Thank You Everyone!
12.04.09 | Ariane |
Thank you to everyone who donated to the campaign in its six-month donation phase. We raised a phenomenal amount – during a credit crunch, no less – and special thanks should go to Simon Bishop, Richard Williams, Malcolm Dodd, Andrea Busby, Oliver Rowland, Deedyi, Dave Worrall, Gordon Livesey, and everyone else who kept the page alive and helped make the campaign such a success.
The JustGiving page is now closed. We’ll keep you updated on everything that’s happening here, but until then, I’ll leave those of you who haven’t yet seen it with this beautiful story:
Thank you again for your generosity, and see you soon.
299 Responses to “Thank You Everyone!”
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 » Show All
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 » Show All
July 4th, 2009 at 16:45
Sharia Law or ‘One Law For All’?
Think-tank Civitas concludes that Sharia
courts should not be recognised in Britain.
NSS Newsline
http://www.secularism.org.uk/think-tank-concludes-that-sharia.html
_____
July 5th, 2009 at 17:11
Father Ted Creators Back Challenge to Law
The creators of the Father Ted television
series have denounced Ireland’s proposed
blasphemy laws as”insanity” and pledged
to support a campaign to repeal them.
http://blasphemy.ie/2009/07/05/father-ted-creators-back-challenge-to-la/
_____
July 7th, 2009 at 12:12
Digested read:
The Case for God
by Karen Armstrong
John Crace |The Guardian
God is transcendent, clever clogs. So
we obviously can’t understand him. Duh!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/jul/07/karen-armstrong-case-for-god
_____
July 7th, 2009 at 16:50
BBC Radio 4 Law in Action
Irish religious institutions’ child
abuse on an industrial scale – Clive
Coleman examines a scheme set up to
provide justice and compensation for
victims. With link to BBC News report:
UK Irish abuse victims ‘losing out’.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lgj39
_____
July 8th, 2009 at 15:25
Every secondary school
to be given Dawkins DVD
Every secondary school in England and Wales
will receive a free DVD by renowned atheist
Richard Dawkins to celebrate the anniversary
of Darwin’s Origin of the Species.
politics.co.uk
http://tinyurl.com/kp83lk
_____
July 8th, 2009 at 21:09
BBC Radio 4 Moral Maze
Michael Buerk chairs a debate on the moral questions
behind the week’s news. Claire Fox, Michael Portillo,
Clifford Longley and Kenan Malik cross-examine witnesses.
Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali has said that homosexuals should
change and repent their sin. The 2008 Criminal Justice and
Immigration Act created the criminal offence of ‘incitement
to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation’. But after
lobbying from religious groups, the government was forced
to accept a Lords amendment that allowed a freedom of speech
defence. Bishops in the Lords are now fighting the government’s
latest attempts to get that defence dropped. Where should we
draw the line between religious conscience and freedom of
speech? Should your faith allow you the freedom to challenge
and question the way we live, or is this a thinly-disguised
mask for intolerance and prejudice?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lh227
_____
July 9th, 2009 at 23:26
Should skeptics send their
children to church on Sundays?
John Loftus |Debunking Christianity
http://tinyurl.com/my2kos
_____
July 12th, 2009 at 16:45
Irish Catholics go
online to lose religion
Gabrielle Monaghan |The Times
A website is acting as a one-stop shop for disgruntled
Catholics who want to officially quit their religion,
especially in the wake of the Ryan report on child
abuse in religious institutions.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6689482.ece
_____
July 13th, 2009 at 16:11
BBC Trust considering non-religious
Thought for the Day |John Plunkett
Today’s Thought for the Day slot could be
opened up to secular and humanist views,
says BBC Radio 4 controller Mark Damazer
The Guardian
http://tinyurl.com/nhcnhl
_____
July 13th, 2009 at 17:32
Blasphemy law a return
to middle ages – Dawkins
Alison Healy |Irish Times
The new blasphemy law will send Ireland back
to the middle ages, and is wretched, backward
and uncivilised, Prof Richard Dawkins has said.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0713/1224250543694.html
_____
July 13th, 2009 at 18:10
Atheist Songs – Ivan Cronan
Songs to inspire the atheist in you
Share your Spotify playlists with
the world and discover new music
http://www.sharemyplaylists.com/atheist-songs/
_____
July 13th, 2009 at 18:21
Great list of atheist songs, except it doesn’t appear to include Imagine by John Lennon.
Then there is this little gem on Youtube, really catchy too!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9bMi4s_yOE
July 14th, 2009 at 20:57
New hope for an end to religious
monopoly on Thought for the Day
New hope was expressed this week that
the long-running campaign to open up
the BBC programme Thought for the Day
to non-religious voices may be about
to make a breakthrough.
NSS Newsline
http://www.secularism.org.uk/new-hope-for-an-end-to-religious1.html
_____
July 17th, 2009 at 13:03
I’m going to start a new campaign entitled:
“Richard Dawkins is God”
That’ll completely settle the “is there a god” argument once and for all so that we can all enjoy our lives without writing endless books about it or reading them…….
July 20th, 2009 at 14:30
BHA promotes iTunes download
of the song ‘None Of The Above’
The British Humanist Association is pleased
to support the launch of a new “humanist song”,
None Of The Above by The Strawheads.
politics.co.uk
http://tinyurl.com/kwls8c
_____
July 20th, 2009 at 15:15
Atheist bus signs in Austria
Go say hello!
Pharyngula
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/atheist_bus_signs_in_austria.php
_____
July 21st, 2009 at 15:21
Atheists Choose ‘De-Baptism’
to Renounce Childhood Faith
Beliefnet
http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2009/07/atheists-choose-de-baptism-to.php
_____
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:18
Little Atoms Radio Show: Dr Evan Harris MP
Friday 24th July 2009 – 19:00–19:30 BST
Little Atoms is a talk show about ideas.
Produced and presented by Neil Denny and
Padraig Reidy, each show features a guest
from the worlds of science, journalism,
politics, academia, human rights or
the arts in conversation.
Resonance 104.4 FM central London UK
Resonance Listen on-line
http://resonancefm.com/listen
_ _ _
The moving finger having writ, click
[Previous Guests] for MP3 download.
http://www.littleatoms.com/guests.htm
_____
July 22nd, 2009 at 10:32
Just curious…
If you profess a disbelief in God why mention him and the prophets of Religion (Jesus etc) so often?
I do not believe in ghosts for example and as such I do not mention them 50 times a day.
Also – isn’t Atheism dependent on peoples belief? Without a God that you claim to not believe in you would have no belief at all..
So at the end of the day you have yet another belief, another religion if you will.
Atheism boggles my mind.
And at the end of the day there is a God, a god we all know about, think about, are controlled by and were given commandments by…
Death.
You know it’s there, you know his commandments – and if you mess up you pay and at the end of it all believe in him or not he still gets you.
July 23rd, 2009 at 13:14
@Murphy
If you’d looked through the web site and read it’s aims you’d know that we are sick to the back teeth of being told we’re doomed to everlasting damnation and the eternal fires of hell. It seems it’s OK for religious cranks to threaten us, and use fear and intimidation in advertisement to swell its ranks, but the moment an atheist message appears it’s considered immoral and in some curious way as wrong.
The aim isn’t to have people give up their faith, it is more a case of encouraging those who waver or those afraid to come out of the closet. The message is that we are not alone, we are many and the ranks of the disbelievers are growing. We can now speak as one and tell the religious cranks that we are tired of their threats.
I personally don’t mention god 50 times a day, but bible thumpers do, as do their organisations, now we have an organisation that supports atheists and provide succor.
I’ve no doubt that you see a message from jesus and/or god several times a day, but they go unnoticed because you’re used to them or agree with them, yet a single concerted atheist campaign gets you spouting off.
Death is the end of individual existence, it isn’t a god that anyone worships, and it certainly doesn’t control my life, it is just a fact of life.
July 23rd, 2009 at 13:20
Nicely said Pete. In a nutshell; which is more than can be said for some of the god-bothering posts on this site.
July 24th, 2009 at 2:50
The National Secular Society aren’t
secular – they’re atheist bigots
Ed West |Daily Telegraph
http://tinyurl.com/nx5v28
_____
July 24th, 2009 at 17:36
Opus Dei political candidate tries to
guilt trip his critics into silence
Terry Sanderson |NSS Newsline
The SNP candidate in the Glasgow North East by-election,
David Kerr, was revealed this week to be a member of the
extremist Catholic organisation Opus Dei.
http://www.secularism.org.uk/opus-dei-political-candidate-tri.html
_____
July 28th, 2009 at 1:12
Atheist bus ads ‘pathetic:’ Philosopher
Randy Boswell |The Windsor Star
Canada’s most renowned philosopher has weighed in provocatively
on the debate surrounding the “atheist bus” campaign, describing
as “pathetic” the cross-Canada advertising effort to promote the
idea that “there’s probably no God.”
http://www.windsorstar.com/Atheist+pathetic+Philosopher/1834362/story.html
_____
July 29th, 2009 at 14:58
Simon Singh’s chiropractic
piece published en masse
Paul Sims |New Humanist
http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2009/07/simon-singhs-chirorpactic-piece.html
_____
July 31st, 2009 at 16:07
Simon Singh loses first attempt at
permission to appeal |Jack of Kent
http://tinyurl.com/lrlbod
_____
August 1st, 2009 at 16:50
Why should it cost so much to join this site do you regard your selfs as eltists? I am an athiest who believes in evelution abhores religion and thinks it is responsable for the worlds problems.
I am happy your trying to show there is no God but I would like it more if I could join you but I am a pensioner who cannot afford to save.
August 7th, 2009 at 11:00
Christians: Do you defend your
own freedom? |Richard Wade
Friendly Atheist
http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/08/06/christians-do-you-defend-your-own-freedom/
_____
August 9th, 2009 at 11:17
@ Mr Reason.
Thank you for your comment and welcome to the site!
Please be assured there is no cost to join this campaign and make comments on the discussions. No pressure has been put on anyone to contribute to the Atheist Campaign – it’s free!
August 9th, 2009 at 15:36
Interesting comment about you wanting to make Richard Dawkins a god.
Question: Why doesn’t Dawkins spend all his time writing books and giving seminars on the flying spagetti monster? Allegedly, the flying spagetti monster doesn’t exist either.
I find it bizarre that Dawkins has made an entire career out of chasing something that doesn’t exist. Dont you?
Its almost as if God DOES exist and Dawkins wants to destroy Him. I think that’s a better explanation.
Evolution is the cause of wars, murders and hatred for one another. Thank goodnes its being destroyed as we speak:
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.com
The world needs to be set free from the kind of evil Darwin espouses:
“The weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”
We need more Jesus, zero evolution.
August 9th, 2009 at 16:25
@misbubby
Its nice to see this campaign is still getting under the skin of the evolution-deniers.
You are welcome to have just as much Jesus as suits you. But evolution isn’t optional. Its out there. Its a fact beyond any reasonable scientific doubt and no matter how much you want it, it can’t be banished!
August 9th, 2009 at 18:44
Dear Quedula, You said:
“Evolution is not optional.”
Sure it is. Its been useless since its inception. It hasn’t helped medicine, rocket science, or morality. Can you think of a single thing it is useful for other than justifying murder and genocide? Hitler and Ahmedinijad find it very useful. How about you? How do you use it?
Science, paleantology, and physics on the other hand, have been very useful. they given us cosmology, genetics and the fossil record.
Jesus has given us forgiveness and salvation.
Lousiana stopped protecting the Darwinism last month. This trend will continue because Americans love freedom more than anything else. This includes academic freedom.
August 9th, 2009 at 19:23
I don’t use evolution – it just IS. It wasn’t invented, it was discovered as a scientific explanation of how life has got to where it is. Evolution produced Hitler and Ahmedinijab. (As it produced you and me) I’m not sure what you mean by saying they “used” it.
Incidentally, before the growth of scientific knowledge, the world was a much more dangerous place for human-beings. 10,000 year ago the chance that a man would die at the hands of another was at least 15%, in some tribes 60%. In the 20th century, notwithstanding all the wars, it was less than 1%.
August 9th, 2009 at 19:24
Hi imissbubby
Is this an example of your logic-defying beliefs and do you deny that there may be a tennie-weenie problem with the dating?
P Z Myers visits Ken Ham’s Creation Museum.
It’s a small thing, but it’s representative of the bizarre pseudoscience in the world of the Creation “Museum”. There was a room with a small collection of dinosaur models and skeleton casts, and they each had little panels describing the specimen…just like a real museum! Then you read them, and the weirdness sinks in. “Diet after the Fall” specifies “carnivore (meat eater)” — that’s because everything was a vegetarian before Adam and Eve ate the apple, since there was no death anywhere in the universe (which implies, apparently, that in their version of Christian theology, plants are dead). That’s not the weirdest thing, though.
No, the part that I found most amusing is the dating. An example of this is a Ceratosaur; it says that this is from the Upper Jurassic (~2348 BC). There were other specimens from other geological eras, and they would say “Upper Cretaceous (~2348 BC)” and “Lower Cretaceous (~2348 BC)”. I’m sure that if they had some Cambrian specimens there, they would have also said “(~2348 BC)”.
Why does the geology even matter to them if they’re just going to ignore it all and compress everything into one year, a year given with such remarkable specificity?
Even if you don’t care about the geology, what about the history? All but 7 people are exterminated in 2348 BC, by their accounting, yet we know that in that century, we have the establishment of the Akkadian empire in Mesopotamia, the sixth dynasty in Egypt, the founding of major cities in the Indus valley and Korea…we have archaeological and historical records that show business as usual, with no one noting a massive annihilation of the human race.
The whole “museum” is like that — it’s a succession of assertions that flout the evidence, but does so in a style that is simply parroted from legitimate museums. Substance is completely lacking.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/a_little_taste_of_the_strangen.php
August 9th, 2009 at 20:48
Quedula, you make a very good point about ‘getting under the skin of evolution-deniers’.
Narrow minded believers like Imissbubby hate the idea that people might have independent thought away from the constraints of an old discredited book. A bit like the Taleban, Imissbubby would have us all on our knees worshipping some imaginary god under pain of death.
Fortunately, free-thinking people have a spirit that cannot be crushed so easily as the sheep that follow various religions.
Intolerance breeds ignorance, and Imissbubby’s comments demonstrate this.
August 9th, 2009 at 23:14
Dear Queldela: You said
“I don’t use evolution – it just IS. It wasn’t invented, it was discovered as a scientific explanation of how life has got to where it is. ”
———–And it was written by a man who had a degree in what, exactly? With no knowledge of DNA and genetics, he tested his hypothesis how, exactly?
“Evolution produced Hitler and Ahmedinijab. (As it produced you and me) I’m not sure what you mean by saying they “used” it.”
———–Darwin espouces that when another race threatens yours, it should be eliminated. Hitler and Ahmedinijad are using Darwin’s life lessons to justify their behavior.
“Incidentally, before the growth of scientific knowledge, the world was a much more dangerous place for human-beings. 10,000 year ago the chance that a man would die at the hands of another was at least 15%, in some tribes 60%. In the 20th century, notwithstanding all the wars, it was less than 1%.”
————Today’s gamma rays are much more intense than they were over last 1000’s of years. That’s why everything is in a state of decay. Law of Thermodynamics #2.
August 9th, 2009 at 23:36
“Narrow minded believers like Imissbubby hate the idea that people might have independent thought”
————Which independent thought do I hate?
“the constraints of an old discredited book.”
————If you think modern science is constraining I suppose your life is your party and you can cry if you want to. ps) You might discredit the Bible but its certainly not scholars, historians or archeologists agreeing with you.
“A bit like the Taleban, Imissbubby would have us all on our knees worshipping some imaginary god under pain of death.”
————I don’t subscribe to coerced belief. Neither did Jesus.
“Fortunately, free-thinking people have a spirit that cannot be crushed so easily as the sheep that follow various religions.”
————-We’re all able to think freely. It looks like what you really mean by free-thinking is is “liberal” or “secular” or “godless.” You’re free to believe in a crumbling dynasty of disconnected intellectuals and doctrines of murderous genocide. I’m free to believe in the omnipotent, omniscience, immutable Creator of the universe and Savior of the world. It looks like there’s room for both of us in the world. ps) God loves you right now even though you won’t acknowledge Him.
“Intolerance breeds ignorance, and Imissbubby’s comments demonstrate this.”
————-I don’t follow your logic. What does this conversation have to do with tolerance? I believe Dallas is in Texas and you don’t. This is not an example of intolerance; we just don’t agree.
August 10th, 2009 at 0:11
Hello again imissbubby
Your ignorance of science seems to be unlimited.
Science is about observation and Darwin was a very slow, careful and conscientious observer who took many decade to formulate conclusions. Qualifications are irrelevant; Darwin became a consumate scientist by his dedication to accurate observation, testing and experimentaion. His conclusions in “On the Origin of Species” have since been corroborated by DNA and fossil evidence. Evolution is the best explanation that we have for the life forms that exist and have existed. It is accepted by all but a tiny number of scientists and even by the vatican.
Not one shred of evidence exists for creation or intelligent design.
Imissbubby, do please leave the dark ages and join us in the enlightened 21st century.
August 10th, 2009 at 4:32
Dear Malcolm: You said:
“Science is about observation”
————–and Testing. Darwin never tested his theory. What he knew about the cell is galaxies away from what we know today. He didn’t have the technology to understand what a complicated machine just a single cell is.
“and Darwin was a very slow, careful and conscientious observer who took many decade to formulate conclusions.”
————–Darwin had a degree in exactly what? He made his observations as a college student in his early 20’s on a 5 year boat ride. He knew nothing about science. He concocted a story when he came back about what he saw. I know he was rich and his family had a high position in society. He was also a 3rd generation evolutionist, Whig.
“Qualifications are irrelevant;”
————-Really! Do you really believe that?
“Darwin became a consumate scientist by his dedication to accurate observation, testing and experimentaion.”
————–He tested nothing. He made up a story that his own contemporaries (Lyell, Huxley and Hooker) all parted company with him on. Darwin needed to stay relevant in society when he came back.
“His conclusions in “On the Origin of Species” have since been corroborated by DNA and fossil evidence.”
————–What science has proven is that descent with modification does not exist. And the fossil record shows the abrupt appearance of man on the planet in full form. Molecular biology has proven speciation cannot occur even in single cell bacteria that replicate every 18 minutes.
“Evolution is the best explanation that we have for the life forms that exist and have existed.”
———–It may have been until the DNA molecule was decoded by Francis Crick. Many scientists after that discovery repudiated their theory of chance chemistry from primordial soup.
“It is accepted by all but a tiny number of scientists and even by the vatican.”
———–1000+ is not a tiny number of scientists.
“Not one shred of evidence exists for creation or intelligent design.”
———–A single cell is more complicated than a Saturn V. The biggest puzzle has been the origin of biological information. The building blocks of DNA are arranged in a specific sequence by biological information. They cannot arrange themselves in long information bearing molecules like DNA and RNA. The only way that biological information got inside that cell was through Intelligence. In a recent experiment, scientist proved these amino acids could not arrange themselves; it required the scientist to intervene. The Stanley Urey experiments also proved this. Self-replication also depends on biological infomation and this confirms that intelligence (ID) is the only way by which information arises. It requires a Mind.
August 10th, 2009 at 7:43
I simply cannot believe that anyone can be so deluded, I won’t waste my time trying to explain the errors of this persons delusion, they are just too far gone.
The other thing to consider is that we may have a troll in out midst, some of their comments have been so far off the mark as to be deliberately contentious.
Just a couple of points numbskull, Darwin wrote ABOUT evolution, he didn’t create it. Some of Darwin’s theories have been expanded upon, his book does contain errors, but subsequent scholars have ADDED to the well of human knowledge by writing other books. Our deluded friend meanwhile continues to cite a 2000 year old book as un-erring and un-improvable.
Flat Earth?
Sun revolves around Earth?
Jesus was the Peter Popoff of his time.
August 10th, 2009 at 17:35
Dear Pete, You said:
“Just a couple of points numbskull, Darwin wrote ABOUT evolution, he didn’t create it.”
————-Yes. This wasn’t Darwin’s theory. It was part of his families value system. That is why I mentioned he was a 3rd generation evolutionist. His grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was a propounder of “transmutationism” which was evolution by another name. Myths of this sort have been floating around since about 3 B.C. Darwin panicked and threw “Origin of the Species” out there before anyone else could become famous for it. Many people, at that time, were writing identitical papers. If Darwin hadn’ published it, someone else would’ve done it. There was nothing special or new about it, but most people didn’t know that.
“Some of Darwin’s theories have been expanded upon, his book does contain errors, but subsequent scholars have ADDED to the well of human knowledge by writing other books.”
————–Yes. In fact, they’ve written entirely different theories because Darwinism is so lacking. Don’t worry, Pete. You can continue to be a atheist as science topples Darwinism. At that point you may want to change the name of your affliation from “atheist” to something like, “the bright ones.” Or “Brights”, for short.
“Our deluded friend meanwhile continues to cite a 2000 year old book as un-erring and un-improvable.
————–The Bible is not a science book. It is however, the most unique book on the planet! Written over a 1500 year span, over 40 generations, by 40 different authors over 3 continents and in 3 different languages — all written harmoniously on 100’s of different topics. 25,000 manuscripts across 3 different continents. Ancient literature was rarely translated into other languages. It puts any other work of antiquity to shame. The next closest would be The Illiad with only has 643 manuscripts found to date. To be skeptical of the Bible means you’d have to throw out every other work of antiquity. Check out John Rylands Libary in England, British Museum, the Bodner Library in World Literature, Beatty Museum in Dublin.
“Flat Earth? Sun revolves around Earth? Jesus was the Peter Popoff of his time.”
————–The Bible doesn’t say the earth was flat or the Sun revolved around the Earth. It seems you are criticizing a work you’ve never even read. Your comments are very similar to other atheists I’ve met who parrot what they hear their other angry, uninformed friends say; mostly name calling, no logic.
August 10th, 2009 at 18:58
Isa11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
Rev7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.
August 10th, 2009 at 19:15
@imissbubby
You show me a mountain from which you can see ALL of the Earth!
“The devil took him [Jesus] up into an exceedingly high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.”
- Matthew 4:8
Galileo was charged with heresy by the Vatican for his theory that the sun was the centre of the solar system, in conflict with the unerring word [sic] of the bible.
* I Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
* Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm…”
* Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable…”
* Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
* Isaiah 45:18: “…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…”
There are even Christians to this very day who believe that the Earth is the centre of the universe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X1isrPVtlo
So which Christians are right, the flat Earthers, or an enlightened Christian like you?
The problem is that, over the centuries, as science proved the bible to be flawed it has divided Christianity into those that accept new discoveries, and those that refuse to accept that the bible could be wrong.
The bible compiled by scholars, don’t make me laugh, it was written by story tellers, and translated, corrupted and misinterpreted by many over the centuries. As a book of science and education, it has been superseded by advances in understanding of our surroundings.
Scientists live with the fact that their hypothesis may be disproved, either in the short term, or the long term. If Darwin were alive today he would be amazed at how his work has moved forward .
Darwin’s work was completed a decade before he published, but fear of backlash from the church prevented him from publishing. He finally published when he found that someone else was about to publish his works, but Darwin’s was better and gained widespread recognition by the scholars of the time.
I’m quite happy with the knowledge that the Earth is comprised of elements of the periodic table, and that they came together in a cosmic reaction. I’m quite happy in the knowledge that when my life ends, there is no more.
You differ from the religious that I’ve encountered before, in that you haven’t, as yet, threatened me with hellfire and everlasting damnation, the very thing that prompted Ariane to start this whole ABC in the first place.
August 10th, 2009 at 19:24
@imissbubby
I don’t think many atheists will have any difficulty in agreeing that the bible is, in its way, a pretty unique book. Some passages are unbelievably weird. What they would like explained however is what was it about its authors (or the time they lived in) that made them especially susceptible to “divine” revelation. Supposing I or you or the pope for example have a particularly vivid dream that we could interpret as a message from “god” isn’t that as equally valid as a 2000 year old one ?
August 10th, 2009 at 20:09
@quedula
but also @imissbubby
Peter Popoff claims to hear the word of god, as do many televangelists in their fund raising TV infomecials, so why does their word not appear in the bible?
As quedula points out, the bible hasn’t been updated in many years, whereas a good scientific journal would be updated as knowledge is amassed.
August 10th, 2009 at 20:24
Dear Pete: You quoted scripture:
“The devil took him [Jesus] up into an exceedingly high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.”
————–Are you aware that the Bible was written in different literary forms? One of the literary forms common during that time was poetic/dramatic to make a point. The point of this scripture was that Jesus was tempted by the devil with power. The reason it was written with such vivid language was to make a dramatic point of just how big the package was the devil was offering Jesus in exchange for His devotion.
“Galileo was charged with heresy by the Vatican for his theory that the sun was the centre of the solar system, in conflict with the unerring word [sic] of the bible.”
—————The Vatican also includes in their doctrines, traditions that God never imposed on anybody. They also included in their Bible, ancient epistles and letters that are known to be fraudulent.
” I Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
* Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm…”
* Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable…”
* Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
* Isaiah 45:18: “…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…”
—————The point is to think about how solid the Earth is and how much moreso, the Person who made it. Not sure what your point is.
“There are even Christians to this very day who believe that the Earth is the centre of the universe.”
—————-That’s not my problem. There are atheists that believe child molesting is okay. Is that your problem? Should that reflect poorly on you?
“So which Christians are right, the flat Earthers, or an enlightened Christian like you?”
————–I believe the Bible is Word of God. Science hasn’t proven that wrong.
“The problem is that, over the centuries, as science proved the bible to be flawed it has divided Christianity into those that accept new discoveries, and those that refuse to accept that the bible could be wrong.”
————–Well here’s the problem, Pete. Until DNA was decoded (1950sih) atheists would’ve said Christians were stupid because the only socially acceptable belief in science was d-evolution. Now we know, there is no way Darwin’s theory could be right because molecular biology tells us its not possible and the fossil record tells us there’s no evidence. What can we learn from all this? That the Christians were stupid for only a period of time (1850-1948)?
“The bible compiled by scholars”
————–The Bible was compiled because the churches needed to know which books should be read, revered, and applied to their life because, as you know, the world was very hostile towards Christianity back then. (Burning them alive, throwing them to the lions, beheadings…) Secondly, Christianity was spreading so quickly there was a tremendous need to translate it into different languages. Missionaries could not translate a Bible that didn’t exist, so they needed to know which codexes and scrolls should be translated. They used five tests for inclusion: 1.) Was the person a spokesman for God? 2.) Was the writer backed up my miracles? Miracles (what a materilist would call “low probability”) were an act of God to confirm the writer. Miracles separated true prophets from false ones. 3.) Did the message tell the truth? The policy was “if in doubt, throw it out.” 4.) Was the message already with authority? In other words, if the message codex or scroll was not already transforming lives, then God was not behind it. The codex and scrolls didn’t get authority from being complied by the early church fathers. They already had it. 5.) Did the people of God accept it? If it was being used and recieved, it was considered “canonical.” Remember back then books were not ubiquitous. All the books/codex has to pass all 5 tests.
“don’t make me laugh, it was written by story tellers,”
——————They were recording history. This is why archeolgical evidence is so important. Archeology has never found one thing to contradict the Bible (unlike the Mormons.) Archeology doesn’t prove the Bible is the Word of God, but it does confirm its authenticity. The book of Luke for example lists 32 countries, 54 cities and 9 islands with not a single mistake.
“and translated,”
————–one time. From the Greek to the English. From the Hebrew to the English. From the Aramaic to the English. From the Greek to the Spanish, from the Hebrew to the Spanish, from the Aramaic to the Spanish, etc.
“corrupted”
————–What did it say before it was corrupted? What youre saying is simply not the evidence we have in history. Within 2 weeks of Jesus death & resurrection, 10,000 Jews had renounced their heritage and had changed the social structure (it is difficult for us in America to understand the significance of this.) Less than 20 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection, the first eye witness account was penned. From that first one written within 20 years, we have 25,000 original manuscripts across three different continents spanning hundreds and hundreds of years saying the same thing. Do you know how long after Alexander the Great’s death his first biography was written? More than 400 years after his death in 323 A.D. Why should I believe his biography? 400 years later??
“and misinterpreted by many over the centuries.”
————-Again, what youre saying is not based on the evidence we have all over the world. We have 25000 manuscripts corroborating the ones written within 20 of His death/resurrection. Do you know how long it takes for something to become a legend? More than 2 generations. There simply was not enough time for Jesus to have become a legend. Everything happened too fast. Now, we can get history delivered to us within 2 minutes after it happens. Back then, not so fast.
“As a book of science and education,”
————-The Bible is not a science book.
“it has been superseded by advances in understanding of our surroundings.”
————–Again, please give me one example.
“Scientists live with the fact that their hypothesis may be disproved, either in the short term, or the long term. If Darwin were alive today he would be amazed at how his work has moved forward .”
————–Not much has changed since Darwin wrote it. It wasn’t based on tested science and still isn’t. Ev
“Darwin’s work was completed a decade before he published, but fear of backlash from the church prevented him from publishing.”
—————It took him that long to write it. He didn’t release it faster because no one agreed with him. Everytime he tried to get one of his contemporaries to back him up, they either said, “There’s no way this is true” or “It could be true if…” as in the case with Asa Gray who brought it to Harvard in America.
“He finally published when he found that someone else was about to publish his works, but Darwin’s was better and gained widespread recognition by the scholars of the time.”
————-Only because Darwin was richer and his family name was more prestigious. There was nothing ingenious about it.
“I’m quite happy with the knowledge that the Earth is comprised of elements of the periodic table, and that they came together in a cosmic reaction.”
————–You seem to have an irrational level of faith in the powers of chance.
“I’m quite happy in the knowledge that when my life ends, there is no more. You differ from the religious that I’ve encountered before, in that you haven’t, as yet, threatened me with hellfire and everlasting damnation, the very thing that prompted Ariane to start this whole ABC in the first place.”
—————–Well, Ive enjoyed bantering with you, Pete. I like hearing what the atheists have to say. Have a great day. Miss Bubby.
August 10th, 2009 at 20:31
Quedela, You said:
“What they would like explained however is what was it about its authors (or the time they lived in) that made them especially susceptible to “divine” revelation.”
————–God picked whom He wanted ot.
“Supposing I or you or the pope for example have a particularly vivid dream that we could interpret as a message from “god” isn’t that as equally valid as a 2000 year old one ?”
————–After Jesus resurrected, He gave us the Holy Spirit that comes to live inside of us. He said that’s why it was better that He go back to the Father. In essence, He has delegated the Kingdom of God us. He has given for us to do something He could do better and easier.
If a believer has “vivid dream” its valid if it doesn’t conflict with the Bible. Joseph Smith is a good example of somone who had to run off and start his own religion because the Christians booted him out. Adultery 38 times over cannot be backed up with Scripture.
August 10th, 2009 at 20:36
Dear Pete,
“Peter Popoff claims to hear the word of god, as do many televangelists in their fund raising TV infomecials, so why does their word not appear in the bible?”
—————-There’s nothing else to add to the Bible. We have everything we need. What are we supposed to being doing now, 2000 years after Jesus died? What the Bible says to do until the end comes (Book of Revelation.)
—————-When you get really rooted and familiar with Scripture, you can easily spot someone who’s theology is whacked. You can either correct them or pray for them. Everyone is a work in progress and become Christ-like takes more a lifetime…more than a lifetime
“As quedula points out, the bible hasn’t been updated in many years, whereas a good scientific journal would be updated as knowledge is amassed.”
————–Again, the Bible is not a science book. Why would it have to be updated?
August 10th, 2009 at 20:55
@imissbubby
“There are atheists that believe child molesting is okay. Is that your problem? Should that reflect poorly on you?”
This is the only comment that rattled my cage, so I feel compelled to respond.
Are Catholic priests not Christians? Explain please, why a North American Catholic diocese had to file for bankruptcy to save itself from paying out millions in compensation to children molested by priests. Where is the goodness of Christianity, and what happened to the morality, the church was more concerned with saving it’s dollars than the souls of the victims.
Christianity has a long history of violence and immoral deeds, and it hasn’t changed one iota as far as I can see.
There are so many factions of Christianity now, and they all claim that THEY are the true Christians, just like you do in fact!
This man claims to be a christian, and claims to speak for god, is he right, or are you the righteous one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maeNk2itmMk
August 10th, 2009 at 21:29
imissbubby
“————–God picked whom He wanted to.”
So what you are saying is that some people were especially picked by god because they were especially picked by god.
Wow, that’s a good argument! Unanswerable. I give up.