pills and rope are all also immoral as these are all capable of causing harm and death.”
No, that’s a distortion of what I said. People who drink alcohol then drive, who run red lights etc, are in a different category and you know it.”
So you’ve made it pretty unclear on how you stand on the subject of homosexuality. You care about people who have anal sex as they’re putting themselves at a health risk – I’m assuming your caring extends to heterosexual couples who dabble in that area of sexual activity also – which is to be admired.
Does that mean you simply care and are concerned that they’re putting themselves at some kind of risk and nothing more than that or are you morally outraged by their activity? You’ve certainly not committed yourself to either side of the fence. Would you care to clarify?
March 12th, 2009 at 0:51
Bizarrely, Deb’s reply to my previous comment to her hasn’t appeared on the site.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:12
@Johnnyess, who said “By “The Dawk Site” perhaps you mean http://richarddawkins.net/
I often look at it, but I’ve never seen any expression of “terror of oblivion.”
Yes, that is the Dawk site, and at one stage I was signed up there… Have a look at the fora, and you’ll see the discussions I mean. I won’t provide chapter and verse, I can’t, but I am sure if you look with both eyes, as my son once said to me in a wholly different context, you’ll see.
“Your ad hominem argument against Mr Hitchens (who, I admit, would never win a charm competition) does not even begin to counter his, well, I suppose I will have to call it assertion.”
I have no clue who or what Touchstone is, and as for going at me for using ad hominem against Hitchens, ‘ma dai!” as they say. I am not trying to counter any of his assertions, I wouldn’t bother, I felt soiled after reading his book about ‘God’, in quotes because the God he speaks of, is unrecognisable to anyone who actually believes in God. (As Hitchens may or may not know, but it’s hard to work out what he actually does know.)
There aren’t words bad enough to describe his weaselly backing of Bush’n'Blair and his asinine claim to still be a left-winger when it suited him, in his defence of an illegal invasion of Iraq.
I’ve been trying to find an article I had ‘favourited’ on my computer in the office, but I seem to’ve lost it, nevertheless I’ll see what I can find,
Deb
These reviews sill do for starters:
http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446579807
Summed up thus: ” Christopher Hitchens is a brilliant man, and there is no living journalist I more enjoy reading. But I have never encountered a book whose author is so fundamentally unacquainted with its subject. In the end, this maddeningly dogmatic book does little more than illustrate one of Hitchens’s pet themes — the ability of dogma to put reason to sleep.
Copyright 2007, The Washington Post. All Rights Reserved. “
March 12th, 2009 at 8:43
Debbie,
Wrong. There are plenty of atheists in foxholes
http://www.ffrf.org/foxholes/
One of the advantage of being a non-believer, is that believers – and especially christians seem to believe *very* different things. They then claim that *other* beliefs different to their own are *not* Christianity. I have heard many evangelicals state catholism is not christian!! Hilarious!
But Werners views are at the extreme end of christianity compared with say the Church of England.
I dont deny you the right to hold these views – I’m just happy youre in the minority of the religious crowd. And in fact, the more you voice these views, the more secular Europe becomes. Win win situation for us.
March 12th, 2009 at 10:19
Deb says (657):- “It’s not about being rational, surely you realise that?“. I know it’s not rational – I just don’t understand why people choose to be irrational. Nothing you three have said convinces me that purposely dropping rationality is worthwhile.
Phil said:”I think you will find that Werner wasn’t saying that all these other religions knowingly worship satan. You see satan is a deceiver… he is deceiving these people into worshiping what they think is good and true – just like he is deceiving you atheists into your ‘rational’ thinking and ‘causal proof’. He doesn’t want you to know the love of God.”
So, how does Phil know satan isn’t deceiving him? It could be satan speaking in his head (I think that’s what he said happens). According to Phil, satan can decieve billions of people – in India, for example – so surely he could deceive Phil, no?
Or is Phil special?
Paul
March 12th, 2009 at 15:28
Debbie,
If you and I find someone rude and obnoxious, that does not disprove his argument that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” In fact Hitchens was quoting Carl Sagan here. Neither does his support for the invasion of Iraq.
I apologise for going off-topic over Touchstone (a character in Shakespeare’s “As You Like It.”) It was late at night and I got carried away by the sound of the words.
March 12th, 2009 at 15:44
Debbie,
Inspired by your mention of “The Dawk Site” I’ve just clicked onto it. Haven’t so far found any hint of “terror of oblivion,” but I did come across a Forum discussion of the BBC programme “Deborah 13: Servant of God.” Consensus seems to be that this poor child’s upbringing amounts to child abuse.
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=75045
March 13th, 2009 at 8:01
All the insults – thanks guys – truly appreciated. it means i’m getting to you.
Seriously though – it’s not the first time i’ve been called an idiot or deranged or whatever.
I am – BELIEVE IT OR NOT – a normal guy with my own business, a family, lots of friends (who share my belief mind you) living in a country that’s part of the big big world.
Thanks Phil for clarifying about satan deceiving – and Paul – yes, he can deceive us also – but not to the extent where we worship something else – because we have divine protection from the holy spirit.
Thanks Debbie for: “hands-over-ears-la-la-la-I-can’t hear you’ approach”. I think that pretty much sums it up. You still haven’t answered my question (Paul N) Don’t you believe, or don’t you want to believe, knowing that believing would change your life and rip you out of your comfort zone.
How do we know all of this?? It’s called “The Bible” – available from most reputable book shops.
Most of you are so wrapped up in your humanist viewpoints that you truly are walking around with hands over your ears – because “you are right” and you won’t listen to what anyone else has to say. Typical of satan’s work…
Guys, you are missing out on so much – so many wonderfull things, love, grace, favour, prosperity, wisdom. Take those hands of your ears and listen with your hearts for a change.
later.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:54
Werner says:-Thanks Phil for clarifying about satan deceiving – and Paul – yes, he can deceive us also – but not to the extent where we worship something else – because we have divine protection from the holy spirit. … displaying the arrogance reserved the self-righteous. Billions are deceived, but not Werner. What a guy!
And in response to your rather vague questions – Don’t you believe, or don’t you want to believe, knowing that believing would change your life and rip you out of your comfort zone. – no to the first and the second just shows your wishful thinking. What does ‘wanting to believe’ have to do with it? The truth (whatever that is) surely doesn’t depend on what I personally want, does it?
Paul
Paul
March 13th, 2009 at 9:57
Werner said:
“Guys, you are missing out on so much – so many wonderfull things, love, grace, favour, prosperity, wisdom. Take those hands off your ears and listen with your hearts for a change.”
Well said Werner!!
That’s right, we could discuss and argue for ages – but the longer we do – the longer you are all missing out on God’s love. Come on guys – what is stopping you..? Take the step of faith out of your comfort zone and what you think you know and seek God.
Phil.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:05
Paul N said:
“displaying the arrogance reserved for the self-righteous. Billions are deceived, but not Werner. What a guy!”
Paul, it is not just Werner. Many 10’s of thousands of Christians would believe the same. We are not arrogant in believing these truths, because we know that all the glory is Gods. You see God gives us all these amazing things because of his grace and love – not through anything we have done. We could only be arrogant if we thought that these things were because of something we had done.
Phil.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:36
The arrogance is in ‘knowing’ you’re right, without one scintilla of evidence except a vague statement about voices in your head.
Paul
March 13th, 2009 at 11:02
Werner, Phil
Here we go again. More of the “we know…” rhetoric. You keep persisting with the idea of the bible as evidence.
Once again. The Bible – is – not – evidence.
There are two schools of thought towards the historicity of the Bible, ‘biblical minimalism’ and ‘biblical maximalism’. There is also your approach – a non-historical method of reading the Bible, the traditional religious reading of the Bible.
You need to provide additional sources to back up what the bible claims. However, as Biblical Minimalism states – there simply arent any. The archaeological evidence is quite poor. Even the version of the Bible we have are not even 2nd hand – but ultimate re-copies. Some writers werent even present at the events.
However, the big point here is that – EVEN if you did have the archaeology that proved passages in bible…..it still does not prove the existence of any god. The character Jesus could simply have been a nice guy who did good things and said some nice words. Full stop.
Phil,
You ask “Come on guys – what is stopping you..?”
Simple – it is the same reason I dont believe in unicorns and goblins and elves. The reason – Evidence.
And its ironic – once we mention the E-word – you adopt the “hands-over-ears-la-la-la-I-can’t hear you’ approach”……..
March 13th, 2009 at 11:16
Paul.
Arrogance = “Egotism, conceit, superiority, pride, self-importance”
If i have given you the idea that i am any of the above – i take back my words.
“Self-Righteous” – i would be the first person to admit if i had made a mistake. no matter the circumstances – don’t pretend to know my character based on a few words in a forum post….
“Billions are deceived, but not Werner. What a guy” – have a look at my post again.
I said that we are also deceived. On thousands of other things. Those people who worship idols and statues and budha and what not – have not heard the truth – so they are easily deceived. Satan is the father of deception, lies. Why does a person commit suicide? Because ‘they can’t take it anymore?” BULL! no person in his right mind would ‘hack at his wrists with a blunt bread knife’ – it’s a lie of satan that it would be better to end it. In just the same way he deceives you and me on a daily basis. Alcoholics, druggies, family problems you name it – he deceives. HUMANISM is a lie from Satan – and the best one of them all – Satan’s biggest trick – convincing the world that he does not exist.
I pray that your eyes will be opened and that you will see what is going on around you.
Werner.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:33
“You need to provide additional sources to back up what the bible claims. However, as Biblical Minimalism states – there simply arent any. The archaeological evidence is quite poor. Even the version of the Bible we have are not even 2nd hand – but ultimate re-copies. Some writers werent even present at the events.”
You know this how?
“And its ironic – once we mention the E-word – you adopt the “hands-over-ears-la-la-la-I-can’t hear you’ approach”……..”
Ma dai! That’s cheap and silly, trying to use my expression against us.
Deb
March 13th, 2009 at 11:40
Hi Debbie,
Cheap? Yes. True? Absolutely.
First, are you seriously claiming there *is* archaeological evidence or alternative texts that validate the Bible? If so, I would start writing your paper now, as it will revolutionise the field of biblical historicity.
Second, yes I am claiming many writers were not at the events they write about. Moreover, I’m claiming that many events in fact did not even happen.
Over to you to provide the evidence outside of the bible…………
March 13th, 2009 at 12:07
Werner,
As I said earlier, the arrogance comes in ‘knowing’ you’re right, whilst having zero evidence.
According to your own words, somehow you are immune to Satan’s attempts to fool you (into worshipping other gods), whereas billions aren’t. I think that is a fairly egotistical and superior view to take.
Paul
March 13th, 2009 at 12:23
“First, are you seriously claiming there *is* archaeological evidence or alternative texts that validate the Bible? If so, I would start writing your paper now, as it will revolutionise the field of biblical historicity.
Second, yes I am claiming many writers were not at the events they write about. Moreover, I’m claiming that many events in fact did not even happen.
Over to you to provide the evidence outside of the bible……”
Seriously, later.. It’s 12.29 after midnight and I am off to bed soon…
Deb
March 13th, 2009 at 12:30
Hi All -
I’ve been watching this debate back and forth for a while, and frankly, if anyone on either side actually changes their mind, I’ll eat my hat. I will, in fact, go out especially and buy a hat in order to eat it.
My question, which I raised before and which no one seemed to take up, is that given that neither side is going to change, how can we live together? Can we have common laws and ways of living that respect everyone’s beliefs, or are there always going to be injustices and therefore endless struggle?
Society in general believes in the equality of the sexes, yet some factions of the Christian church do not want to extend that equality to having women priests and bishops. (I do not know enough about Islam, Judaism, Hinduism etc to comment about them.) The debate in my mind is not whether that is right or wrong, but to what extent sincere belief should be allowed to run counter to commonly held values.
In some respects, I am inclined to say that if these people believe that women are not suitable for office, then they should be allowed to do so. After all, any women in their congregations who do not agree can vote with their feet.
But what if such discrimination extended to people because of their sexuality?
And what if it extended to the colour of their skin? Would that – could that – ever be tolerated? Fortunately I do not think that any religion has that belief, but what if they did?
And how do we resolve the conflict when religious law further? There was a case earlier this week, in Saudi (if I remember rightly) where, under Islamic law, a 75 year old woman was sentenced to 40 lashes for consorting with younger men. The woman – a widow – had asked her dead husband’s nephew to bring her some bread. He’d done so and had a friend with him at the time. The men too will get lashed.
I have no doubt that this was done because of some sincere belief, but how do we, either Atheist or Christian, respond to this? Can we simply say “Well, it is up to them”?
I am interested in what other people think about this, because I really don’t know.
Rik
March 13th, 2009 at 12:43
Hi Rik,
You make some interesting points and raise some good questions. I don’t believe for a second either that anyone will change their mind from discussion on here. I’m not sure that it’s the aim though and I quite enjoy the discussion if nothing else! Save me a bit of that hat, if anyone does change their mind though.
Your point about the goings on in places like Saudi, unfortunately I believe it is “up to them”. It’s their law and certainly nothing we say or do in the west will change their ways. Thankfully in this country (the UK) moves have been made to improve liberty to groups that previously didn’t have the same rights as others, homosexual couples being the obvious example, and overall more freedom – shops and the pub being open on a Sunday! – much to the chagrin of the religious organisations in this country I don’t doubt.
Just on an unrelated note, I don’t suppose anyone saw Deborah 13 – Servant of God the other day? It’s on BBC iPlayer for those who didn’t – http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00j6l77/Deborah_13_Servant_of_God/
Alastair
March 13th, 2009 at 13:07
Hi Rik,
Great point. However, I think that we’re moving into an interesting time with this debate. There are some interesting trends occuring:
- the decline in traditional church attendence – each decade the ‘traditional’ churches (CoE + catholic) are declining in number.
- an increase in evangelicalical Churches
- the end of the taboo of critcising belief.
In answer to your question, how can we live together, I believe the answer lies in making the uk a secular state and changing law. After that, anyone can practice what beliefs they like -but inside their temple and their home.
What is interesting is that the level of non-belief has now risen to large enough levels that campaigns can now be co-ordinated.
Can we live in harmony? I dont think so. Thats why the law needs to clearly define what religions can and cant do.
March 13th, 2009 at 13:12
Hi Alastair.
Yes, what happens in Saudi may well be up to them. We just have to turn our backs and say “sorry, not our problem”. Like it’s not our problem that people are starving in the Sudan because the government is corrupt? Where do we draw the line between a corrupt government and one inspired by belief?
What happens when these fundamentalists move to the UK? That seems straight-forward enough: they come here, they follow our laws or go home.
Except what happens when this IS their home? What if someone who is a UK citizen and can trace his or her ancestry back prior to the Romans, converts to Islam and wants to live by those laws?
And what happens when what they do in their country is not so easily isolated and brushed under the carpet? I have seen Christian fundamentalists from the USA on TV, saying that the concerns about global warming are nothing to worry about because it heralds the End Time, and that because of this they will do nothing to reduce their ecological footprint.
Yes, I saw Deborah 13. It is hardly unrelated – it is exactly an example of the problem. She has been brought up to the best standards that her parents could manage. She is loved and cared for. And her viewpoint on the world is narrow to the point of mental abuse.
I believe that whether as a Christian or as an Atheist, no child should be brought up with that restricted a view on life. I would feel as sorry for a child who had never been brought up on nothing but science books.
And Eoin, you suggest that secular law should over-ride all others. But – without reverting to the Atheism is better than Religion debate – why?
Rik
March 13th, 2009 at 13:25
Hi RikGG
The reason that secular legislation is preferable to a religious one is that religious laws always favour one point of view over another, and are often not compatible with one another.
For instance, if we were to cherry-pick laws from the various religions we would ban abortion, alcohol (how would Catholic Mass work with an islamic ban on wine?), homosexuality, adultery, pre-marital sex, suicide, etc. etc. Whilst we may not like the idea of some of these things, it doesn’t necessarily give us the right to ban them.
The point is that secular law generally assumes that people are able to do what they like provided that they do not compromise the rights of others.
Religious law tends to interfere with what people can and can’t do even when it’s nothing to do with the state. Secular law is the fairest solution as religious law will always favour one section of society at the expense of another.
March 13th, 2009 at 13:33
Rik,
While I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, essentially it would mean dictating to countries around the world what their laws should and shouldn’t be. It’s not feasible and it’s simply not going to happen. I hate to sound like a Daily Mail reader but we’ve enough problems at home without trying to solve all the world’s problems as well. Obviously there are certain causes and issues that absolutely we need to be involved with but how can we reasonably instruct the Saudi’s not to sentence 75 year old women to 40 lashes? Or to Pakistan villagers to not stone a man to death? There are far too many examples like this that go on daily that we’re simply not in a position to solve.
As for Deborah, while it made me cringe all the way through, I think really the only thing the parents are guilty of is not preparing her for life on her own. That said, I’m assuming her brother, clearly gay, was brought up in similar circumstances has been able to make friends and cope outside the family unit. What could you try her parents on? Teaching her creationism over evolution? Not letting her know who Britney Spears is? I was more shocked that a family like that actually exists in the UK than anything. I got the impression by and large we reject overtly cultish practices here!
March 13th, 2009 at 13:47
Hi Rik,
RedCitrus put it well. The uk is now made up of many different faiths all with their own specific supernatural beings. I am quite content for people to believe in these beings. However, I am against when religious believers claim their rules apply to us too. So, remove religion from the working of state. No religion should be favoured.
And make it compulsory to teach ALL religions at schools whilst banning selection on the basis of religion. One of the best ways to make religion irrelevent is to teach all of them.
The documentary on Deborah was depressing. However, it was reassuring to see the group of teenagers that she was trying to convert. All of them humored her, yet were non-believers – and were good-natured about the fact they disagreed with her.
March 13th, 2009 at 13:58
Hi eoin…
eoin said:
“However, I am against when religious believers claim their rules apply to us too. So, remove religion from the working of state.”
So, I won’t be arrested for murdering my neighbour or steeling the audi TT from across the street then..?
You see, some of the laws that originate from Christianity actually make sense don’t you think..?
Phil.
March 13th, 2009 at 14:02
Removing religion from the working of the state does not immediately mean chaos. Are you trying to tell us that without christianity, we would be lawfully murdering each other and stealing from each other?
And beside, laws against murder and theft came well before Christianity! What are you talking about? “You shall not kill” and “You shall not steal” was in the old testament, well before Jesus was a glint in Yahweh’s eye!
March 13th, 2009 at 14:07
Phil, are you trying to tell us that it’s only your belief in God that is preventing you from killing your neighbour?
I don’t need the bible to tell me that this is wrong.
Laws against murder and theft are necessary for a functioning society. It’s got nothing to do with the bible.
March 13th, 2009 at 14:12
Come on guys!! Take a joke!! I just wanted to point out that some of what we believe as Christians actually makes sense!!!!
Alastair said:
“And beside, laws against murder and theft came well before Christianity! What are you talking about? “You shall not kill” and “You shall not steal” was in the old testament, well before Jesus was a glint in Yahweh’s eye!”
Exactly – this is from God – what we believe as Christians!!
Phil.
March 13th, 2009 at 14:14
Phil,
“You see, some of the laws that originate from Christianity actually make sense don’t you think..?”
“Do not steal” appears quite clearly in the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali (Hindu scripture).
Many of the laws you claim as Christian appear in ALL religions because they are human principles. Christianity does not have claim to them.
March 13th, 2009 at 14:39
I think that RedCitrus’s point, that “that secular law generally assumes that people are able to do what they like provided that they do not compromise the rights of others” is as good an argument for it as any. It would nice if that were enshrined in some kind of constitution. “People can do what they like, so long as it doesn’t harm someone else.”
But will the believers, of whatever faith, agree to secular law being the deciding factor? Will they agree that “Secular law is the fairest solution as religious law will always favour one section of society at the expense of another.” Or will they feel that secular law favours atheists?
And will they interpret “…so long as it doesn’t harm someone else” the same way?
For example, on the issue of abortion? Anti-abortionists feel that they are obliged by their beliefs (whether informed by religion or otherwise) to come to the defence of those who are unable to speak for themselves.
As for Alastair’s comment that it isn’t practical to dictate to other countries what their laws will be, all I can say is that it doesn’t seem to stop us trying. Or do we only try when it is perhaps in our own interests?
No, I wouldn’t consider prosecuting Deborah’s parents. Their abuse of her was not intended. Perhaps, though, there should be some restriction on home-schooling. At least if she had gone to a regular school she would have some taste of real life. (But then, another recent case, where the school secretary’s 6 year old child was asked to keep her opinions on Hell to herself …)
And Phil … yes, I do hope you were joking. Though I am trying to avoid promoting one side or the other in the question of how we can live together, you should be aware that morality and altruism do not derive from religion or belief.
Rik
March 13th, 2009 at 14:45
Hi Rik,
“But will the believers, of whatever faith, agree to secular law being the deciding factor?”
Of course not…. this highlights the need for more campaigns such as the atheist bus campaign. Secularism is growing rapidly, esp across Europe but non-believers need to support it.
March 13th, 2009 at 15:34
Hi RikGG, I value your comments on this site – its good to have someone in the ‘middle’ as it were.
You said: “But will the believers, of whatever faith, agree to secular law being the deciding factor? Will they agree that “Secular law is the fairest solution as religious law will always favour one section of society at the expense of another.” Or will they feel that secular law favours atheists?”
Well put. How would secular law work… what would Christians be allowed to do..? If the atheists were able to have their bus campaign – could Christians have a bus campaign under a ’secular’ law..? Could we tell people they are special because God made them, that there is reason for hope in this life, that God loves them..? Surely these are good things..?
RikGG also said:
“you should be aware that morality and altruism do not derive from religion or belief.”
I agree – these are not from religion or belief – they are placed inside each one of us by God. It is up to us weither we listen to our conscience or not.
Phil.
March 13th, 2009 at 16:22
Phil
Of course Christians would be able to have their bus campaign – as long as it did not infringe the rights of others. This is a principle of free speech – the expression of an opinion. It should be made clear, however, that this is an opinion.
Whether you could claim that “there is definitely a God” is debatable even now – this is a claim which cannot be substantiated, and the ASA are tackling this issue right now…hence the inclusion of “probably” within the HA’s version.
Any legislative framework should allow for people to believe whatever they choose – to me, this is a fundamental human right. What it should not do is dictate how people live their lives, something that religious legislatures are wont to do.
March 13th, 2009 at 16:23
Phil,
We live in a secular country and I’ve seen both the atheist bus ads and the countering christian bus ads.
You can ‘tell us’ exactly what you want – and we can choose whether to listen to you or not.
This is wholly different from a country run on religious principles.
In Afghanistan recently, a man who wanted to convert to Christianity was tried and convicted of apostasy – the sentence for which is death, no less.
Luckily for him the outrage from other parts of the world stayed the Afghan governments hand and he was allowed to leave the country.
Paul
March 13th, 2009 at 16:38
Hey RedCitrus and Paul N.
Your thoughts sound better than how the law is right now!! So the nurse offering prayer wouldn’t have got into trouble then under your secular law and the kid in the class room and her mum too..? Sounds like a step in the right direction!!
Thanks guys, Phil.
March 13th, 2009 at 16:49
While everyone should be allowed to express their views, does this mean they can be aired unreservedly?
We tell young children there is a Santa, and fairies and all sorts. It is entirely false but, it seems, harmless.
We tend not to tell them there are monsters under the bed, because it upsets them without cause. Someone who did that would be considered rather cruel, don’t you think?
So (without going into the truth or not of them) I don’t think tales of Jesus are going to do any harm.
On the other hand, some people rather concentrate on the going to Hell and being prodded by pitch-fork wielding demons for all eternity aspect of Christianity. (Sorry to pick on Christians – don’t know about other religions.) The school-kid who was told not to talk about religion was doing precisly that, (as I understand it) and frightening her classmates. The program earlier this week, on the girl Deborah showed, to my mind, someone who had been traumatised at a very young age by similar tales. The original bus adverts, which prompted the atheist bus campaign, referred also to the eternal damnation threat for non-believers.
To some people, the threat of damnation may be the goad that makes them adhere to their beliefs. They may also quite genuinely want to spare others the same fate.
I would not want to prevent anyone of any religion airing their views. Life would be very dull if we could not say what we felt. But just as the PC brigade can really get over-zealous in their desire to avoid giving even the slightest offense, overt racism and sexism are not acceptable.
Personally, I think those original ads (were they for the Alpha course) were probably ok. There was nothing on them, (I understand), to directly refer to hell etc, but the if anyone was interested and followed the quotes, they got directed to a passage in the Bible. In other words, nothing to frighten the kiddies. And I think the line could safely be drawn there.
But should that bus driver have been allowed to refuse to drive one of the atheist buses? Could an atheist refuse to drive a Christian (or Islamic or Wiccan or Hindu) bus? Or any permutation thereof ….?
Rik
March 13th, 2009 at 16:53
Phil,
You say:-“So the nurse offering prayer wouldn’t have got into trouble then under your secular law”.
Was she prosecuted? No, the woman who was being prayed for didn’t appreciate it, and made it known. She was re-instated after suspension. See here … http://www.christianlegalcentre.com/view.php?id=684
I agree that the Primary Care Trust was typically heavy-handed in the first place, but the sane, rational outcome prevailed.
It might teach her some bedside manners, though. The last thing on earth I would want in hospital is one of the staff praying for me – it would just tell me that they had given up on conventional methods and I was about to peg it.
I don’t know the story of: “and the kid in the class room and her mum too..” so can’t comment.
Paul.
March 13th, 2009 at 16:55
Phil
I think that these were both massive over-reactions. No, I would not have disciplined the nurse in this situation. These are not examples of discrimination or an infringement of human rights.
However, these were not illegal acts either, so I don’t see how they are relevant to this discussion?
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…
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.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:29
Eoin.
Sorry. But i cannot. There is too much at stake. I don’t want to get into a debate with Phil and Debbie on this topic. We are here for YOU, and not to debate ‘denominations’ with each other.
A ritual can also be described as a ‘ceremony, habit, formal procedure or custom’.
Speaking in tongues, prophecying, healing etc are none of the above. They cannot be put in a box. These things happen as random acts that occur as and when God intends…
I have never said that any gift ‘overrides’ anyone elses beliefs. That is cause for argument. Individuals i know have received these gifts and use them as God intends, not to prove anyting or override anyone.
later
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:51
hey werner,
Thats really interesting. I’m here because of what I believe we need to define what is ‘true’. If youre interested in me learning about healing, tongues etc – why would you not want to educate a catholic? Your logic doesnt work here. If these ideas are good for a atheist why not for a catholic? If Phil or Debbie dont believe in what you believe – then surely that is just as important as talking to a non-believer?
Also if you believe a catholic is wrong to pray to mary – why not say so? You cant be promoting your belief system to me and not to a catholic – it simply does not make sence. If the catholic is let off from your ideas – why cant I be too?
Rituals. I think youre simply wrong here. See below. Tongues and Healing is consistantly defined under rituals. And particularly as pentecostal rituals.
Glossolalia is defined in the recent authoritative Encyclopedia of Religion as a practice of “nonordinary speech behavior that is institutionalized as a religious RITUAL in numerous Western and non-Western religious communities.”
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:47
hey werner,
Research (very old, but relevant) on rituals….
“Glossolalia is seen as **ritual behaviour** which aims, first, to amalgamate the sounds of crying and laughing, which are symbols of hurt and joy in life, and, second, it thereby points to conditions of existence, that is, to death and birth in life.”
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1385863
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:25
Eoin.
Well i suppose if research was done on the subject…
it’s not about what Phil and Debby believe, it’s about what the catholic church is doing to the world. I’m not talking about the individuals, but the ‘powers that be’.
Let’s go…
NOWHERE in the bible does it say that a person should pray to mary, or to the saints. It does not say that Mary is holy. It does not say that the saints are holy. It also says: “You shall not have any craven image…” look at their buildings. ‘adorned’ with images. Their ‘crucifix’ is a symbol of Jesus’ death – and that’s the image they worship. Jesus has risen and is alive.
The roman catholic church ‘decided’ what to put in the bible and left out the rest – locked it in some room in the vatican and that’s that for the rest of the world. What are they hiding? The roman calendar speaks about 25 December as Jesus’ ‘birthday’ – this is not accurate according to the hebrew calendar it should be closer to October. Why is the catholic church so wealthy? The pope is the ‘SELF PROFESSED’ representative of God on earth. NOT chosen by God. I should walk and be an ‘image of Christ’ not adore some guy who ‘men’ chose to be the next pope.
and here comes the “conspiracy theory” part – I have reason to believe that the Catholic Church, The Freemasons, The Iluminati, Islam and the Satanists are all part of the same organisation, right at the top. (specifically the pope) Causing mass hysteria ‘under a nice face’ and becoming wealthy with instigating war against nations and trying to destroy Israel.
Now you know….
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:30
Werner, I was with you for most of that but then you lost it at the end…
“I have reason to believe that the Catholic Church, The Freemasons, The Iluminati, Islam and the Satanists are all part of the same organisation, right at the top.”
Really? What leads you to believe that?
April 3rd, 2009 at 14:01
hey werner,
Just to address your points in reverse…
As you know, i’m consistantly going on about evidence. And i’m very glad you have discussed your theory. However, just as with religion, politics, economics and everything else – we need evidence. Where is the evidence of this conspiracy?
You began the post with “NOWHERE in the bible does it say that a……” Well, so what? You remember my point – who says that ‘faith’ has to depend only on biblical text? My argument here is that your different churches debate over how to treat a set of writings. Where is your proof that your god demands you *only* obey these texts? Or do you believe the bible proves itself??!
As I said before, I see protestants and catholics debating rather like the believers at stonehenge or the mayan civilisations. I’m sure they had disagreements over what their gods wanted. Your burden is to prove youre right. How do you know?
have a great weekend.
April 3rd, 2009 at 20:01
Hi Guys,
Been reading Werner’s and Eoin’s discussion with interest.
One point Werner – and this is curiosity, not a comment on what you wrote – you say: – “NOWHERE in the bible does it say that a person should pray to mary, or to the saints..
I assume you mean the New Testament, for obvious reasons. Can I ask what ‘version’ of the New Testament do you ascribe to? Is it *very* different to others?
Paul.
PS. I thought the Illuminati were just a figment of Dan Brown’s imagination, no?
April 6th, 2009 at 8:46
Eoin.
A CHRISTIAN is bound by the Bible and the truth it contains. If a ‘catholic’ for example does not read the bible, and does things “according to rituals’ as not described in the bible, then, in my humblest of opinions, he is not a Christian or a follower of Christ, but wrapped up in some ‘other’ dogma.
Paul – as far as my knowledge goes, it doesn’t matter which version of the Bible you look at, old or new testament, there is no mention of praying to Mary or the saints. Then i may as well pray to the archbishop of uganda. My point is that the word of God has been crucified (excuse the pun) by ‘denominations’ and as such, ‘new’ belief systems have emerged. One’s that are not true to the original…
As for the Iluminati – lot’s of theory’s about em. Dan Brown is certainly not the first person to write about them, and won’t be the last. The influence of the iluminati have been discussed in many churches for decades…
April 6th, 2009 at 13:06
hey werner,
But this is the point….
“then, in my humblest of opinions, he is not a Christian or a follower of Christ, but wrapped up in some ‘other’ dogma.”
Exactly. Its your opinion that the bible should be used to the letter. Where did you get this information from? From your parents – your pastor? Even within the protestant churches there are disagreements – and even within different individuals in a single church we find different ‘ideas’ of the Christian ‘God’. I can remember a group at university calling the christian god as ‘Her’ and by ‘Mother’. I’m sure you may disagree?
The problem is that you all claim youre right. But how should we judge? And if we cant find that out – how do we know which religion is right? Or do we simply follow what our parents or neighbours do?
April 6th, 2009 at 15:49
Eoin.
Exactly – The Bible must be followed to the letter. After reading it myself I forged this opinion.
I am of the opinion, along with a couple thousand others, that if it does not say clearly in the Bible that it is a metaphor or story, that it must be followed.
If Catholics believe, as I do, that The Bible is the word of God, and inspired by Him, then why don’t they follow it’s guidelines? Why do they choose to only believe what they like? How can they disregard what doesn’t ‘apply to them’?
The spiritual side of it then (which i don’t expect you’d understand or want to hear about) is that each individual reader SHOULD ask the Holy Spirit to reveal the real message behind scripture to him/her. Thus, one part of scripture could have a slightly different meaning to me, due to what I am going through in my life, than to someone else. Nowadays, people just ‘read’ ‘the good book’ to satisfy something inside. They don’t take the message and run with it. They add ‘little tales’ and take away key words that completely distort the intended message.
Laters.
April 7th, 2009 at 8:33
Hey Werner,
I understand your point – however youre missing my point… you say:
“After reading it myself I forged this *opinion*.
I am of the *opinion*, along with a couple thousand others, that if it does not say clearly in the Bible that it is a metaphor or story, that it must be followed.”
I’ve highlighted the word OPINION. Now, where does your opinion get its authority from? You claim catholics should read your ancient text as you do – but why? How do you know this is what your god has intended? Maybe your god is quite happy for human writers to produce a book but is not concerned how we read it?
How do you know your view of the bible is correct and where does your authority come from?
This is really really important. Just as you claim I need to believe in a supernatural being – you also claim other christians need to read your ancient texts as you do. But we disagree. Why should we change our minds?
At the heart of this is what we believe is “true”. And how we go about determining that. You believe it is “true” that we should read the bible word for word as law. But why? Where did you get this idea from…..the bible?
April 7th, 2009 at 12:01
Hey Werner
Another comment…
“The spiritual side of it then (which i don’t expect you’d understand or want to hear about) is that each individual reader SHOULD ask the Holy Spirit to reveal the real message behind scripture to him/her. Thus, one part of scripture could have a slightly different meaning to me, due to what I am going through in my life, than to someone else.”
I definitely do want to hear about this – its really interesting. This presents us with a problem – what if the ‘holy spirit’ tells a catholic or protestant from a different church than you that your interpretation of the bible is wrong? In fact, lets go further, what if it tells the believer that your view of the bible is immoral and should be stopped? What do we do?
Who has the right knowledge from the “spirit”? I go back to my foundation question – how do we determine what is “true”?
April 8th, 2009 at 5:08
Eoin
# 811: I believe, just as God inspired people to write the books of the Bible in ancient times, He still today inspires and reveals the hidden messages in His word. The Bible from Genesis to Revelation is incredibly cohesive. Everything talks to everything else. Having been written over a period of approx 2000 years this is almost impossible. I read the Bible, and what i read speaks to my Spirit. If something feels right than it feels right. Once again – discernment comes in. Authority??? My Authority comes from Christ.
#812: They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I say truth is in the mind of the reader.
You don’t understand the work of the Holy Spirit : “what if the ‘holy spirit’ tells a catholic or protestant from a different church than you that your interpretation of the bible is wrong”. The spirit does not work in these ways but instead inspires every reader in a different way – a way that would speak directly to the individual.
If we disagree (believers) we say: “In Essentials, unity…In non-essentials, Liberty…But above all Charity” People will never whole heartedly agree on topics as important as scripture, because for every person the meaning is different.
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth – so if whatever it reveals to you or me is different, it’s still truth to you or me…
Laters
April 9th, 2009 at 22:48
I thought at first that eoin was, uncharacteristically, talking rubbish. The I realised that the author of the above rubbish was “Eoin.” Another religionist trick to try to muddy the waters? Lying for Jesus? Incidentally, “Eoin” uses the word “incredibly.” Does he/she know that “incredible” means “unbelievable”?
April 9th, 2009 at 23:43
eoin, you’ve got an imposter!
April 10th, 2009 at 0:38
Hey Guys,
I don’t think we have got an imposter… If you look at comments 811 and 812, they are questions for Werner. I think Werner has accidentaly typed Eoins name in the wrong place.
Johnnyess: Can you explain what you mean by: “Another religionist trick to try to muddy the waters?”
Thanks guys – still praying for you all that you would discover the reality of God and his love for you. I pray that this easter (this weekend!!) you would realise that Jesus paid the ultimate sacrifice for you and all humanity by dieing on a cross for the wrong we have done that separates us from God so we can be forgiven and be reunited with our amazing Father God!!
Have a good weekend, cheers, Phil.
April 10th, 2009 at 4:04
For the last 4-5 days, it hasn’t let me post, but we’ll see, I just want to wish everyone a Happy Easter, whether they believe or not!
Debbie
April 10th, 2009 at 4:06
As the song I am listening to right now says “Love is a miracle!”
And so is it letting me post, provided I put something in every field… no matter whether it makes sense or not… Weird!
Deb
April 10th, 2009 at 8:42
Phil # 816
Well, I have in the recent past been involved in a blog comment discussion with a Christian who pretended to be two other people.
April 10th, 2009 at 9:02
Hi,
The crazy thing about the dodgy ‘Eoin’ post (it has to be Werner, typing in the wrong box – easy to do!) is that parts of it could have been written by anyone of us.
The bit – “People will never whole heartedly agree on topics as important as scripture, because for every person the meaning is different.” is exactly what I’ve been banging on about in the earlier discussions.
For me, it means that ’scripture’ is nothing more than a bunch of opinions, that can be picked or dropped as necessary – affected mainly by the culture of the day.
There are some values worth keeping from all religions, but come on, forget the sky-gods.
P.
April 10th, 2009 at 9:08
Hi all,
no 813 was not me – i guess Werner typed it in accident.
However, Werner (i presume….) you say..
“If we disagree (believers) we say: “In Essentials, unity…In non-essentials, Liberty…But above all Charity” People will never whole heartedly agree on topics as important as scripture, because for every person the meaning is different.”
Ok so you admit that people will never agree on how ancient texts should be used. However, my question was – what should you DO if other christians receive a message from the spirit that your interpretation of the text is not just wrong but should be stopped? You claim your authority from God – but so do they!
You claim “sola scriptura” – reading the bible as law. But this example challenges what the religious define as “true”. Who is doing what God whats and how do you know? If your spirit gives a different message to them of how the text should be used, then what do you do?
happy easter break to all.
April 10th, 2009 at 9:10
Ah. end paragraph should have had..
“Who is doing what God wants and how do you know?”
April 13th, 2009 at 13:32
Hi Guys
so sorry about the wrong name i typed in – don’t know how that happened.
will respond to all questions in the next day or so.
take care.
April 14th, 2009 at 7:35
Hi all,
Now that we are missing the Easter holiday – I wanted to raise a point as it is quite relevant to this time of year.
The Resurrection of Jesus is regarded as the foundation of Christianity. It is regarded as a defining event. However, after looking into this, I’ve found that in fact resurrection has occured throughout many religions. Before Judaism, many gods came back from the dead – Baal, Mithra, Osiris. This is really interesting – how has this happened? If all these other beings can die and come back from the dead, surely we need to investigate what is going on? How can so many gods that humans have worshipped be dying and coming back to life?
Is it simply that all these events are untrue and that the Resurrection of Jesus is true?
April 14th, 2009 at 11:19
“The Resurrection of Jesus is regarded as the foundation of Christianity. It is regarded as a defining event. However, after looking into this, I’ve found that in fact resurrection has occurred throughout many religions. Before Judaism, many gods came back from the dead – Baal, Mithra, Osiris. This is really interesting – how has this happened? If all these other beings can die and come back from the dead, surely we need to investigate what is going on? How can so many gods that humans have worshipped be dying and coming back to life?
Is it simply that all these events are untrue and that the Resurrection of Jesus is true?”
CS Lewis wrote about this issue. He said and I am paraphrasing, that he would very surprised if there weren’t stories preceding Christ’s about similar things, and similar is the point, the instances you cite Osiris especially, are not the same type of event at all! In fact, the closer you look the less these stories resemble the resurrection of Jesus!
In my opinion, of course these stories are untrue and the Resurrection of Jesus is true! Someone on h2g2 (and the people on the thread dedicated to Mr Dawkins read this!) said scathingly that he was surprised no one had noticed the phenomena the Gospels recount – darkness at noon etc. I fair wet myself laughing. That we’re talking about it 2000+ years later, shows people manifestly did notice.
Deb
April 14th, 2009 at 20:42
Hi Everyone.
Once again, sorry about the typo with the name ‘eoin’ – it wasn’t on purpose and hopefully won’t happen again.
Right:
#814 – Johnnyess “incredibly” – also means “very, extremely, amazingly, really,” …stop poking at the little bits will you…
#820 – Paul you say: “For me, it means that ’scripture’ is nothing more than a bunch of opinions, that can be picked or dropped as necessary – affected mainly by the culture of the day.”
It’s not about culture of the day – The Holy Spirit inspires individuals by revealing scripture to them about issues in their life. I could read a part of scripture now and the meaning of it could be pretty straight forward, but a year from now if I read it, and depending on my personal situation, the meaning could be completely different – because the spirit inspires us to understand the deeper meanings.
# 821 – Eoin – As I said to paul – the bible is interpreted differently by each person. That’s what makes it so alive and personal. If we have different ideas of how text should be ‘used’ then that’s that. (in my situation anyway) I’m not going to argue over it because for each individual it has a different meaning….
Laters.
April 14th, 2009 at 20:43
I though’t i’d post this also – appropriate to what we are discussing:
Dr. E. V. Rieu was a classical scholar and translator for many years. He rendered Homer into very modern English for the Penguin Classics. Rieu was sixty years old and a life-long agnostic when the same firm invited him to translate the Gospels. His son remarked: “It will be interesting to see what Father makes of the four Gospels. It will be even more interesting to see what the four Gospels make of Father.”
The answer was soon forthcoming. A year later, Rieu, convinced and converted, joined the Church of England.
In an interview with J. B. Phillips, Rieu confessed that he had undertaken the task of translation because of an “intense desire to satisfy himself as to the authenticity and spiritual content of the Gospels.” He was determined to approach the documents as if they were newly discovered Greek manuscripts,. “Did you not get the feeling,” asked Canon Phillips, “that the whole material was extraordinarily alive?” The classical scholar agreed. “I got the deepest feeling,” he replied. “My work changed me. I came to the conclusion that these words bear the seal of the Son of Man and God.”
April 14th, 2009 at 21:03
hey werner,
I find this interesting you say this..
“I’m not going to argue over it because for each individual it has a different meaning….”
Thats exactly my point – and you havent answered the question! First, you offer this text as something that we must obey. Second, when I ask what happens if the Holy Spirit gives us different interpretations, you say for each of us it is different.
I cant see how these two points can work together. Also, I stress the importance of this. What you *do* and *say* is directly related to how you *interprete* these ancient texts. Its really really important to work out who is doing this correctly.
So, again I ask – if another Christian gets a message from the Spirit that your interpretation is not only wrong but should be stopped. What should they do?
April 15th, 2009 at 15:35
hi Eoin.
“So, again I ask – if another Christian gets a message from the Spirit that your interpretation is not only wrong but should be stopped. What should they do?”
I would invite that person to tell me what their interpretation is and why the feel that what i do should be stopped. i will also pray about it and make a decision based on that….
April 15th, 2009 at 22:06
Hey Werner,
I definitely give you points for your diplomacy. However, theres a problem…
Your christian opponent would do *exactly* the same as you.
They would tell you the Spirit has guided them and that you are incorrect and immoral. They would also pray for you so that you received the “truth” and corrected the error of your ways…..
This is the result when human beings use an external supernatural beings as the authority of the rules we humans should use in life. In the above example, each of you claim that your relationship with the Holy Spirit is the correct one. But how do we tell who has the ‘correct’ relationship?
The answer is … there is no answer. Different Christians will keep telling each other that they are incorrect and that they are praying for them.
If they were praying for you to correct your beliefs, do you think it would influence you to consider/change your beliefs?
April 28th, 2009 at 7:14
wow – not a lot happening in the posts the last couple of weeks…
Eoin you say: “If they were praying for you to correct your beliefs, do you think it would influence you to consider/change your beliefs?”
if i knew they were praying for me to correct my beliefs it would not make me change anything. Their prayers however – and if it’s from God – would have an influence on me and i’d be compelled by the holy spirit to change, should i be wrong.
God loves you guys!! *(and gals)
cheers – from a rather chilly south africa
May 14th, 2009 at 17:48
Hi Guys, where have you all gone..?
Maybe you have all realised the truth and turned to God and are happily in a Church somewhere thanking Him for His amazing love for you!!
Cheers, Phil.
May 14th, 2009 at 19:11
No, Phil – i dont believe it is true. Even when I was dragged along to a church by my family i didnt believe it was “true”. You believe its true because either the generation before you told you it is, OR it makes you “feel” good, gives you a purpose etc.
The way you write really does smack of arrogance. I could just as easily claim youve seen the error of your ways and now worship the Forest Spirits or Ganesh. Because “your” god is obviously a heap of nonsence, right?
May 14th, 2009 at 19:38
eoin…
Sorry, I should have put a ‘he he’ at the end, as it was mean’t as a bit of a joke to see if anyone was still watching the site!! It was not said in arrogance, nothing I say or do can make God love me more… it is because of his amazing grace.
You said:
“You believe its true because either the generation before you told you it is, OR it makes you “feel” good, gives you a purpose etc.”
I am sure we have been through this many times before on this site… I don’t believe things just because I have been told them by my parents etc… and I don’t believe because it makes me feel good or gives me purpose… I believe because I know God is real and that He transforms people lives for the better… I have seem this too many times for it to be fluke… God is real and he loves us!! I pray that you will know this is true one day, not so I can say ‘told you so’, but so your life can be transformed and you can know how special you are because God created you.
Thanks, Phil.
May 15th, 2009 at 0:01
werner – “not a lot happening.”
Phil – “where have you all gone?”
We’re just all bored to death trying to counter your meaningless utterances:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaningless_statement
May 15th, 2009 at 0:17
Hi Johnnyess,
You said: “We’re just all bored to death trying to counter your meaningless utterances”.
That’s nice… and eoin said my post “smacked of arrogance”.
So if I am trying to lead my little toddler away from the hot radiator and he doesn’t understand why, is that a meaningless utterance to him..?
You see, at the moment you can’t brig yourselves to believe or understand that God is real which is why you think we are posting “meaningless utterances” – but that doesn’t mean that what we are saying is true – just like my toddler doesn’t know the radiator is hot…
Night… Phil.
May 15th, 2009 at 0:20
Sorry some typos…
you can’t ‘brig’ yourselves (bring)
that what we are saying ‘is’ true (isn’t)
Need some sleep!!
May 15th, 2009 at 6:20
Phil
“I have seem this too many times for it to be fluke…”
You could multiple the events you have ’seen’ by 1000 and it still would not be sufficient evidence. Your statement simply demonstrates how low your threshold is to believe in “something”. There simply must be something that is UP there controlling everything else nothing makes sence, right?!
There is a lot of work in psychology demonstrating that humans may actually evolved a requirement to believe in supernatural forces, spirts and gods. To a certain extent, we need it.
You use the word “know”. I “know” my god exists. Here we are again. What you, personally see is NOT evidence of any supernatural being. Having someone “tell” you that god has transformed them is NOT evidence. If you were brought up in India, you would “know” that Ganesh directs your life.
Think of it this way, what evidence would you require, to come to the decision that your god actually doesnt exist? If you came to the state where you “know” something, then surely additional evidence that counters that, would force you to change your mind? It is how we use evidence.
You dont KNOW your god exists – you have FAITH that it does. And faith is singlehandedly the worst idea us humans ever came up with.
My gods, I’m so glad I dont believe in all this nonsence anymore…. he he
May 18th, 2009 at 15:31
Back to the old bosh again, Phil, I see.
‘So if I am trying to lead my little toddler away from the hot radiator and he doesn’t understand why, is that a meaningless utterance to him..?’
So, what, you tell your toddler not to touch the radiator because otherwise God will burn his fingers?
Now that would be meaningless.
P.
May 24th, 2009 at 6:20
Well, i see nothing has changed.
interesting what Johnnyess said: ‘TRYING to counter….’
You admit then that it is a futile attempt to counter it? So glad you said so…
And, it would seem that we have come full circle – we are again discussing the issue of ‘faith’ and ‘knowing’. This is good – shows what should really be discussed.
God loves you. He sent Jesus to die for you. He is waiting to embrace you.
c’mon guys! Wake up! Time is ticking away. Stop being such hard apples and open your heart to the things unseen.
Cheers.
June 3rd, 2009 at 22:08
“c’mon guys! Wake up! Time is ticking away. Stop being such hard apples and open your heart to the things unseen.”
Hi Werner,
The language you use really does highlight how religious ideas have been passed down throughout the ages. You first highlight we’re running out of time, hinting that we should be afraid if we dont take up your offer. Salesmen use the same tactic.
You then ask us to ‘open our heart’. This is key. You appeal to us on a emotional level. Imagine human beings did this in other walks of life. Ask your bank manager for a loan and for him to open his heart. Maybe the police office, about to arrest you, could open her heart? Maybe the medical student should forget the surgery textbook and open his heart to homeopathic treatments (that dont work…)
Once again. Not for the first time. And not the last. You offer no evidence.
When pushed, the evidence you offer is that you have SEEN people healed in church. This just highlights the amazingly low standard of evidence you require. SEEKING aint evidence.
June 3rd, 2009 at 22:49
Werner – “Trying to counter?” Well, yes, how can a meaningless utterance possibly be countered? The onus surely is on the utterer to demonstrate that his/her utterance can be justified. Even Milton failed to do this.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:42
“The onus surely is on the utterer to demonstrate that his/her utterance can be justified.”
Exactly Werner. In all the time, we’ve debated, you havent offered any evidence at all that the supernatural being you believe in exists. None.
And seeing people in your church “healed” is NOT evidence. Remember SEEING is not KNOWING. Keep saying it.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:28
FAITH… remember guys..?
That is what we are talking about…
Faith is the belief in things unseen…
Just because they are unseen – does not make them any less real (I am sure you will have a field day with this…)
“Remember SEEING is not KNOWING” – I don’t need to see it, to know it to be real…
Have a great day… God is with you longing for you to be a part of your life… your creator.
Phil.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:46
“Just because they are unseen – does not make them any less real (I am sure you will have a field day with this…)”
Field day is certainly an understatement.
There are many religious communities that believe in spirits and witches – in exactly the same way you ‘know’ your specific god exists. They ‘know’ it too. In fact, every religious community claims they ‘know’ their particular god exists and that the others do not.
Gravity is unseen – but it is damn real. We have evidence. You and your colleagues who believe in spirts and witches – both of you – have none.
“God is with you longing for you to be a part of your life… your creator. ” …….Prove it. Oh wait – do I have to “open my heart”…??
August 15th, 2009 at 0:14
Hi guys – how are you all..?
Long time, no speak..?
Father God, I pray for these guys on this forum. Help them to understand who you are and how much they mean to you. Open their hearts to your love, give them purpose and hope. May they seek you and find you. Thank you that you know them, created them, and love them. Amen.
Cheers guys, all the best – praying for you…
Phil.
August 17th, 2009 at 6:19
Hi Phil,
Good thanks – but I havent contributed as I wasnt persuaded by any of the arguments that you raised. I still hold that “all” religion (from your god to the spirits of the forrests) is created by man – and can be explain by a cognitive theory of mind. I give some good examples – you talk of hope and purpose. Guess what? I dont require any kind of god to feel that I have hope and purpose in my life – but you appear it is necessary?! Why? Look at it a different way – if one morning you felt there was actually no god – do you think you would lose all hope and purpose? Would you not be motivated by your work or your family? Why does there have to be a ‘force’ at work in control of everything? I find that a deeply disturbing idea – and am glad I cant believe in it.
Next, you never successfully argued why your god exists and others do not. What happens when you die and Siva and Brahma are waiting for you – will you repent? The reason you believe in your particular god is because you were born into/live among a christian community. You would ’stand out’ if you claimed a belief in Siva etc !
Finally… and as us non-believers have said many times: please dont pray for us – its slight offensive. We’ve told you we dont agree and dont believe in any gods. By praying you just prove that you ignore what we say – so I ask once again – please dont! Your good wishes are enough – thanks.
August 17th, 2009 at 13:34
Phil,
Have a go at reading this http://tinyurl.com/qo5fch
Its on the deconversion of Julian Baggini, the philospher – how he lost his faith.
I’m sure “inside” your faith does make sence. Its only when you become objective that things unravel. If you were to look at your religion in the same way you look at Ganesh – you may find yourself believing in human beings and not a god.
good luck
September 14th, 2009 at 23:54
I’d just like to draw your attention to this:
“The Atheist’s Guide To Christmas” is the UK’s first atheist charity book, featuring contributions from Richard Dawkins, Derren Brown, Ben Goldacre, Simon Singh, Claire Rayner, David Baddiel, Charlie Brooker and many more. It’s been edited by Ariane Sherine, the creator of the hugely successful Atheist Bus Campaign. It’s out on Oct 1st and all royalties are going to the HIV charity Terrence Higgins Trust. Please pre-order now:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Atheists-Guide-Christmas-Ariane-Sherine/dp/0007322615/
The Atheist’s Guide is a mix of humorous and poignant contributions from over 40 various prominent atheists. It’ll make an ideal Christmas gift for your atheist friends. Your religious friends will love it too, or, even better, it’ll put them in a foul mood for Xmas! So a win-win situation! More info on the Facebook group:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=128903634833
Your support will not only maintain the profile of atheism in the UK, it will also help raise funds for the very worthy THT charity. Please note that the contributors, and Ms Sherine, have waived payment for their considerable input into the “Guide”.
Thank you, and please pass this message on to everyone you know!!
September 15th, 2009 at 20:51
Hello everyone!
There’s just been a very imortant development in the Atheist Bus Campaign. Please read post 849 by clicking on the link!
Many thanks!
March 28th, 2010 at 15:40
all atheists are hypocrites. there is no such thing as a society free of religion (though atheists would like to remove religions THEY dislike and replace them with ones they DO).
go to hell hypocritical scum, burn in hell.
May 26th, 2010 at 8:54
Thanks for your considered contribution Joe. I hope you’re feeling happier soon.
Peace to you and yours.
May 26th, 2010 at 13:27
Hey Joe,
You’re absolutely right – I agree. “there is no such thing as a society free of religion”. But guess what – that doesnt make it true.
People have a strong need to believe in things that give purpose, hope, meaning etc. I dont believe in any of the gods, us humans have. I get my purpose from us, from people.
And thanks for the ’scum’ comment. Lovely.
You take care now
May 26th, 2010 at 14:33
“go to hell hypocritical scum, burn in hell.”
I wonder if Joe’s a Christian?
May 26th, 2010 at 16:02
Many people have a great deal of trouble comprehending theories like these. Is the government doing whatever is necessary to maintain calm among the population after these speculations aboutthe end of the world? If this is true, then who will be the chosen few that they will save?
July 9th, 2010 at 17:02
Hmm, only taken about six weeks to occur to me that there is also no such thing as a society free of murderers, rapists, muggers and thieves. I don’t suppose Christian Joe worships these people for the same reason.