Atheist bus campaign

Jean's post reminds me of the old zen koan "Who is the Master who makes the grass green"? The answer, of course, is YOU.

by the way: according to the bible we are all Gods ourselves.

Psalm 82:
¹ God presides in the great assembly;
       he gives judgment among the "gods":

 ² "How long will you [a] defend the unjust
       and show partiality to the wicked?
       Selah

 ³ Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless;
       maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.

 ⁴ Rescue the weak and needy;
       deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

 ⁵ "They know nothing, they understand nothing.
       They walk about in darkness;
       all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

 ⁶ "I said, 'You are "gods";
       you are all sons of the Most High.'

 ⁷ But you will die like mere men;
       you will fall like every other ruler."

 ⁸ Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
       for all the nations are your inheritance.

John 10,34 has Jesus quote Psalm 82:

 ³⁴Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'[e]? ³⁵If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— ³⁶what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? ³⁷Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. ³⁸But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." ³⁹Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

when you think about how you create all of what you perceive with the process going on in your brain, in essence the world YOU live in, is there not some truth in it then?

That's more like it.  Some humour.

I don't believe in atheist bus campaigns. 

I'm certainly not a non-labeller.

I label my music like there's no tomorrow.

I just don't like being labelled as certain things.  The same applies for political views.  I may have Socialist views but I don't want to be labelled as a Socialist.  The same with some forms of philosophical views.  I feel like I am being boxed up or being used as part of a Lonely Hearts advertisement.

"Atheist male with Socialist views seeks like-minded female with Existentialist views.  You must play the Aeolian Harp and speak Volapuk fluently."

The reason is because the terms are ambiguous.  One person can be called an Atheist and by another be called an Agnostic.  They themselves say they're an Atheist.

Also, people claim Atheism is a religion in itself.  It isn't.  Why should I be lumped in with all these people and be looked down upon?

I just want to go on my merry way, being a non-believer and yet not be labelled as something that is often misinterpreted.

The Doctor wrote: 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.

BaldFriede wrote: Even the biggest atheist will have problems to answer the questions "Why is there not simply nothing?", "Why was there a big bang (provided there was one; it is nothing but a scientific hypothesis right now, not a theory yet)?". Mark that from a scientific point of view it makes no sense to ask what was BEFORE the big bang; there was simply nothing before it. But where did all the energy for it come from? There is no scientific answer for that at all, and the nature of the state the world was in back then makes it unlikely there ever will be one. You may of course retreat to the position that you simply don't ask the question (from a scientific point of view that makes absolute sense, by the way), but it is unsatisfying nevertheless. Those who say "God" at least have an answer to that question.

An unsatisfying answer.

BaldFriede wrote: The big bang, however, is nothing but a hypothesis so far. For scientists there is a big difference between a hypothesis and a theory; to be called a "theory" a hypothesis must have a lot of supporting facts and especially be able to make predictions; in physics there have only been two newly developed theories last century: The theory of relativity and quantum theory; all the rest are nothing but hypotheses. This is just to demonstrate how idiotic the argument of people who oppose evolution that "it is nothing but a theory" actually is. There have been a lot of doubts about the big bang hypothesis lately; it is definitely not a decided issue yet. And even if there had been a big bang: Human brains thus far simply can't imagine that there ever was a time before which there was nothing; it is simply not how we experience time. We may speak about it from a rational point of view, but not a single person can imagine it at all, that's for sure. So to quote Goethe: "Denn gerade wo Begriffe fehlen, da stellt ein Wort zur rechten Zeit sich ein" ("Because just when concepts fail, a word will appear right in time"), and that word is "God". Mark that this is not my point of view, but it is a view which can easily be taken. But what if the big bang hypothesis is wrong? What other model is "right" then (read "right" as "comes closest to the truth")? I have a few ideas of my own, but none of them is really fit for publishing so far.

True, as physics indicates now, the Big Bang seems to fit as the origin of the Universe, but is far from a theory or fact. I say, however, that because we cannot answer the question of the origin of the universe now, that is not a good reason to revert to previous mythology automatically. At any rate, all that would prove is that there is a force that could have spawned the universe--which can entail a ton of religious/spiritual beliefs, and is no good reason at all to suppose in interactive, emotional deities.

Even the biggest atheist will have problems to answer the questions "Why is there not simply nothing?", "Why was there a big bang (provided there was one; it is nothing but a scientific hypothesis right now, not a theory yet)?". Mark that from a scientific point of view it makes no sense to ask what was BEFORE the big bang; there was simply nothing before it. But where did all the energy for it come from? There is no scientific answer for that at all, and the nature of the state the world was in back then makes it unlikely there ever will be one. You may of course retreat to the position that you simply don't ask the question (from a scientific point of view that makes absolute sense, by the way), but it is unsatisfying nevertheless. Those who say "God" at least have an answer to that question.
The big bang, however, is nothing but a hypothesis so far. For scientists there is a big difference between a hypothesis and a theory; to be called a "theory" a hypothesis must have a lot of supporting facts and especially be able to make predictions; in physics there have only been two newly developed theories last century: The theory of relativity and quantum theory; all the rest are nothing but hypotheses. This is just to demonstrate how idiotic the argument of people who oppose evolution that "it is nothing but a theory" actually is. There have been a lot of doubts about the big bang hypothesis lately; it is definitely not a decided issue yet.
And even if there had been a big bang: Human brains thus far simply can't imagine that there ever was a time before which there was nothing; it is simply not how we experience time. We may speak about it from a rational point of view, but not a single person can imagine it at all, that's for sure.
So to quote Goethe: "Denn gerade wo Begriffe fehlen, da stellt ein Wort zur rechten Zeit sich ein" ("Because just when concepts fail, a word will appear right in time"), and that word is "God".
Mark that this is not my point of view, but it is a view which can easily be taken.
But what if the big bang hypothesis is wrong? What other model is "right" then (read "right" as "comes closest to the truth")? I have a few ideas of my own, but none of them is really fit for publishing so far.

James wrote: I mean: I do not believe in an existence of any form of God.  I am not remotely religious and do not follow anything.  I am myself. Therefore, I do not need knowledge or evidence to prove anything.

*sigh*

Ivan, I am most definitely an Atheist (I am using the label in this case for the sake of this post).  Not an Agnostic (again, I am using this label for the sake of this post).

Those type of Atheist are an embarrassment to me because they are too vehement and anti-religious.  They have trouble accepting religion.  I am not like that.  I embrace everyone, whatever faith or non-faith they have.  They make non-believers look bad to believers (whether it be God or the Big Spaghetti Monster).

I do not have a belief in any form of God.  How is that not hard to understand?

This is why I dislike labels.  Some say I'm Agnostic.  Some say I'm Atheist.

Nobody can agree.

So I am just a non-believer in any form of God and I personally do not require evidence and do not seek any because I know there is no evidence to prove the existence or non-existence; I also know that no form of God exists, however.