Atheist bus campaign
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=55964
Printed Date: February 22 2025 at 18:58
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Atheist bus campaign
Posted By: mrcozdude
Subject: Atheist bus campaign
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 01:50
|
There are buses most of which UK residents are sure to of seen around with the slogan "There's Probably no god,Now stop worrying and enjoy life," There was a case in which an elderly bus drivers refused to drive the bus with that on the side. I personally think it's fantastic and knowing its quite a controversial subject,I wonder you opinions on this. More information at http://www.atheistbus.org.uk/ - http://www.atheistbus.org.uk/  ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/cozfunkel/" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Replies:
Posted By: Jared
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 02:32
^^ well, I don't think that buses should be the sole domain of Evangelical Christian types, who have a penchant for driving around the countryside in multi-coloured versions, trying hard to convert people to their particular mind-set..
in fact, an age of equality for all, I'd be more than happy to take the wheel of the Agnostic bus; the only problem I see in this is that I wouldn't know where I was going, or why I wanted to get there...  ------------- Music has always been a matter of energy to me. On some nights I believe that a car with the needle on empty can run 50 more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. Hunter S Thompson |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 02:52
Saying "there is probably no God" is not the same as saying "there is no God", is it...not really a true Atheist statement at all, though such statements are still bound to cause offence to many. I am not a regular churchgoer and would rather listen to a lecture by Darwin instead of the Vicar but i feel religion, though always a confusing mass of contradictions, still has an important role to play in society (especially these days) and should not be publicly denigrated. 
...but the rest of the message is fine
 -------------  Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 03:00
I don't quite see how Darwin comes in here. many Christians have no problem at all to believe in God and in evolution. I must say I have high respect for the bus driver who refused to drive the bus with this inscription on it. not necessarily because I agree with him but because he had the courage to stand up for his opinion -------------  A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
mystic fred wrote:Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 03:07
------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|
Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 03:11
|
1) I find it amusing that they don't have the balls to say there is no God. 2) Why is the thought of God something to worry about? |
Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 03:43
Are you talking about micro or macro evolution?
 Same. Except I might agree with the bus driver more than the bus. |
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 03:51
|
So now the atheists are becoming just as evangelical as the Christians and other religions. I must say, that even as a lifelong agnostic, this kind of "preaching" offends me. Why can't people just leave their religion, or lack thereof, at home and/or church and stop harrassing others. Also, I would say that there can be no real point to that message except to offend others. ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: progmetalhead
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 03:56
An true Atheist will never say there is NO god. That is the point.
It assumes proof is available to make that statement and, of course, there isn't.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112" rel="nofollow - http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112 Colt - Admin Team MMA 
|
Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 04:01
So there is no such thing as a true atheist? I thought atheists say there is no god. Maybe you could enlighten me as to what atheism is, I'd rather not trust my own suppositions. |
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 04:34
|
there is a difference between an atheist and an agnostic. the atheist denies there is any deity, the agnostic simply isn't sure. for further information read these wikipedia articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism I personally always find the claim of atheists that there is no evidence for a deity anywhere highly amusing. I see the evidence wherever I look. actually what most atheists are up against is a certain image of God, and I am perfectly fine with that. the deity is not a judge who rewards some people with heaven and condemns others to hell. and the deity is not a wand-waver that just goes and says "let there be an elephant"! this is what most atheists object to, but as I said, it is just a certain image of God which they reject. no, "subtle are the ways of the Lord", as an old Christian saying goes, and though I am not a Christian I heartily agree with this saying, though I don't use the term "Lord". in his excellent essay "Is God a Taoist?", written in the form of a dialogue between a mortal and God, logician Raymond Smullyan has God say that he is not the cause of the cosmic process, he is the cosmic process himself. this is very much my belief, the only difference is that I prefer the female pronoun, since I see the deity as mother of all. I think even an atheist could not really grumble about the concept of a God who is nothing more and nothing less than the cosmic process. actually at one point in the dialogue God is amused about a remark of the human when he says: "But if you are really such an abstract thing as a process, I don't see what sense it can make my talking to a mere process." God's reply is: "I love the way you say “mere.” You might just as well say that you are living in a mere universe.” at another point of his essay Smullyan has God say: "What I am saying is that one who knows me for what I really am would simply find it psychologically impossible to hate me. " I would agree to that, only I would use the word "deny" instead of "hate" (and I think this is what Smullyan actually meant). anyone who is interested in reading that essay, which in my opinion is not only very deep, but also a highly entertaining read, can find it here: http://www.newbanner.com/SecHumSCM/IsGodTaoist.html - http://www.newbanner.com/SecHumSCM/IsGodTaoist.html ------------- A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: someone_else
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 04:54
|
I don't think that matters of faith or religion belong on the side of a bus, no matter what the contents of this message are. Besides this, the word 'probably' does not sound convincing at all and makes the message quite hollow. And what's more, I'm glad to enjoy a life with God.
|
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 04:57
|
I saw this quite some time ago. These London buses were in response to a advertising compaigne from some Christian group about a year ago or more. As the people behind this pointed out, if its OK for the Church to advertise on the side of buses then its OK for them. The use of the word "probably" was to protect themselves from lawsuits (as always oversensitive religious people took offense to it), since they cant provide proof in a court of law that their is no God then they cant put it in the advert. ------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005 
|
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 05:07
|
I would like to see how many of these so called Atheists behave in a real life-or-death situation, they would be on their knees praying to God crying and begging for mercy like the rest of us... i've been there.
------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 05:12
|
^I havnt been in a situation like that but I can be pretty confident that I wouldnt be begging and praying to any type of "God".
------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005
|
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 06:09
Wikipedia also says "it is also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist#cite_note-2 - defined more broadly as an absence of belief in deities". That's a subtle difference to saying there is no God. I don't believe in fairies but I would obviously would if someone showed me one flying around my house. I feel the same about God, until someone shows me some proof, I don't believe there is one. Then again, it depends what your definition of "God" is. |
Posted By: progmetalhead
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 06:15
Of course, whilst you mix my words with the common misconception to make your point, read the attached link. It is provided only for content not to start a discussion about it please.
http://packham.n4m.org/atheist3.htm - http://packham.n4m.org/atheist3.htm
This subject is extremely sensitive and would just like to state that I accept and repect every individuals right to make their own decisions on this and anything else but please do not judge me because my views may differ.
This thread is also no doubt being watched very closely and if an Admin wishes to remove my posts please do so if I have overstepped the mark.
And Im sorry Steve I am a "so called Atheist" Firstly I don't go around calling believers "So called Christians etc" I find that offensive and respect others beliefs and therefore wouldn't say that. Secondly, I HAVE been in one of those situations you quote and like Andy you wouldn't catch me praying or begging to any type of "god"
To me personally I would expect as much success as praying to Spongebob Squarepants.
If that is my last post then obviously I will have been struck down by a lightning bolt from somewhere! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112" rel="nofollow - http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112 Colt - Admin Team MMA
|
Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 06:29
Under that, I would be Objectivist Atheist. I never label myself though. I'm all for any type of advertisement; I don't think restrictions should be put on that unless the statements are outwardly ridiculous or offensive (something targeted towards a certain group of people, overtly racist or what not). It's the company or institution's choice for what advertisements they want to put up otherwise. ------------- 
|
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 06:29
to that I can only answer with a quote from the already mentioned essay of Raymond Smullyan: MORTAL: I mean, why don't you appear to our very senses and simply tell us that we are wrong? GOD: Are you really so naive as to believe that I am the sort of being which can appear to your senses? It would be more correct to say that I am your senses. MORTAL (astonished): You are my senses? GOD: Not quite, I am more than that. But it comes closer to the truth than the idea that I am perceivable by the senses. I am not an object; like you, I am a subject, and a subject can perceive, but cannot be perceived. You can no more see me than you can see your own thoughts. You can see an apple, but the event of your seeing an apple is itself not seeable. And I am far more like the seeing of an apple than the apple itself. ------------- A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 06:48
|
Funny this topic should just come up. I was just watching Bill Maher's Religulous last night. Highly recommended.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: TheCaptain
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 07:14
|
I don't find anything wrong with the ad campaign. The courts have not deemed atheism or agnosticism obscene as far as I know so I can't really see what the problem is.
------------- Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 07:16
|
The problem is that militant atheism is annoying, just like militant christianity is annoying. Anyway 
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 07:19
As an atheist, I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Anyone who thinks they know enough to say either "there is a god" or "there is no god" is arrogant and full of sh*t. All you need to be atheist is to recognize that God is a bad answer to the questions it tries to answer, and from that assume that he probably doesn't exist. Even Richard Dawkins admits this.
Why do you find it amusing that they're not arrogant idiots?  Does it invalidate your entire view of atheists as a whole?A Christian who says "there is a God" is dumb. An atheist who says "there is no God" is dumb.
Well people seem to do it a lot, which is what the sign is referring to. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 07:19
|
Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that
anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved
by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and
clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED" "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book one of the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy series), p 50 ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 07:26
|
One thing I want to clear up: Everyone worth talking to is an agnostic to some degree. I may be 99% sure there isn't a god, but that missing 1% is greater than the difference between being 99% percent sure there is a God and 99% sure there isn't, in terms of which positions are tenable. The way religious people have set up the concept of God (or, supposing God actually exists, the nature of God) means that it is fundamentally unknowable, and therefore uninteresting. |
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 07:27
Sadly it's not a matter of "having the balls" to say it or not but rather simply to avoid the campaign getting pulled by the advertising standards authority. Because it cannot be scientifically proven that there is no god they cannot claim it in an advertisement. I agree it does rather weaken the point they're trying to make, though. And yes, speaking as an atheist myself, I find the whole campaign really quite annoying. It's smug, patronising and a terrible waste of money. |
Posted By: TheCaptain
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 07:27
Agreed but I hardly consider this militant. It's like those "Beef. It's what's for dinner" commercials to vegetarians. ------------- Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal. |
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 07:28
excuse me, but that's exactly what ALL atheists say. it is the very definition of atheism. your position is an agnostic one, not an atheistic one; that's a big difference ------------- A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 07:32
. ISometimes it seems to me that atheism has become as much a religion as religion itself. I am an agnostic too, but I believe that mutual respect is the foundation of any human interaction, and I don't like people (including some here) who state that religion is the root of all evil, or (even worse) that all religious people are idiots. EVen though I had very negative experience with some religious people, I have also met some who were perfectly decent human beings. I strongly believe that, if religion was totally removed from the world, humans would find other ways to hurt each other - be it sport, politics, music, or whatever else.
|
Posted By: Arsihsis
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 07:41
|
I don't see how it matters one way or the other...whether or not there is some anthropomorphic puppeteer in the sky doesn't reduce the amount of human suffering present on this planet. ------------- 729 |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 07:45
|
The sad thing about the whole debacle is that atheists can do anything to make Christians not go reactionary as hell or scare the crap out of primitive people. (Note: not all Christians are primitive, nor even most).
About evangelizing atheism, I personally don't find it annoying, at least not that annoying. For one, any atheist worth his salt (and not a Nietszche Kid, possibly the most annoying individual that can ever be found) will "evangelize" in a rational way, and not be a dick about it.
------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 07:47
I guess not per se, but if even one brainwashed individual things the puppeteer justifies killing someone, then it does a lot more harm, and how sad would it be it it's a figure of collective imagination? ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 08:09
|
I actually find the position of atheism hard to maintain and have yet to meet a true atheist. what most so-called atheists reject is a certain image of a deity, which admittedly is a very wide-spread one. however, that has nothing to do with denying God per se. let me make this more explicit: what are the three attributes which God is supposed to have? well, they are omnipresence )in space and time), omnipotence and omniscience. now let us look if there is something to which all these three attributes can be ascribed. and indeed there is something like that: the cosmic process (I seriously hope no-one will reject the existence of the cosmic process; I could also name it "evolution", if you like that better. and evolution is more than just the evolution of species). so what about the cosmic process? it is obviously omnipresent in space and time. it is also omnipotent, because anything that CAN happen does happen in it. and it appears to be omniscient too, in a way, since scientists have found out that the universe is like a hologram, in which every little part contains the whole already. the question which remains is: does the universe have a consciousness? well, how do you know other people have a consciousness? can you see it? no, you derive it from their actions because you believe you yourself have a consciousness too. and through this consciousness we plan our actions. but the consciousness of others is invisible to us, yet we have no doubt whatever they have one. then why do you suddenly have a doubt about a universal consciousness? only because you find no "organ" where this consciousness is supposed to be in? scientist have absolutely NO IDEA where our consciousness comes from; they can't locate it anywhere in the brain. yet they are forced to believe in it because they see its effects. should we then not believe in a universal consciousness too, simply because we see its effects? as already mentioned,atheists fight an image of God which has been widely propagated, which I call the "old man with the beard" image. it is the image of God the interferer and God the punisher which they reject. this is why one of the most used arguments of atheists is the challenge to point out one of God's acts. but ths is simply ridiculous; it is the position of having the cake and eating it. it is trying to reduce God to a kind of juggler and asking some tricks of him, why the heck should a truely divine being have the need to interfere with the creation? this atheist argument is absurd right from the start. so what atheists actually do is create an image of God, which they then reject. but that, however, has nothing to do with rejecting God as such; they only reject a certain widespread image of him/her. so I repeat: I have yet to meet a true atheist. so far I have not found a single one ------------- A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 08:18
Evolution clearly seems to be unguided and random, and in itself indicates nothing to me of consciousness, let alone omniscience.
I don't know. I haven't felt anything of the sort and there doesn't seem to be really good evidence for it, so why posulate it and maintain it?
Atheists just either critique theological arguments (which can be sophisticated) or the common perception of God. I know of no one who builds up a "straw God" just to knock it down. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 08:30
first of all: evolution is not random at all, and you have not understood even a bit of evolution if you really believe it is. actually I would find it harder to believe in a random evolution than to believe in God. fortunately no-one ever said evolution is random, neither Darwin nor Dawkins nor anyone. the mutation part of evolution is random; the selection part is not random at all. a random evolution would have led to completely random results. while a single event in evolution may appear random (let's say, a predator killing a pray), there nevertheless is a pattern, just like a single quantum event is random, and yet there is a pattern to them, else there would not be the percentages we can give to a certain quantum effect to happen. the famous two slot experiment with light will form a pattern on the wall, though each of the quantum effects that happens when a photon passes one of the two slots is totally random ------------- A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 09:39
|
^ Random was a bad word. it's early. I meant that there is no goal in evolution, nor no force of consciousness that guides it anywhere. It's a mindless process as far as anyone can tell. I suppose there could be something guiding it, but without evidence, why even bother to postulate that if it can be explained without it?
------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 10:25
Hey, you really need to stop complaining and eat your sardines. 
Funny that you should mention that because there is a branch of a church near me called the Primitive Baptist Church. What I find really amusing is that they actually have a website: http://www.pb.org/ - http://www.pb.org/ Don't believe me? Here's an actually picture of one.  Here's an even more primitive one:  But wait, there's more: http://www.google.com/search?q=primitive+baptist+church&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a - http://www.google.com/search?q=primitive+baptist+church&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 10:26
|
evolution is about reproduction, improvement and adaptation, survival of the fittest and the law of the jungle - i hope civilisation will come to rise above this and be human
------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 10:44
|
I hate these self righteous morons. The self-appointed THOUGHT police.Anyone who takes offence to that should take some happy pills or leave the planet. I thought it was hilarious when it was first proposed. I gotta get a few of those stickers. There`s a black magic store here in Montréal and there`s this idiot who shows up from time-to-time and throws holy water all over it. ------------- |
Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 11:51
 Seriously? |
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 11:59
How is it that the guy who throws holy water on it, believing deeply in its power apparently, is any more of an idiot than those who own or shop at the black magic shop, some of which must also believe in its power.  Of course, there may also be curiosity seekers that frequent it as well. But for my money I would take an "idiot" who believes in the power of good over an "idiot" who believes in the power of evil any day. ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: crimhead
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 12:02
| Too many people in the U.S. of A would get their panties in a bunch over this. In the land of free speech this is something that O'Reilly would jump all over. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 12:18
True, as a fact the Catholic Church officially has said that God decided in which moment of the evolution the man was capable of having a sould, which he created and placed in the human.
Butr my point here is different.
If a bus carried a propaganda sayig "God exists, be good", probably all the atheists will make a scandal saying that Religion must not be used outside church despite is a positive message, and I agree, Evengelism is for those who want to listen it.
But Atheists can say wherever they want "Hey God probably doesn't exist,do what you want" which could cause negative behaviour and nobody says a word.
Now....Why in hell must Atheist have the right to do their atheist evangelism with an outfit of agnosticism if religious people are not allowed?
I believe the rules should apply for everybody, religious and not religious,
People who believe must keep their religion in their hearts, families and churches, while Atheists must keep their philosophy in their brains, families and forums.
I can't respect more what te bus driver did, the guy is a man of principles who doesn't care to jeopardize the work he needs to survive if it goes agaiinst his beliefs.
Iván ------------- 
|
Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 12:22
Er... What? |
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 12:26
------------- |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 12:29
Watching Religulous last night, one of the interesting things I found was that the Catholic church has apparently become more progressive in its views towards science that fundamentalist US "christian" churches. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 12:44
 ------------- |
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 12:49
|
it has to be remarked that not even the so-called random process of mutation is completely random; some mutations are more likely to happen that others. this has to do with the way the DNA is stored inside the nucleus of a cell. it is coiled up, and depending on the way it is coiled some mutations are more likely to happen than others, simply because some base sequences are more easily accessible than others. ------------- A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 13:12
When I got a 50 cd "jukebox" from Sony a few years ago, I noticed that it would randomly select a disc from the 50 and then randomly select a track from the disc. I had Miles Davis' Pangea loaded up, amongst others. It's basically a one track per CD disc album and it kept coming up more frequently than the others in the jukebox... I'd have probably paid extra if I could have obtained a unit that would cycle through the whole set without repeats. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 13:35
|
I kind of like the late George Carlin`s musings about religion. God loves you but he has a list of 10 things you can`t do. The 10 commandments. Spooky language. Does not apply to intelligent humans etc. etc.
------------- |
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: February 27 2009 at 13:37
that is, however, not quite what is asked of Christians. just remember Matthew 10:16 "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves" ------------- A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: mrcozdude
Date Posted: March 01 2009 at 04:19
One of George Carlin's quotes which the campaign uses is "atheism is a non profit organization".I really like that quote. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/cozfunkel/" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: March 01 2009 at 05:51
U just have no idea what evil would come pouring out if he weren't doing that on a regular basis. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: March 01 2009 at 06:04
Yog Sothoth neblod sin -------------  BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: March 01 2009 at 16:49
Exactly. There is no God. Therefore I am an Atheist. -------------   
|
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: March 01 2009 at 16:57
| Gees, I learnt something today, I thought I was "atheist", though not "100 %", lol, but this quite of means, agnostic, which I have to find the word in spanish.. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: March 01 2009 at 17:00
Agnóstico.
-------------
|
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: March 01 2009 at 17:02
| ^ah, thanks Ivan! Though I have never heard it, that's why.... |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: March 01 2009 at 17:04
|
It's all silly terminology anyhow. I don't believe in God and know there isn't one. Some would say I am an atheist, some would say I am an agnostic. Nobody can seem to agree as to what they are; that amuses me. Therefore, I don't need a label to say what my beliefs are. I am just me and I know what I do and do not believe in. -------------
|
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: March 01 2009 at 17:09
| ^definitely James |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: March 01 2009 at 17:10
If you 'know' there is no God, then you're an atheist. An agnostic is someone who doesn't know whether there is a God or not, and basically doesn't care. This is the original meaning of the word in Greek, as I'm sure the Baldies will be happy to confirm. |
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: March 01 2009 at 17:11
| ^"being" an agnostic, does it lead you to sometimes believe? and sometimes completely denie God's existance? |
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: March 01 2009 at 17:13
|
A little etymology here. Atheist comes from Ancient Greek meaning "godless" - a = without, theos = god. Gnosis was also an Ancient Greek term meaning "knowledge" in particular spiritual knowledge. Hence Agnostic = without spiritual knowledge. ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: March 01 2009 at 17:16
Yes, I am an Atheist -- in regards to the definition (unlike Pnoom! who thinks I'm pompous and actually Agnostic )However I don't like to term myself as one; even though I am one. It's like me saying I'm an existentialist or a socialist. I'd rather just be me and not use terms to describe myself. -------------
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: March 01 2009 at 17:18
Agnostic is a person who simply believes that God's existence or not, can't be proved with human senses, so there's no reason to care about this matter.
And no, they don't reach any knowledge on this issue.
Iván
-------------
|
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: March 01 2009 at 17:54
So I don't know what I am, after all   |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: March 01 2009 at 18:04
|
There's a difference between being agnostic and not willing to choose a side and being agnostic and acting like there probably isn't a God. Even Richard Dawkins says that no one knows if God exists or not. No one. Anyone who is sure of the matter is a fool. But he, like myself and many others, act day to day as if there is not a God, because it seems highly improbable. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: March 01 2009 at 18:06
Literally, yes, but agnostic and atheist have come to be separated from those terms in some circles at some times, which makes talking about it and defining the terms annoying. Because literally, yes, that's what the etymology of the words is, but they have come to mean different things to different people with varying knowledge on the subject. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: March 01 2009 at 19:09
| I don't believe in agnostics, atheists on the other hand... |
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: March 01 2009 at 19:12
that would make you an aagnostic. ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: March 01 2009 at 19:14
|
The Atheist Bus campaign is awesome IMO. I'm an atheist, so just getting this out there. ------------- 
|
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: March 01 2009 at 19:16
Why does it appear highly improbable? I don't see that at all; on the contrary. A certain image of God is improbable; I agree to that. But God as being THE process is not improbable at all. You seem to doubt a process can have consciousness. Yet where does your own consciousness arise from? Don't say "my brain" because it is definitely not true; no-one has been able to explain how consciousness arises from it. It is not the brain itself, it is the process which is going on it which is your consciousness, that's the only thing we know. Once you are dead your consciousness is gone, because the process has ended, although the brain is still there. So there is a process with consciousness. Is it not logical to follow that the process which is going on in the universe, with its myriads of sub-processes, does have a consciousness too, simply because it is incredibly more complex than the process in your brain? You may take the position that no-one knows if consciousness really ends when you are dead, and you have a point there. However, wouldn't that position be quite contrary to your original position? ------------- BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: March 01 2009 at 19:22
|
For me it all boils down to: Who made God? And why does anything exist anyway? And of course, why does six by nine equal forty two? ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: March 01 2009 at 19:46
That last question is easily answered: In a number system based on the number 13 (instead of 10, as we are used to) 6x9=42 indeed (4*13+2=54). ------------- BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: March 01 2009 at 19:47
I'm responding to the typical representation of God: omnipotent, (possibly) omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, and interventionist, like in the big three monotheistic religions. Buddhist, Gaian, pantheist, and all other atypical representations of God can be responded to differently, I suppose. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: March 01 2009 at 20:46
|
But the way I perceive God, as the cosmic process, "he" is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. Omnipotent, simply because everything that happens is part of the cosmic process: whatever can happen will happen. Omnipresent: Definitely too; the cosmic process is everywhere. And omniscient? Yes, that too, as it appears. The latest scientific developments seem to suggest that the universe is of a holographic nature. You may know that even a tiny fragment of a hologram will still contain the whole picture, and this is how the world appears to be too. As to omnibenevolent: That would depend a lot on the definition of "benevolent". One might argue that the simple fact that we exist proves this benevolence; where God malevolent we wouldn't. However, I don't see why omnibenevolence would necessarily have to be a quality of God; actually not even the God of Christianity is omnibenevolent. Or would you call the deluge a "benevolent act"? That would be stretching the word indeed. ------------- BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: heyitsthatguy
Date Posted: March 01 2009 at 21:06
|
I have no problem with atheism whatsoever, (personally I'm not entirely sure where I stand religiously as of late, somewhere in the Christian/Deist realm) but the message just kind of seems like it has the 'there is no god' part tacked on for no other real reason then again one could argue a huge sign saying 'God loves you, now stop worrying and enjoy your life' has the first part tacked on for similar reasons either way, the reality is....they're signs on buses. They're not reaching down peoples throats and beating them senseless with a message, and unless someone is EXTREMELY susceptible to outside influence, they're not going to change anyone's viewpoint one way or another. personally, I'd prefer just a sign that said STOP WORRYING AND ENJOY YOUR LIFE or maybe DON'T PANIC yeah that one has a nice ring to it |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: March 01 2009 at 21:07
Well, that doesn't seem to imply that there needs to be a consciousness in the universe, but if there was, then I guess that makes sense to say that thing is worth calling omniscient. However, this is all fine for speculation, and I'm sure atheists would find much less to criticize (except for that this consciousness you're describing doesn't seem to demand a religion based around it) if everyone were to believe in God this way. You seem to be describing pantheism, in a way. This is a concept of God I really have a neutral standpoint toward. It's more of the singular, outside of the universe and mettlesome God of the monotheistic religions that has everyone up in arms. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: March 01 2009 at 23:08
No, Stonebeard, that's Weak Atheism..."I believe there's probably not God, but I don't have proves of him not existing"
Strong Atheism is the total denial of the existence of God, and IMO a form of religion, because the denial without evidence of the existence of an entity is a form of faith.
Agnostic comes from two Greek words:
A: Without
Gnosis: Knowledge.
In other words a person who has not knowledge about God's existence, as simple as that, their philosophy is based in the fact that to deny the existence of God requires the exact leap of faith than to believe in his existence, because there's no way in our human condition that we can prove that God exists or not.
Iván
-------------
|
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: March 01 2009 at 23:21
|
No, Iván. I'm a strong atheist (not that I like to use the term, as I mentioned earlier). I do not preach this. I know God (not just in the traditional sense) does not exist. I do not need any facts (not that any exist) of his existence or non-existence. There maybe others who think the same way as me but that's neither here nor their. I do not converse with these people and neither do I convert others over. And it's not denial either. I do not need evidence. Having said that, I do not like to label myself. -------------
|
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: March 02 2009 at 00:09
|
Very debateable discussion.....either way I am sure He/She/It would be flattered because us humans, as sure as eggs is eggs, think more about God than God thinks of us What I believe is that every single individual choice of belief/unbelief is to be truly respected. ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: March 02 2009 at 00:17
-------------
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: March 02 2009 at 00:26
It must be stated, though, that atheism itself is not a religion, or a faith (though I suppose that's debatable, if you really care enough to argue over the meaning of the word). It is indeed an outlook. When you organize anything, it can become dogmatic. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: March 02 2009 at 00:36
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: cobb2
Date Posted: March 02 2009 at 00:47
|
Believe what you want- but we, like all other species on this planet, are here for one purpose only: to propogate the species. I think we are doing a rather good job of it too. If you must believe in some form of higher power, worship the sun- it is the only reason life is here. If not- take the advice on the bus ad.
|
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: March 02 2009 at 00:54
|
to clarify the meaning of the term Agnostic, i always believed it meant somebody who acknowledged the existence of God but did not recognise any organised religion..
an Atheist does not believe in Religion and denies the existence of any God, though I believe everyone has inborn spiritual belief - some have embraced it and some have fortunately not been forced to admit it.
Though Science and Money are the new Gods, if you are a believer or not, deep down in our primeval conciousness God exists, and is brought to the surface in times of dire need or death.
 ------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: March 02 2009 at 00:57
There are arguments that make the existence of a God troublesome, but no real hard evidence, true. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: March 02 2009 at 00:58
-------------
|
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: March 02 2009 at 04:50
I could and did present you arguments that make a non-existence of God troublesome. Once again: Those arguments you speak of are arguments against a certain image of God. God definitely is not the old man with the beard; no-one agrees to that more heartily than I. And he is not the wand-waver, the interferer either. God does not interfere at all; in fact what a little God that would be if he had to interfere. Therefore asking for proof by having him appear in front of you in his "real form" is doubly absurd, first because the real form is always there, and second because you would reduce him to nothing but a conjuror. ------------- BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: March 02 2009 at 11:25
Just for clarification then, any time I speak of "God" without any qualifier, it is of the typical, monotheistic God. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: March 02 2009 at 12:13
Thanks for that! |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: March 02 2009 at 12:41
Not accurate mYSTIC fRED:
A person who believes in God but not in religions is THEIST.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: March 02 2009 at 12:43
 Wow! I'm changing name of "religion" each time I read a new post |
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: March 02 2009 at 14:00
No-one knows that God does not exist, it is at best a belief. Anyway, I am very certain that what atheists do reject is a certain image of God only and not God him/herself. This image, however, is widely spread, and mostly comes to people's mind when "God" is mentioned. As Raymond Smullyan has God say in his essay "Is God a Taoist?", which is written in the form of a dialogue between God and a mortal,: "What I am saying is that one who knows me for what I really am would simply find it psychologically impossible to hate me.", only I would replace "hate me" with "not believe in me". And indeed I do not see how anyone can reject the cosmic process. The open and perhaps most interesting point though is: Does this cosmic process have a consciousness. Now before anybody goes and says "Nonsense, how can a mere process have consciousness?", think twice. Where does your own consciousness come from? Any answers to that? How do you conclude other people are conscious? And no, the consciousness is NOT located in your brain somewhere; that much at least is clear meanwhile after decades of brain research. So where does it come from? The answer is, I think, obvious: It is the process which is going on in your brain. As soon as that process stops, your consciousness will stop. It drops to lower levels during your sleep, though you are not completely unconscious then, even if the word "unconscious" is used for that state; any alarm-clock is proof of that. You may find it weird that your consciousness is "nothing but a mere process", but that phrase is very deluding in itself. First of all, that process is very complex. Second, it is highly self-referential and self-regulating. My belief in God can be "reduced" to the following: I believe that any process of sufficient complexity, self-reference and self-regulation does have a consciousness. There is a kind of "critical mass" (take this word with a grain of salt, please), which, once a process has reached it, gives it a consciousness. And the cosmic process, being THE process of all, which includes all other processes as sub-processes which in myriads of ways interact with it and with each other, certainly has that critical mass, if we mere humans already have a consciousness. And it is this consciousness which I call "God". You may say that this is the oddest form of belief in God you have ever heard of, and perhaps it is. But both Jean and I adhere to it; it is a central part of our religion. Of course there is an element of belief in it; I do not deny that at all. But it does in our opinion make a lot of sense. If you can come up with a better explanation for your own consciousness than the one I have given here, feel free to tell about it. But I firmly do believe that once the postulate of a process developing consciousness when a certain amount of self-reference and self-regulation is involved is accepted, it is inevitable to believe in God. And as long as no-one comes up with a better hypothesis about where our consciousness comes from I am perfectly fine with mine. ------------- BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: March 03 2009 at 12:54
Not at all. See my answers above. -------------
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: March 03 2009 at 13:15
James, believing or not believing something without evidence requires some amount of faith, especially if you hold the conviction that it is true. Just because the thing in question is God makes no difference.
What is particularly troublesome about your response is:
"I do not need evidence. I know. The same way you do not have evidence he does exist."
You may think you know, but this is not reliable knowledge in any sort of way. You really need to stop using the word "know." I have never seen any circumstance where ayone is qualified to make a statement of knowing God's existence, and this is no exception.
About as much as humans can do is provide arguments for the existence of God, to varying effectiveness. There is evidence too for both sides, but it is of a questionable nature (EX: evil exists, therefore God is cruel, therefore the God of the monotheistic religions cannot exist). The "evidence" in this case is evil. I might even posit that there is no discussion whatsoever of multitudes of scientific data in the Bible (which is itself a very unscientific thing), and this data could be evidence for casting doubt on the existence of the Abrahamic God as presented in the monotheisms.
Take up arms agaisnt the argument, of course, (it's not like I planned these examples out meticulously anyways), but you do need an account/justification for knowledge, and without evidence or at least some semblance of argument, you have no knowledge. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: March 03 2009 at 14:03
|
Why do I need Knowledge and Evidence? I don't. I don't need to be proved either way. -------------
|
Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: March 03 2009 at 14:44
|
If God is a material entity, how can it be a spiritual entity? If God is a spiritual entity, how can it be a material entity? |
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: March 03 2009 at 14:52
Well, what are you? A material entity (your body)? Or a spiritual one (the process going on in your brain)? Aren't you a combination somehow? ------------- BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: March 03 2009 at 14:56
I really don't know what you're trying to say. It's wholly unclear. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |