What do we think about the "there's probably no God" busses?

same, looks great, t-shirt too

New World Order propaganda to pave the way to the Antichrist.

I agree that every side of every argument has the right to exibit his/her opinion. I have no problem with it as long as it is not “In my face” and filled with dire warnings designed to scare me into submission.

I am not surprised or shocked that Christian groups complain. I mean, we complain about Christian groups coming to our door, no? Everybody complains about each other.

That said, I do like the idea of everyone having a say, and I appreciate a bit of balance in the market for people who are religion shopping.

I wouldn’t mind ads from other religions, too. It’s not just the Atheists Vs The Christians in the world. If a Hindu group put out, “There probably is a Shiva, so enjoy the dance!” or a Native American group put out “Thank the Corn Mother for your junk food,” that would be great, too.

@laureth when I say complaints, I don’t mean general talk amongst friends. I mean ringing up the bus company to tell them to take it down. That’s like me ringing up the organisation of Jehovah’s Witnesses going “STOP COMING TO MY HOUSE DO YOU KNOW HOW OFFENSIVE IT IS!!!”

Everyone has a right to their opinion, even if their wrong.

@cage – I see your point. In general, most atheists seem to have only the power of reason, not fanaticism. Sadly, one is more tenacious than the other.

While I’m not in the “God” camp, I think this kind of thing only serves to stir up divisiveness and anger. Can anyone actually imagine that a believer is going to read that and change his mind? It will raise a cheer from those who are already agnostic, but that just plays into the “our side vs. their side” mentality that has non-believers have always found objectionable among believers.

@Harp can you imagine that a guy handing me a leaflet in the street telling me to believe in a guy that lived 2000 years ago and believe in a book we don’t even know the author of is going to change my mind…?

@Harp also, this action is atheist not agnostic.

no more offensive than these
http://www.crainium.net/jdjArchives/ChurchSigns.jpg
http://samluce.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/loser.jpg
http://www.funnyandjokes.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/on-your-knees-church-sign.jpg
http://stopchurchsigns.askingy.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/religion.jpg
http://lh3.ggpht.com/nazareneuk/RmJvEycZDXI/AAAAAAAAANY/C6nXYZibe_A/s400/sign_hearts.jpg
http://www.layersuponlayers.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/funny_church_signs_010.jpg
http://www.bolditalic.com/quotulatiousness_archive/Dscn1470sm.jpg
http://mikefrizzell.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/churchsign1.jpg
http://sblom.com/cbs/sign54.jpg
http://iambilly.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/church-sign.jpg
and millions more, soooo a couple of buses shouldn’t be too much of a problem…

@harp: When I drive down the freeway, sometimes I see those God Billboards. (Even though the campaign is over, some billboard owners put them up as a public service when there’s available space.)

Do those change a non-believer’s mind?

And whether or not they change someone’s mind, it amazes me that they’re a PSA now. I’m wondering how the bus messages are any less of a PSA than a God Speaks billboard.

It’s true that they stir stuff up, but in some cases, I think stuff needs stirred up.

or look at American money
http://coins.about.com/od/worldcoins/ig/World-Coins-Gallery-Index/American-Money---Coins.htm

So if we all recognize that nothing on a leaflet or billboard or bus is likely to change one’s fundamental views on God, and we’re tired of attempts to change our point of view, then what purpose is served by escalating the polemic?

Look at @seVen ‘s answer. This kind of “counter-attack” strategy simply reinforces this kind of “Satan’s forces are arrayed against us” mentality, and does nothing to undermine their position. Causing both sides to dig their trenches a little deeper won’t resolve the conflict.

Seeing someone claim that atheist messages on public transport are New World Order propaganda that paves the way for an antichrist does a lot to undermine their position for me, for what it’s worth. It’s hard for me to take that kind of thing seriously, and as a whole, I think reactions like that (which can look pretty far-out-there) show religious fanaticism in a ridiculous light.

So, @Harp, what do you suggest for the Atheist? Those who aren’t religious are bombarded daily by religious messages – they’re becoming a very accepted thing in society. We’re fed religion in ways that, were the tables turned, would make the religionists say things about it being a New World Order plot, but we’re supposed to not say anything in return, to turn the other cheek, and just accept that our message is unwelcome in a supposedly secular (but de facto religious) society? Why is it OK for Christian messages to be posted everywhere, but to put up our own makes for fighting and polemic?

I’m not trying to antagonize you, Harp. I think you’re right, it does inspire stuff-stirring, but I don’t know a way to restore balance that doesn’t involve accepting a Jesusified culture, and I’m wondering if you have a better way.

@seVen do you find it interesting that a lot of responses to atheism by Christians is “you;re going to die/go to hell/the world is going to end”?
Whilst most non-believer responses are usually “meh, I’m happy :)”
I’ve got to be honest, if this trend continues, the anti-christ seems like he would be a happy guy.

for ONCE!?!?!? the entire world is anti-God!!! Christians can’t even put up the birth of Jesus during CHRISTmas anymore!! they took God out of the remake of the congress, christians/republicansate the laughingstock of the world! how is this balanced?

@futurelaker88 – If they can’t put up Nativity scenes, why are there so many of them put up? If there are no God messages around, why do I see the God billboards, and why do I get door-to-door religion salesmen every few months? I’ll agree that God doesn’t belong in Congress (I never voted for him), but God is still on the money. God’s message seems to be everywhere.

@futurelaker88

It’s called freedom of religion. And the times are changing.

Personally, I’m happy with it. :) I’m a Republican, but not a Christian. I’m SICK of having propaganda being shoved down my throat. To see that America is changing so that non-Christians are being more accepted, well, this is VERY good.

The Republican party also needs to change. Want to know WHY we’re the laughing stock of the world? Because we have people like Palin who are stupidly religious and a joke of a human. The party must reform themselves and not buy into idiotic ideology.

@seekingwolf Palin was “stupidly religious”?

Ummmmm, let’s see, what would that make George?

George Bush =brain-dead

@pekenoe

I don’t know who was MORE religious, Palin or Bush, but it’s pretty close. Same with stupidity.
>< Okay, I don’t like either of them. I just mentioned Palin because she is fresh in my mind right now.

u call todays society the reflection of a good direction? really. interesting. i see the greatest national debt ever, war, horrifying economy, and more crime and hatred then ever. is it a America was the greatest country in the world and it’s foundations were based on pure Christianity, and now that we make a “VERY good” turn, so does the country

@laureth I’m very much for fighting to keep religion out of government (as are many believers). I think that is where the legitimate battle lies. And I don’t think the “God vs. no God” debate advances that more important cause. Keeping government secular isn’t ultimately about whether or not there is a God, and this kind of debate confuses that issue.

“foundations based on pure Christainity.”

fun fact: Most of the Founding Fathers were not Christians, they were deists. (go look it up). So much for your foundation.

national debt, war, crime hate…and who is our leader? BUSH.
Look, I’m a REPUBLICAN and I’m admitting this. Our leader sucks.

You can’t attribute the above problems to Christianity coming out of favor. You CAN attribute them to an idiotic Fundamentalist president.

Congrats, I have just ripped up your argument.

I’m really glad that these messages are out there. There was a program on NPR the other day that spoke about the ads on buses in DC. I think it’s great that the Atheist/Agnostics aren’t afraid to express themselves. Believers should just relax and let others have a voice as well.

not even close dude. im talking about society even before bush #1, and the founding fathers (whom I’ve thoroughly studied) almost ALL believed in God, and that to run the country apart from a strong belief in God and Christian morals would lead to sure disaster. so wait…oh yea,

yours is destroyed

@futurelaker88

Seriously look up deists. Oh, wait, I’ll just do it for you.

Deists believe that God made the world, and then DID NOTHING ELSE. Nothing. No Jesus Christ, no miracles, no talking to people. He just let the people make lives for themselves.

Thus, NO Jesus, NO Christian morals, NO churches…etc. NO 10 COMMANDMENTS even.

Very different from Christianity, yes? Obviously you didn’t study the Founding Fathers. Or you were reading an inaccurate textbook. You should get better ones.

or you should study all of the information and not just the stuff you like to hear

@futurelaker – who started that war you’re talking about? A very religious President, if I recall. Who grew the debt to such outrageous proportions? The same Godly President.

And also, this is where I get to bring out my The U.S. was not founded on Christianity link.

@futurelaker88

Maybe you should stop reading bad textbooks. :) Many historians are on my side. Let them speak for me.

it’s a fact man..one nation under God..in God we trust!! we WERE founded on Christianity whether u like it or not!!!

The “one nation under God” was not around at the Founding, and “In God We Trust” was not the motto then (it was “E Pluribus Unum”).

@futurelaker88

No need to get all emotional man. You’re resorting to “God talk”.
We weren’t founded on Christian morals. Sorry you aren’t able to understand this.

It’s Sunday, why not go to church. Everyone there will have no idea what the true US history was and will agree with you.

@laureth

Thanks I was just going to say that :D

u guys are picking on minor little things that still don’t have anything to do with the fact
that we are a Christian nation.

were i mean. obviously not anymore

Well you are ignoring the big facts, sir.

We never were a Christian nation, and (hopefully) never will be.

I am at church. look you DONT know everything after all!

LOL you’re at church, RIGHT now?
What, are you on your iPhone?
You should be listening!!! awful awful!

more than a third of the founding fathers were pastors

and it’s over now. but im still here. again you are wrong. keep going tho, ur proving
that there are things you don’t know

@Harp: You’re right, keeping it out of the government is pretty important. On the other hand, everywhere I look, something has been influenced by religion – everything from lower pay for women (because they should really be at home minding the children, being provided for by the man) to the closing of businesses for Christmas. Not everyone is religious, though, and I favor almost any attempt to maintain a secular society. Also, it’s not that I necessarily want all the pro-God stuff taken down, it’s that I want more representation for all.

I’m aware that I’m the minority. don’t think ur bringing me into this new light. Jesus – “remember, when the world hates you, it hated me first.”

LOL pastors in what? You’re being silly and ignorant

Seriously, I need to go and do some studying. I’m done arguing with a Christian who obviously doesn’t like to read. How sad. You’re just like Bush.

Well as the Romans used to say “Vale stulte” or “farewell sir”
veiled

Oh now, I don’t hate you. I just think you’re horribly wrong and need to read some more.
I wouldn’t try to bring you into the light because frankly, I don’t think you could understand it.

Even if 1/3 of them WERE pastors, that means 2/3 were not.

However, I think there was only one pastor at the Constitutional convention. Winthrop?

Geez I haven’t argued like that in ages. >< my claws really came out.
I feel kinda bad

what another great question asked by cage. Meaningful and it sparks debate

@futurelaker88 and I quote “and it’s over now. but im still here. again you are wrong. keep going tho, ur proving that there are things you don’t know”
When the hell did @seekingwolf say he was a phychic?

lol me too. sorry if it got personal man

Yeah, sorry man.
Actually, I’m a female, and I’m no psychic.

lol neither am i. sometimes these talks are good. we don’t get to have them regularly and when one starts, people go crazy.

and just for the record, I’m glad I live in England where we don;t have many religious extremists

extremists in my definition are the ones that are like “OMFG JESUS IS NOT REAL MAN. IT’S SCIENCE!” or “I found Jesus, AND YOU SHOULD FIND HIM TOO!!!”

I’m with Harp on this one.

This kind of advertising campaign does nothing but stoke the flames of the cultural warfare (as can be seen above) that has arisen out of varied beliefs about spirituality and religion. It also makes me wonder where the money came from for this and who would stand to benefit from it.

Not to say that the guys with the billboard of aborted babies and religious propaganda shouting into megaphones in Times Square are any better.

But the point is, do we need an escalating battle over whose beliefs are right? Isn’t that already happening enough in the world?

I think that American government has been far more effected by the beliefs of the elected leaders, of whom the majority have been Christian. But that may simply reflect the fact that they felt they were representing the belief of the majority of their constituents. Not because they felt as though they were on a mission from God.

~ (Of course, GW was one of the rare minority who actually were on a mission from God, he said so…)

@cage

That’s one of the MANY reasons why it’s my dream to move to England when I’m done with school.

Anyways, peace out people.
I need to go grab my breakfast.

@fireside the money came form the national society of Atheists (or something)

@fireside – lots of people donated.

http://www.atheistcampaign.org/

@laureth – yeah, i just found more info

omg, I just found this:
“Heather said he had been particularly offended by the name of the website featured on the ad, atheistcampaign.org.”
Heather being the bus driver who refused to go to work.
Does this mean atheists have the right to go around going “christianevidencesociety.org.uk how offensive! A group of people standing up for what they believe in!?!?! DISGRACEFUL!”

Okay, this one is from way left field, but here goes. You can keep the JWs off your doorstep. All it takes is a little creativity. JWs have two lists. One is a temporary list. The other is permanent. I am on their permanent list, surprised? To get on their permanent list, you simply have to considered unattainable, as in unlikely to convert. I could tell you stories of how many of my friends got on the permanent list. How I did it was easy. I simply got them to tell me their views on space aliens (i.e. little green men) coming to earth. Then, I asked for their home addresses and offered to pick them up and take them back to my home planet when the Mother Ship came back for me. Bingo! I was instantly on that much wished for permanent list.

As for other folks who want to convert me, I simply ask them if I show up on their doorstep on Saturdays trying to convert them to atheism. When they say no, I reply, “So what gives you the right to do it to me on my day off?” They usually get the point. If not, one of these on your front door will usually do the trick.

Do you have any tips for Mormons or garden variety Evangelicals? Sometimes I’m tempted to answer the door naked, but I only want them to go away, not be turned into stone.

@laureth – a friend of mine had agreed to meet with some Mormons on a certain day. Well, that day came ad there was a group of us in his apartment “having fun” and they showed up. He had us hang out in his room while he went to the living room to watch their video. His TV channels had all been programed to display swear words for some reason. When he turned the tv on it said F**K for 30 seconds until it the display faded. They didn’t call him again

These comments sound like there are some personal attacks going on, that have nothing to do with buses. To those, I would say, stay on subject.

Back to the question;

The buses should not offend anyone. If you are a believer, the sign will not sway your faith. If your not, it has no bearing.

If you believe in God, a sign or pamphlet or even a person cannot shake the faith.

If you believe there is no God, a sign or pamphlet or even a person cannot shake the faith.(not believing, is having faith in your viewpoint also).

If you are searching for what side you will be on, maybe.

I would suggest that if your so offended by the sign or believe that the bus could sway your kids or those around you, maybe you need to re-evaluate your chosen side.

Seriously, I don’t see how anyone can deny anyone else their right to make a statement.

Then again, I am a Christian and we made a living doing that sort of thing for hundreds of years.

As an atheist it doesn’t offend me, however, what’s the point of all this? Why piss people off? I try to have respect for others and their beliefs. I must admit I get sick of all the religious propaganda, but that doesn’t necessitate retaliation.
But that’s just me. I could be wrong.

at the end of the day i know its good for peops to have faith’n’all it helps some through bad times so thats good, how can it not be ? as long as they dont become too reliant. We only have to look to science now where god is concerned.

There is a church where i live with a sign stating “bibles that are falling apart are usally read by people that aren’t.” i personally dont take that message any different to the one on the bus.

I too live in uk and sometimes get the christian group chaps knocking on the door with the leaflets and they ask me if id like to know the “truth” and i can see they are so convinced.

@AstroChuck but don’t you think it’s good that Christians are getting a taste of their own shove-it-in-your-face—medicine?

I understand what you’re saying, I just care about that. I have nothing against most Christians. I don’t see the point in conflict. Why stir the pot? Just let the self-rightious evangelists and their smugness be. It doesn’t really matter to me.

If the busses are part of public transportation and if the country espouses separation of church and state, I don’t think that message should be on the busses. I find it offensive as it unneccesarily enflames people of faith. I don’t think strongly Christian messages have a place on public transportation, either.
What position does England take as far as church/state is concerned today?

@cage – don’t make the mistake of equating God with Christians. I think AstroChuck is right, you have to look at your actions and ask if they will promote unity or divisiveness.

Don’t become the person you hate just to shove their tactics back in their face.
That just lessens your personal dignity.

I think the existence of a State church in England speaks strongly for the place of religion in government, but I could be wrong. Is the Anglican faith still preeminent?

I just want that shirt.
in less princess-like colors perhaps

It’s one campaign. It is great to see some balance to the religious propaganda that has been around forever.

I think we are a little over-enthused about this type of message here in the U.S. as we are just coming out of eight years of wrong-headed (possibly criminal) leadership that was fueled by the very public guidance of christianity. Looking for some payback as it were.

Ultimately, I agree with @fireside and @AstroChuck – although I would would clarify by saying I don’t hate overtly religious people. They annoy and frustrate me with their blind devotion and need to convert the rest of us.

That being said, I have two very good friends who are devoutly Mormon. Religion is simply off-the-table in our friendship. We’re respectful of each other’s beliefs (or non-beliefs). Works great. This is what we should be striving for in the larger, world-wide debate.

I’m chiming in with some on topic information (very unusual for me, usually by the time I get to a tread this long, I’m chomping at the bit to add tangent upon tangent)

The atheist bus campaign was a direct response to the Alpha Course ads that were(are?) appearing on buses in the U.K. The Alpha Course is some christian attempt at conversion through a 10 week course. The URL’s on the Alpha Course ad linked to pages that said you were going to hell if you did not accept jesus as your lord and savior. “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying about it and enjoy your life” was very purposefully written. I think it is the perfect response to someone spouting the hateful message, that we are going to hell.

And keep in mind that when an atheist says “probably no God”, you can’t really debate it. All signs point to the likely hood that the capital ‘G’ god does not exist. (ie. failed scientific studies on the power of prayer, failed prophesies by believers, higher abuse rates among christian families) This is enough to very truthfully use the word “probably” when talking about the existence of the big ‘G’ god.

Oh and to @futurelaker88
All your arguments so far for the America being founded on christianity have not supported your stance, but have indeed supported our forefathers deist beliefs. Because you believe in god does not make you a christian. Our constitution does not mention jesus. (if it had, you would have a point)

@fireside I’ve mentioned I’m agnostic and I didn’t put any of my money towards this movement.
My dignity has not been lessened at all, that’s for me to decide/feel thank you.

@Noon GA’d
@cprevite I agree it is great to see some balance which is exactly why I said that in the description of the question. GA’d

@cage can i just ask who is responsible for the message exactly? I’ve read a lot of this thread but not every line so apologies if that’s been asked before

I believe there is a god.. or God rather…whichever, I’m not that fussed.

I’d not heard about these buses until just now and being from England not that it matters a huge amount and having seen advert after advert about the Alpha Course I think these bus signs are GREAT.

For so long now the church and organized religion has looked down upon non-believers in their self-righteousness. If the “church” is going to sit on their high horses and tell people that they are wrong, going to hell etc they are not goign to win anyone over. Fighting bus campaigns like this is also not going to do them any favours.

If Christianity wants to do anything even remotely “godlike” or following the words and paths, lessons of Jesus, maybe it should jump on the bloody bus, stop whining and give people a little compassion and show some humility. Or perhaps not tell people that they are going to hell in the first place.

If God is the back slapping dude that i reckon he is he’s not going to be sending people to hell just cause they don’t get their butts out of bed on a Sunday and fall asleep through a boring outdated service.

P.S I do know some VERY good churches )people of God – not the buildings) and some great Christians, but generally as a rule, they don’t do themselves the service God would have them do

@cage – sorry, i wasn’t saying you specifically were losing dignity. That’s just a general rule that I believe holds true for everyone.

If I don’t like people who go around picking fights and I go out and beat them up, am I any better than they are?

I think that one can feel a sense of their own inner dignity, but how they portray it is taken and assessed by others. It is important to assess the tactics you use to make your point because those tactics will be seen by others and judged, right or wrong.

@ cage – what does ” GA’d ” mean?

Our current Western Civilization was founded on Christian beliefs and moralities, so don’t be surprised if some people get upset when their beliefs are walked on.

Honestly, hardcore Atheists are as annoying as the hardcore Christians.

What exactly is a hardcore aheist?

If anyone finds it worrisome to think about whether there is or isn’t a God, then perhaps it is best they stop “worrying” about it. That much I’d agree with.

But since I’m a Christian, I would naturally not much like the first half of their tagline. It would be just as appropriate to say, ”“There probably is a God. Now (if you belelive in Him) stop worrying about it and enjoy your life.”

I LOVE religious debate. Unforunately, this debate should be about freedom of expression. We all have the right to state our beliefs. We all have the right to piss and moan about the beliefs that don’t coincide with our own.

What I’ve seen in this thread makes me proud. Heated debate, angry words, self-righteousness, all have been prevalent here. What makes me proud is that nobody told anybody else to shut up. Nor has anyone brought up a point in favor of censoring the other.

This doesn’t sound like much but speaks volumes about the folks on this site. While not an agreeable bunch you do understand that everyone has a right to speak.

[dabs the tears from the corners of his eyes]

I love you guys :)

And no one has attacked someone’s character.

@btko – you say, “Our current Western Civilization was founded on Christian beliefs and moralities”—but Western Civilization began long before Christ. You could more easily say that it’s built on Classical Greek culture.

@fireside my point was I am all for balance and this is why I have mentioned it multiple times already. I think that was quite obvious.
@Bri_L GA’d = Great Answer’ed
@AstroChuck I think a hardcore atheist would be the exact opposite of a hard core christian.
@Blondesjon ahh, yes… the making of a Great Question I do believe…...........

I’m not sure I enjoy the company of anyone who is “hardcore” anything.

By hardcore I mean people that can’t leave others well enough alone. Specifically I mean the Christians that push people to believe in God, and in contrast, the Atheists that push people not to.

@laureth, Well, we could more easily say Western Civilization was built on a foundation of Babylonian culture, not to mention – if it weren’t for the Muslims most of our Science and literature would have been lost through the Dark Ages… In other words, I was drawing line at +/- 2000 years because I currently see more Christian influences on society than Greek ones.

@btko – Fluther can be quite Socratic : )

@cdwccrn so youre saying you dont like anyone to be sure of their fate? youd rather have a world where NO on knows whats happening or what the point of life is?

I don’t see how “There probably isn’t a god stop worrying” can be considered punching someone back. I don’t really read this sign as being directed towards believers. I have been reading it as directed towards people who were hurt by believers having told them they would be going to hell. This is not a “he punched me so I punched him back” It’s more of a “He punched You, and I’m going to put some ice on it”

A side note about the guy who refused to drive a bus with this poster on it. How many times had he driven a bus advertising a movie that portrayed drug abuse, premarital sex? How many times had he driven a bus with advertisements with scantly clad woman and alcohol? Why did he speak up now? And not before?

When I hear the word “hardcore” I picture a fanatical, illogical madman who’s too blinded by his faith (in whatever that may be—“there is a god” or “there isn’t” or whatever he puts his faith in) to see anything beyond it, not necessarily a person who is simply “sure of their faith.” You can be faithful to something or someone without being a fanatic. I think that’s probably what cdwccrn is implying, but I could be wrong. >>shrugs<< That’s just one of those words that’s up for interpretation unless explained when used.

On another note, futurelaker, even if one claims to be “sure of their faith,” it doesn’t mean that they do know “what’s happening or what the point of life is,” not completely. They put their faith into certain things (beliefs, teachings, doctrines, etc.) and base their faith off the (rather) meager reality that they do know, the few things that have already been revealed to them (in light/spite of the truth) by their walk, so to speak, in this life.

I don’t know that my money will be in the bank when I wake up tomorrow money to make a witdrawl, but by faith (and previous experiences, my walk through this life) I believe that it will be there.

I guess my point is faith is common ground for everyone—atheists, gnostics, and all else. It’s an everyday part of life. And as our rights dictate, we all’ve got the right to express how we feel/think about things.

So to answer the question most simply of “what do you think,” I think it’s just another exercise of that right.

But honestly, there seems to be more to this question that that.

I think the British Humanist Association’s bus campaign was pretty mundane. The words chosen were not hateful, nor did they suggest a violent end to those who disagree. I also think that the pros and cons of such a campaign can’t be argued universally. The situation in England is extremely different from that in the U.S.,as they are in Italy, Canada, etc…, as are the circumstances which gave rise to this campaign. Such differences are unlikely to warrant using the same message within different cultures and I am surprised (considering the funding available to potentially do some market research ) to hear the similarity of these campaigns.

In some countries far greater ground needs to be covered with regard to reducing the bigotry against those who do not have a religious belief. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc. have helped to provide the rational justification for disbelief in the supernatural to those who chose to buy their books, what is needed now is not so much to hammer this message in the public sphere, but to improve the religious public’s perception of what humanist’s, secularists, freethinkers, etc. stand for. The argument against the existence of a supernatural entity is a complex one that needs to be worked through, layer upon layer, to make any ground. You can’t do this on the side of a bus.

So I think it perfectly reasonable to have a campaign, but I really think they chose the wrong target in addressing the non-existence of god. Far better to point out what Humanist’s stand for. I love the idea regarding putting up quote’s from famous secularists, freethinkers etc. Make it positive stuff. Famous atheist’s who have fought for women’s rights, racial equality, reducing poverty. Quotes about protecting children’s rights or working for peace and the environment.

Many of these issues are universally respected, and to demonstrate that those who lack belief in diety have made or are making a really positive contributions to the well-being of others, would make a real difference to people’s perception of atheists and agnostics. And that to me is the real goal.

@Introverted_Leo – It may be true that people have “faith” that their money will be in the bank later or that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I think it’s a different kind of faith somehow from the faith in things unseen, unexperienced, and unproven. Or at least it’s “blind” vs “unblind” faith.

The Scientific Method is there to learn about things in a structured, logical way. To say that people take the results on faith, to me, takes the word “faith” to a bit of an extreme end. I suppose everything takes that kind of faith, even the faith that I will finish this sentence, but if you draw it out that far, does the word have any real meaning left?

I’m going to go along with this and use the analogy of a scientist and his experiments for a moment.

The scientist that actually conducts his observations and tests wouldn’t take his results on faith, per se, because he’s the one who conducted it in the first place; he was there and he saw what happened. Now, you could say that he’s taking his results on the good faith that he hasn’t erred in any sort of way during his experiment/tests. Of course, he can always find other people who say they’ve got the same results, and voila! You are working toward a consensus.

But for those who have not, for the sake of this example, conducted the expirement and observations themselves…cleary they are taking the results on faith that the scientist, or whoever, has got those results 100% right. The results get carried around by word of mouth, documentation, etc. and people willingly, for the most part, accept it—not necessarily because they understand it and have done the experiment themselves but because it comes from someone who’s practiced in their field for a substantial amount of time and is considered a credible professional.

But keep in mind that when people accept anything as true they choose to do so with a least a shred of logic. Just because a person uses logic, the scientific method, their experiences or observations, or anything else doesn’t mean that their perceptions about reality will always turn out to be true. Things come along and our understanding of our world is forever changing, so people are bound to be wrong every now and then. Some sometimes more than others, but that’s not really the point here.

One only needs to look at something like the emergence of man-made global warming to see how complex the relationship between reality, faith and people’s perception of reality truly is.

But of course this is different than religious faith, as there is no mention of any deity. Other than that, there isn’t really much of a difference. People study other people’s writings, things that have been passed down for centuries and millenia pertaining to things people have said they’ve seen, experienced, etc. They gather with other people who have come to the same religious conclusions and work toward some sort of consensus in their community. Will they always be right? Particularly in the religious field, probably not, because it deals with things that are more spititual in nature rather than physical. But just as someone’s bound to be wrong, someone’s bound to be right.

But there are different kinds of faith for different kinds of situations. I wouldn’t trust my God to fly down from heaven and make my bed for me every morning (for obvious reasons—though I do believe that if He really wanted to He could make that happen), but at the same time I wouldn’t trust my own eternal destiny to a figurine idol (for, I hope, equally obvious reasons—though people are willing to believe that, if their idol really wanted to, it could influence/control their eternal destinies). To distingush between the two does not lessen the concept of faith in any way. It’s just to say that faith exists in more than one form—religious and non-religious.

The reason I brought it up is because sometimes…it seems people’s views of “faith” can be rather narrow. To be able to see that people use faith on a daily basis to get through life just broadens that horizon and makes it easier (for me, at least) to understand where people are coming from with their thoughts, beliefs and opinions.

Like why Cage thinks this bus incedent is great. For him, it seems, it’s great because people who don’t believe in God are actually voicing their opinions publically. I gather that he doesn’t think they do it often enough, and maybe they don’t.

Cage, you said, “I find it shocking (but am not surprised) that this campaign has received complaints and that a Christian driver even refused to go to work.”

This doesn’t shock me at all, because what they are really doing is voicing their opinions and supporting their faith. What shocks me the most is that these sort of incedences like the bus aren’t happening more often! If you don’t believe in a god/deity, then why not utilize your rights more often and say so? Honestly, it is better than complaining about other people who are already doing so.

But to be fair, it’d be best if all people just stopped complaining about other people and their various faiths altogether; but that’s not how the world works. After all, “freedom of expression” includes the right to complain about other people.

I think the word faith can be used inclusively to refer to a whole bunch of things, but this approach is more than often applied in a manner to politely but purposely obscure the fundamental difference between scientific evidence and the type of faith we are discussing in this post, faith in the supernatural or religious faith.

Science relies on experimentation and observation as a basis for establishing and honing our understanding of our world around us. No evidence, no belief (just a hypothesis perhaps). Weak evidence, tentative consideration. Strong evidence, likely acceptance depending on the nature of the claims. Multiple independent lines of evidence, conscilience. At the basis of all this is how well the evidence is in keeping with other concepts. As Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. However, no matter how extraordinary the evidence, if contradictory evidence ever appears, then that which was once thought to be the best approximation of the truth, is refined to incorporate the new evidence or data or thrown out altogether.

Does this fail sometimes, yes of course. Humans are fallible, sometimes dishonest, and certainly capable of allowing their ego to get in the way of the evidence. But these problems are ubiquitous to all human endeavours, all we can do is put systems in place to maximise the potential for these false views being spotted and rectified as soon as possible. That is the basis for the philosophy of science. For good or for bad it works at describing the universe, because it relies on external evidence from the universe, not from our own internal desires.

Religious faith is exactly the opposite. It is perfectly acceptable, in fact encouraged, for people to embrace an inverse relationship between the strength of their convictions and the evidence for those convictions. For instance, there is no basis on which to verify one prophet’s claims of divine guidance against anothers. And yet people readily assign themselves to a given faith often for no reason other than cultural or parental guidance. There is no evidence for god, yet people claim to know his/her/their wishes and desires. There is no evidence for an afterlife, yet we are told that some of us will go to a nice place for eternity (if we of course follow the guidance of our local Imam/Pastor/Priest). The world is full of deeply religous people whose faith tells them complete opposites about the nature of reality. Considering that there are literally thousands of religions in the world, even if one was true, faith would have an awful track record as a basis for discovering the nature of the universe. Futhermmore, there is nothing written in any religious text that could not have easily be written by any human without divine guidance. In fact the world’s religious texts are so riddled with the bigotries of their era, as well as contradictions and false claims, it is hard to imagine how religions justify their own particular text’s claims of supernatural guidance. But perhaps, that white light of promised eternal life is pretty blinding.

Religious faith is unreliable because at its heart, unlike science, it is unfalsifiable.

We can use the word faith to mean many things in different circumstances. But when we mean “Faith”, it does not share very much at all with science, it is its antithesis, and to claim otherwise is to obscure rather than to clarify.

The evidence to support a prophet’s prophecy is quite simple: if their prophecy comes true, then it is validated.

As for people going “to a nice place for eternity (if [they] of course follow the guidance of our local Imam/Pastor/Priest)”... Now, I can’t speak for other religions, but this is not what the (non-denominational, meaning not Catholic, Mormon, etc.) Christian believes. That’s where faith in who Jesus claimed to be, the Son of God, makes this faith different from others in the world. What we believe is that it is not a person’s good deeds that saves him but the fact that Jesus claimed to all of mankind that He died for the sinful man who’d believe that faith in what He’s done is the only way to eternal life; that living in the faith that He will carry through with his promise of salvation for those who do believe is the only thhing the believer can to do to be saved. (Sorry, that was very wordy, but I’m not sure how else to phrase it.) Now, of course that doesn’t mean a believer can just sit back and start acting up like a fool, contining to do sinful things because that goes against the very point of being saved and overcoming one’s sinful nature in the first place.

This is probably one of the most misunderstood aspects of Christianity, is its most basic, purest form and I’m sure no one wants a sermon here (and I’m not lookin’ to give one), so I’m hoping this explanation has satisfactorily covered the jist of that.

“Considering that there are literally thousands of religions in the world, even if one was true, faith would have an awful track record as a basis for discovering the nature of the universe.”

I assume you mean religious faith, not just faith in general, so I will make reference to this. The point of religion and faith in God is not to better understand the physical nature of the universe as is the goal with science, so let’s make that point clear. The point of religion is to discover the nature of the human soul, how to go about morality, what to make of one’s spiritual life, etc. So yes, religion and gods would be an unreliable source for understanding the physical nature of the universe. That is why we have hands, eyes, ears, a mouth and a nose, senses and a brain to explore our universe on a more physical level.

But one should also consider the flip side: science would be an unreliable source when it comes to understanding the nature of man’s soul, spirituality and similarly related things.

What I’m saying is that reality is not just limited to the physical universe. People experience things that cannot be entirely explained by logic and science—dreams and visions, love, hate, sin, moarlity, guilt…heck, light can be considered something that has been thoroughly researched by the scientific community, but scientists still say that it reamains a rather baffling subject.

Though what’s to say that religion and science can’t complement each other and be used together to obtain a more holistic understanding of the universe? Yes, they have their respective areas of application, and yes, one should not be used to replace the other. But they are both useful in their own right.

“Futhermmore, there is nothing written in any religious text that could not have easily be written by any human without divine guidance.”

A discussion on this would really depend on your definition and understanding of “divine guidance.” If you believe there are no divine influences in this universe, then it would make sense to hold this view; but if you don’t, it would not make sense because the divine, or the supernatural, not only includes God but all of His creation—that includes entities such as Lucifer/Satan. Many religious people believe that there is something of a spiritual war being carried out as we speak, involving the forces of good and evil and the powers that be. So technically, with this perspective, “divine guidance” could swing in either direction—good or evil, truth or deception. But it’s pretty clear that discussion on this point, with diametric stances such as ours, would be entirely fruitless, so I wholly digress.

“In fact the world’s religious texts are so riddled with the bigotries of their era, as well as contradictions and false claims, it is hard to imagine how religions justify their own particular text’s claims of supernatural guidance.”

To be fair, anyone—religious or not—can be blinded by bigotry, be it divine or of their own making. It’s been encountered everywhere, including in the scientific community. But this does not lessen the importance, or even need, for things such as science and religion. But perhaps one person will claim he doesn’t really need religion, and perhaps a person might claim that they don’t really need science. If anyone does not wish to understand more about the fields that either of these things encompass, then who’s to stop them?

Anyways, this has clearly gone off-topic, so I apologize for the rather long tangent, lol.

An interesting tangent nonetheless…:)

I’m going to bang out a bunch of responses to various topics here. Hopefully you can make sense of them. Speaking of influences, I see more Greek/Roman influences on our government buildings than anything. Our founding fathers were deists, and how anyone assumes that this means Christian, I just don’t understand. As for hardcore atheists, those are the ones that want to do away with religion altogether. They want to treat theists much as the theists treated heretics in the Middle Ages, you know, public executions, burnings, death and dismemberment for having an unpopular idea or following the wrong set of ideals. That’s just insane.

Extremists of any stripe are not conducive to a free society.

As for letting the religious extremists alone, I have a problem with that, especially if they were to get enough of an organization together to rule America with a theistic form of government. A separation of Church and State exists for a reason. Just because someone thinks it can’t happen here doesn’t mean it won’t. No one figured that bin Laden would have his minions fly planes into a couple of tall buildings to incite terror. Some of the more fringe Christian elements are pretty scary, but fortunately, they are the minority. Yet their views are very much like any terrorist agenda, and they should be watched. All it takes is a catastrophe of some sort to get others on board. Fear is a very powerful motivator. Look how popular the whole End Times malarkey is, and it is based on what? Oh yeah, a book that has been rewritten so many times that we don’t even have access to the original anymore.

I’ve researched pretty broadly the acts of violence that have occurred over the centuries where people were massacred in the name of God, and some of the stuff done by the early Christians makes Hitler look like an amateur.

I believe America is a place for religious freedom, but it is also a place to be free from religion if that is your preference. Believers and nonbelivers should have the opportunity to discuss and debate this as they like, but it usually happens that one side or the other is reduced to ad hominem attacks.

@evelyns pet zebra – every one who SAYS they are a christian does not mean they are true biblical christians. catholics consider themselves christians, and their beliefs vary far from those clearly stated in the bible. the people who you speak of above were not bible believing born again christians. they had some type of misunderstanding. its obvious that no one who is a true christian can misinterpret the word of God to that extent. its as easy as that. they were not christians

@evelyns_pet_zebra the above was for you.. i couldnt see the underscores so it didnt work sorry

whooh 100th post!

@Introverted_Leo
I’m sorry, but science does have a say on many a religious claim. Science can carbon date idols and religious relics. Archaeologist have have not found any evidence of the exodus story. (I’ve said this before) But the power of prayer has been measured. Neroscience has shown the physical nature of many of what we would consider supernatural experinces. If religion attempts to make claim on anything that can be falsified by the scientific method, then they must be prepared to accept the findings.

Religion can claim knowledge of the “human soul” and “spiritual matters”. But they can not prove that the soul or spirit actually exists, and science has yet to find a soul/god/spirit in any of their models they have made for the universe we live in.

As far as morality, love, guilt. Evolutionary biology has found amazing information on the evolution of altruism, and morals. These things can be tested, and are not exclusive to religion. Also where are you getting this information on light. Light is quite understood.

Side note, it’s amazing how against the scientific method so many believers are. Yet, they don’t refuse medical care based on research that relies on the theory of evolution. They continue to use technology that is based on scientific discoveries. Does no one see the hypocrisy in this?

funny how some Christians like to judge other Christians by claiming said other Christians were/are not True Christians. I don’t understand the concept. If I don’t agree with the extremist Atheists that think all Christians are stupid and delusional half wits, do I assume they are not True Atheists? No, because the definition of atheist is someone who is of the mind that gods do not exist. A Christian is someone who follows the Christian faith. If one is not a True Christian, then he/she must be Buddhist or some other faith not pertaining to the OT/NT faith-based belief system.

@futurelaker, go here and then tell me that these people who follow the Dominionism system are not True Christians. (About halfway down the page). Read the page and see if what I say isn’t true. They take the bible as the literal word of their god. What more do they need to be True Christians?

@evelyns_pet_zebra they need whateve it is that tells them that the bible does in np way justify their actions and that they were not doing Gods work, but grossly misinterpreting something or just plain sinning. that’s what they need to be a true Christian

@evelyns_pet_zebra

“As for hardcore atheists, those are the ones that want to do away with religion altogether. They want to treat theists much as the theists treated heretics in the Middle Ages, you know, public executions, burnings, death and dismemberment for having an unpopular idea or following the wrong set of ideals. That’s just insane.”

Insane, and as a movement of legitimate concern, completely fictitious. I think I am reasonably familiar with the atheist literature and atheist popular pieces that dominant the public discourse. I’ve read what are referred to as the most popular and polemic pieces by atheists (Hitchens, Dennett (not that he is that polemic), Harris, Onfray, Mills, Pilmer, Williams, Sagan, Shermer) and never have I read or heard anyone push for anything more than conversational intolerance with respect to religious belief. Debate, nothing more. Keep a wall between religion and politics, nothing more. Would they like to see a world free of unsubstantiated superstition? Usually, but not always (Hitchens enjoys the debate too much to apparently want it gone). Do they respect belief in virgin births, original sin, eternal hell, a god who seems to have a lot of hang ups about sex? No.

I have no doubt that there are otherwise anonymous people in the world who are atheists and wish to torture people, hopefully they are in an asylum somewhere. But would you mind providing a source for a single atheist who has some influence on the public discourse who is sincerely calling for torture and bloodshed in order to further some evil atheist agenda to violently rid the world of peaceful theists simply because they disagree with their “wrong set of ideals”?

@futurelaker88

pet zerbra is correct. There’s even a name for the logical fallacy you’re committing, it’s called a no true Scotsman fallacy. I’m sure some of them make the same mistake and don’t consider you to be true Christian either.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/notruescotsman.html

I wasn’t gonna continue this, but seeing as no one’s objecting, mind as well!

“I’m sorry, but science does have a say on many a religious claim.”

Never said it didn’t. Like I said, I think the two should work together. There are many events within the book of Exodus, so I’m left to assume that you mean the parting of the Red Sea.

Looking for evidence of this parting first falls back to the interpretation of the Hebrew words for “Red Sea,” and scholars have acknowledged that there are several ways to interpret it. I’ve yet to hear of any conclusive scientific evidence for this parting either, but I wouldn’t be so hasty as to say there isn’t any evidence at all, only that none has presently been found. Some mysteries take a good deal of time to be unraveled, and not everything that needs to be discovered has been discovered in our present day. Maybe nothing will ever be found, and maybe it will; but perhaps it should be considered that the gun is being jumped here as far as the reality of the story goes. I’m willing to keep my options open.

“Religion can claim knowledge of the “human soul” and ‘spiritual matters’. But they can not prove that the soul or spirit actually exists.”

Religion doesn’t have a brain; it’s people who claim to have knowledge of these things. Of course, I have no idea what your understanding of the concepts of souls and spiritually are, but I suspect I understand them differently than you do. I understand the soul to be the essence of a human, put simply—the very part of his existence that makes him an individual living entity capable of perceiving and acting on concepts such as morality. Spiritual matters pertain to things that affect people on a profoundly deep, internal level, things that can weigh on their conscience, lift their “spirits,” etc. If you look up the definition of “spiritual” you’ll find that it’s not even acknowledged as a tangible thing.

But what is “proof?” Is it always physical, if not observable? Must the soul separate itself from the body and present itself in some tangible form for it to be acknowledged as proof? If people have souls and are capable of spirituality (which I’m convinced they are), then the proof would not be tangible. It’s something that’s experienced.

Again, this is what I mean by people limiting themselves to the physical, tangible universe.

“As far as morality, love, guilt. Evolutionary biology has found amazing information on the evolution of altruism, and morals.”

Sure, but perhaps you don’t understand why some people feel they need God in the first place. It isn’t enough for us to just understand how these things work. We want to improve upon these things and make ourselves better individuals; we aren’t satisfied with our moral state. Something in the very way that we think and act is off-kilter and keeps screwing up within us, making us susceptible to committing evils that we know are wrong. We continue to do things we know we ought not to do and vice versa. And as far as I can tell, science hasn’t offered any solutions to improving the overall human condition in this light, and that’s why people turn to God, religion, and such. It’s got nothing to do with what we can comprehend in a tangible/material way; it’s about our fundamental condition. (It’s pretty psychological, as well, so it naturally has to manifest itself in the physical world. But studying its effects aren’t the same as studying its origins.)

For others, they don’t see a problem within their selves or only think it to be natural and, therefore, acceptable. If that’s enough for a person, then they obviously would have no need for a God and religion.

“Also where are you getting this information on light[?]”

There is a particle theory for light and a wave theory. Is it a particle or a wave? Or is it both, as some suggest with the wave-particle duality? I haven’t seen any conclusion either way. We understand how it functions, but no one can really say what light is. Case in point, it still remains a mystery in that regard.

“Side note, it’s amazing how against the scientific method so many believers are. Yet, they don’t refuse medical care based on research that relies on the theory of evolution. They continue to use technology that is based on scientific discoveries. Does no one see the hypocrisy in this?”

I’ve never come across such a person, but that does seem backwards. But people tend to be hypocritical by nature, so I don’t really find it all that surprising.

Correction: I should have said, “It hasn’t got as much to do with what we can comprehend in a tangible/material way so much as it’s about our fundamental condition.”

i think it’s a good message. i have to admit, when i first clicked on the picture i smiled, but i also felt like religious folks were being attacked in a way. i definitely think the only reason for that second impression is because i’m not familiar with such straight forward things like that. i don’t see any problem with it, because if religious messages are expected to be accepted by the majority, whether the majority believes in it or not, so should a non religious message. it really isn’t offensive in any way, and i think it’s a good message.

If for some reason my tangent continues to draw discussion, may I redirect the discussion to this page? (since it has nothing to do with the bus, lol.) I feel bad that we’re not sticking to the original topic, so I made a new thread for it. Thanks. :)

@Introverted_Leo – you say, “Sure, but perhaps you don’t understand why some people feel they need God in the first place.”

It seems that science has also found some interesting things about that, too.

@Critter38, No I don’t have a resource for a legit organization that wants to eliminate religion. And since when does a threat have to be organized? If just one fair-sized church gets blown to bits full of worshippers by some nutjob, is that somehow less of a threat than an organized group that is taking on the entire religious collective? Is one unnecessary death somehow less terrible than a thousand?
We had a guy come to our city a few years ago from a different state and being an anti-abortion religious nutcase, he drove his car into a women’s health center, thinking it was an abortion clinic. The place caught fire and burned to the ground and he fled the scene, leaving his car in the building. What a dumbass. Fortunately, no one was there at the time. All it takes is one lunatic to get the ball rolling, and then it’s a case of mob rules. The cops caught the idiot and he is now doing time for the crime.

I have spoken to people who expressed the idea that Obama might be assassinated in the future because of his color. Those people are scary; I don’t believe that killing someone because you don’t agree with them is right. But those crazy fuckers are out there, and they are more prevalent than you might think. Just because you can’t find them as they have no legit organization with a website or whatever doens’t mean a thing.

“If just one fair-sized church gets blown to bits…”

“Is one unnecessary death somehow less terrible…”

HELLO… No one’s dead?!?!?! No ones been threatened. There’s no motivation for violence. You have no evidence of even violent intent by anyone, even a single individual in the name of some imagined atheist movement, and yet you persist. Take yourself out of your imaginings for a second and smell the conspiracy you’re stepping in.

False accusations aren’t any less false simply because you can imagine a circumstance where they could be true.

Yes there are crazy people in the world. And….So what. Making false accusations of violent intent against what is already a disliked minority in much of the world is far more likely to lead to violent acts than prevent them.

Yup, you’re right, there aren’t any militant atheists with an agenda hiding behind the shrubbery in front of Our Lady of the Worthless Miracle Catholic Church. It’s all a conspiracy started by the Pope to lead to discord and chaos in the world.

And I am an atheist, and no one hates me. I am well liked wherever I go. Of course, I don’t suffer from militant delusions of grandeur.

Maybe you should try a new mouthwash. <sarcasm>

I thought the most hated minority was Jerry Lewis fans.

The explains it then. It’s not that I’m an atheist. All those people telling me I’ll burn in hell, that’s all because I like Jerry Lewis? Wow. Who knew? :^>

About time that they heard our side of the arguments and futurelaker88 is wrong. USA was never a Christian Nation. Separating state and church is the best way to save both camps.

Why include the word “probably”?