| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Eddy 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 22 2004
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 637
|
 Posted: March 10 2009 at 22:02 |
|
religion is based on what certain people say.. it really has no historical imput at all. jesus was a minor figure at Best in the history books of that time. Serously.. alll religion is false its fake its wrong period. Religion is a excuse to make people feel more important then they really are. many people dont want to face death so they come up with religion and that there is life aterwards... completle bullsh*t..... of course im generalizing here , im really taking about the big three....there are religions ythat dont focus at all on the afterlife....
|
 |
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: March 11 2009 at 00:10 |
 Eddy wrote:
religion is based on what certain people say.. it really has no historical imput at all. jesus was a minor figure at Best in the history books of that time. Serously.. alll religion is false its fake its wrong period. Religion is a excuse to make people feel more important then they really are. many people dont want to face death so they come up with religion and that there is life aterwards... completle bullsh*t..... of course im generalizing here , im really taking about the big three....there are religions ythat dont focus at all on the afterlife.... |
When I read so arrogant opinions, i usually expect arguments stronger than "complete bullsh*t".
Plus Jesus has no historical imput??????
Hey almost two billions follow this "minor figure", there are more books about him than about any other HISTORICAL figure, so if he is unimportant, all the other historiical figures just don't exist.
Just to end, saying it's fake, false and wrong with absolutely no argument and as if it was a fact just because you say it, is at least disrespectful.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - March 11 2009 at 00:11
|
|
|
|
npjnpj
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 05 2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 2720
|
Posted: March 11 2009 at 03:34 |
Eddy wrote:
religion is based on what certain people say.. it really has no historical imput at all. jesus was a minor figure at Best in the history books of that time. Serously.. alll religion is false its fake its wrong period. Religion is a excuse to make people feel more important then they really are. many people dont want to face death so they come up with religion and that there is life aterwards... completle bullsh*t..... of course im generalizing here , im really taking about the big three....there are religions ythat dont focus at all on the afterlife.... |
Oh dear, the reply of someone who hasn't seen enough yet. A few hard knocks in life and looking around a bit with open eyes will remedy this in time. 
Edited by npjnpj - March 11 2009 at 03:35
|
|
VanderGraafKommandöh
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372
|
Posted: March 11 2009 at 03:49 |
Iván, he said "minor figure at the time". As in, when the Bible was written. You completely forgot to read that part.  I don't think anyone can disagree that he's not a minor figure now.
|
|
|
|
BaldJean
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10387
|
Posted: March 11 2009 at 05:51 |
|
yes, but he also said "religion has no historic imput", whatever he meant by that;(a mixture of "input" and "impact" perhaps)?
if he means it is not based on any facts he should be informed that ALL history is not based on any facts; what we have at best are some artifacts and some texts. the bible happens to be one of them, and it definitely is a very important historical document too, since I have a bachelor degree in history I certainly know a bit about that.
I am also fascinated that he seems to be the only person in the world who knows what happens in "the undiscover'd country from whose bourn no traveller returns", as Shakespeare has Hamlet say in his famous monologue
Edited by BaldJean - March 11 2009 at 06:03
|
 A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: March 11 2009 at 10:50 |
James wrote:
Iván, he said "minor figure at the time". As in, when the Bible was written. You completely forgot to read that part. 
|
Because it's simply absurd, who would write about Jesus?
His followers? Most of them couldn't even write, he wasn't a king of a great nation, or a general who won battles, why should history books of 33 AD care about him?
Iudaea was a small and barely important Province of Rome, Rome was the center of the world and decided who had merits to be in history books, they had more important affaires to worry about a Messiah in a colony far away from Italy.
Plus the concept of Monetheism was something Romans were not able to understand.
Each colony had their own gods and Messiahs, why should they even care about one of them from an unimportant region?
It's also important to say that not even the Jewish (the religion in which Jesus was born) wanted to make propaganda of a person who questioned many of their precepts,
But a couple centuries later, Christianity was the only religuion accepted in Rome.
A person who writes something as absurd as what Eddy wrote, has no historical perspective.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - March 11 2009 at 10:53
|
|
|
|
el böthy
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 27 2005
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 6336
|
Posted: March 11 2009 at 13:23 |
|
Jejeje these things are always funny, because (and I´m going slighty off topic here) as much as religious people are accused of being closed minded, trying to instill their opinions on others and getting offended... some atheist are even worst, accusing of stupid to anyone who doesn not think like them and letting everybody at all time know what they think of God... or the absence of one that is. Not everybody of course, that goes without saying, but I must say that ultra-atheist are just as anoying (if not more) than the very religious people they criticize.
Oh and, there are far more stupid things being printed on the sides of buses, this is nothing...
|
"You want me to play what, Robert?"
|
|
Sasquamo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 26 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 828
|
Posted: March 11 2009 at 15:27 |
|
I'm not going to question the existence of a man named Jesus, but you have to admit, actual scientific, reliable evidence for his divinity or any supernatural powers he supposedly had are very shaky. To believe something this extreme without any other historical sources or archaeological evidence is a little questionable in my opinion. The Bible is made of almost entirely secondary sources. This means that someone who believes in the Bible is just taking the word of someone who lived 2,000 years ago, and who didn't actually see the supposed events themselves and were taking the word of another person. And there are no other historical accounts to back any of it up. It's just not for me.
|
|
BaldJean
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10387
|
Posted: March 11 2009 at 16:48 |
Sasquamo wrote:
I'm not going to question the existence of a man named Jesus, but you have to admit, actual scientific, reliable evidence for his divinity or any supernatural powers he supposedly had are very shaky. To believe something this extreme without any other historical sources or archaeological evidence is a little questionable in my opinion. The Bible is made of almost entirely secondary sources. This means that someone who believes in the Bible is just taking the word of someone who lived 2,000 years ago, and who didn't actually see the supposed events themselves and were taking the word of another person. And there are no other historical accounts to back any of it up. It's just not for me.
|
you are obviously missing the point. if it could be proven, what would you need belief for? you also overlook that there are a lot of other religions than Christianity. and since you are bashing those mere believers into things without "actual scientific, reliable evidence": take a good look at yourself and ask yourself how many things you do believe without there being any "actual scientific, reliable evidence" for them? actually we could start with God; just as there is no scientific evidence FOR him, there is also absolutely no scientific evidence AGAINST him either, won't you agree? so your position stands on as wobbly legs as the position of believers. there are a lot of good arguments though which can be brought up by both sides. I personally believe it is totally impossible NOT to believe in God once you have an idea about "his" (I don't like the pronoun) true nature. what non-believers reject only is a certain image of God. however, isn't it even mentioned in the bible the 10 commandments that "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" (Exodus 20:4) yet this is exactly what you are doing if you turn God into the "wand waver", the "conjurer".
Edited by BaldJean - March 11 2009 at 16:49
|
A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
|
|
Sasquamo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 26 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 828
|
Posted: March 11 2009 at 17:53 |
BaldJean wrote:
Sasquamo wrote:
I'm not going to question the existence of a man named Jesus, but you have to admit, actual scientific, reliable evidence for his divinity or any supernatural powers he supposedly had are very shaky. To believe something this extreme without any other historical sources or archaeological evidence is a little questionable in my opinion. The Bible is made of almost entirely secondary sources. This means that someone who believes in the Bible is just taking the word of someone who lived 2,000 years ago, and who didn't actually see the supposed events themselves and were taking the word of another person. And there are no other historical accounts to back any of it up. It's just not for me.
|
you are obviously missing the point. if it could be proven, what would you need belief for?
you also overlook that there are a lot of other religions than Christianity.
and since you are bashing those mere believers into things without "actual scientific, reliable evidence": take a good look at yourself and ask yourself how many things you do believe without there being any "actual scientific, reliable evidence" for them? actually we could start with God; just as there is no scientific evidence FOR him, there is also absolutely no scientific evidence AGAINST him either, won't you agree? so your position stands on as wobbly legs as the position of believers.
there are a lot of good arguments though which can be brought up by both sides. I personally believe it is totally impossible NOT to believe in God once you have an idea about "his" (I don't like the pronoun) true nature. what non-believers reject only is a certain image of God. however, isn't it even mentioned in the bible the 10 commandments that
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" (Exodus 20:4)
yet this is exactly what you are doing if you turn God into the "wand waver", the "conjurer".
|
Seeing as the topic of discussion was the Bible and Jesus, I felt that I should stay on topic rather than talk about every single other religion. And yes, I know very well that their is no scientific proof for my position. However, I do have a scientific approach: if there is absolutely zero quality evidence suggesting the existence of a deity, then it's a better guess for me to say there is no deity. Obviously, I could be wrong, and I am willing to reconsider my guess the moment I hear about some good evidence. I don't care if we're talking about a "wand-weaver" or some other definition of a god, I need evidence, I refuse to just take someone's word for it.
|
|
Peter
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: January 31 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 9669
|
Posted: March 11 2009 at 23:31 |
I read through most of this thread (before it predictably became yet another fruitless and overheated argument about religion and/or belief in a creator deity), and I saw a few people applauding the "principled stand" of the bus driver who refused to drive the bus with the sign in question on it.
 Well: has it occurred to anyone that the driver's seemingly lofty "principles" were likely a simple matter of self preservation -- a common-sense and very universally human concern for his own safety? There are a lot of nuts and fanatics in big cities, and in my experience they need little or no excuse to verbally abuse or even physically assault transit drivers! 
If I were a bus driver, while I'd personally approve of the sentiment, I certainly wouldn't want to be the convenient 'target' behind the wheel of such a rolling provocation. "Principle" would have SFA to do with it! I'd simply be protecting myself from the slings and arrows (or fists, knives & hurled invectives) of the schizo street psycho legions.
(BTW, this story made the CBC (national radio) news here in Canada today. It seems that some three major Canadian cities have rejected the bus "ads," while two (including Toronto) have approved them. The lawyers are making money from these 'ads,' anyway. It's all tangled up with Charter Rights-type issues.)
If I were a mayor, city councillor, transit CEO or transit union president, I'd strongly maintain that such needlessly provocative "ads" are just too risky. I'd be very concerned for the safety of the drivers and passengers. No, I DON"T want to be driven/dragged along as part of your 'movement" -- thanks for not asking! If you must make such a "statement," do it on your OWN property, not on a vehicle carrying me and other innocent bystanders/passengers! 
What's next: pro choice and pro life propaganda on buses? Can you say "firebombing," boys and girls? 
I did like the Toronto bus painted as a full-colour ad for Bowie's "Outside" album, back in the early 90s, though.... COOOOL! 
Edited by Peter - March 12 2009 at 00:58
|
|
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: March 12 2009 at 11:20 |
Hi Peter great to see you.
Every specie has a self preservation instinct, if an animal harms himself with an act, be sure he (I rather call animals he than it) will never do it again, because their self preservation instinct is well developed.
We are humans, with more intelligence than a dog or a cat (well, in most cases), our self preservation instinct combine with our ability to deduce what could happen if I place a provocative add, should be enough excuse to avoid that act.
But the laws defend a badly understood freedom placing lives in risk to protect the liberty of some idiot to put a provocative act. While this self proclaimed brave atheist is safe at home, 20 or 30 humans may be blown by fundamentalists....Why in hell must the law protect a risky activity?
As you say Peter if the guy is a brave atheist, he can place a large add saying God doesn't exist in the top of his car or in the car that takes his kids to school (If his wife accepts), that's being brave, placing YOUR OWN LIFE in risk for a principle, but placing other persons life in risk for your principle is being a f*cking criminal.
And IMO, if that person knew of the risk involved in such activity, the law should be able to trial him on depraved indifference if somebody is harmed.
Iván
|
|
|
|
Peter
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: January 31 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 9669
|
Posted: March 12 2009 at 11:57 |
Thanks Ivan my friend -- good to be seen!
Yes, I think public and driver safety is the fundamental, most important issue here. A bus with humans on it is not a billboard. It is a place of work, and a vehicle which provides essential transportation for many people of disparate views. In this case, common sense and public safety should prevail over abstract principles and personal "freedoms," I firmly believe.
|
|
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: March 12 2009 at 14:17 |
The great problem Peter is that we learned in University that a freedom ends when it collisions with the freedom of another person.
We also studied LIFE is the basic good protected by the constitution, so if freedom of speech or whatever, collissions with freedom to live and safety, the right to live should be preferred.
But seems that in some countries, abuse of freedom of speech is overprotected, even if the person abusing attempts against the life of another person.
It's absurd.
Iván
|
|
|
|
Petrovsk Mizinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: December 24 2007
Location: Ukraine
Status: Offline
Points: 25210
|
Posted: March 12 2009 at 18:20 |
Leningrad wrote:
Nice Freudian slip. Very appropriate.  |
Lol@ me not even noticing until 24 hours later cos it was a typo.
|
|
|
|
Zitro
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 11 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1321
|
Posted: March 13 2009 at 11:44 |
|
I don't believe in any G-d, but I think this stuff is ridiculous, especially if these people complain that religious people impose their religion on others and are self-righteous, which would mean total hypocrisy.
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: March 13 2009 at 12:48 |
Zitro wrote:
I don't believe in any G-d, but I think this stuff is ridiculous, especially if these people complain that religious people impose their religion on others and are self-righteous, which would mean total hypocrisy.
|
Perhaps in a society where all opinions on faith were equal, but atheism is so completely and clearly misunderstood and feared that this calm exposure is quite reasonable. Although Peter did bring up a good point about maybe, possibly, however improbably the bus-goers may be targeted as riders on such an advertisement, I have a few things to say about that: 1) These buses tend to allow all sorts of messages, so long as they don't make unprovable claims (don't bring up the validity of the atheist claims--I don't care about discussing them), including religious ones. These messages are positive and should be encouraging to people. 2) Given that buses allow all sorts of advertisements, the drivers of such buses cannot pick and choose when to drive and not drive because they don't like the message. How much chaos that would cause! 3) Advertisements of this positive and minimally inflammatory nature can never be held accountable as the cause of violence against them. It is always the terrorist who would try to harm those on the buses who is at fault. 4) Not that is justifies the violence, but an attack on the buses would strengthen the atheist movement. It would be a terrible strategy to do violence to them if you want atheists to go away. 5) Atheism needs as a lot of exposure to not be held as a demonic ideology. Any place where atheism is advertised is likely to be vandalized by Christians and Muslims (congrats Jews, Buddhists, etc. for being fairly meek). Thus no place is "safe." It may well be a necessary risk for equality and the betterment of society.
|
|
|
|
heyitsthatguy
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 17 2006
Location: Washington Hgts
Status: Offline
Points: 10094
|
Posted: March 13 2009 at 13:13 |
|
I saw this thread and imagined one of the buses blasting "Mother Man" from a speaker system, which is funny because I haven't listened to that album in forever
|
|
MovingPictures07
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 09 2008
Location: Beasty Heart
Status: Offline
Points: 32181
|
Posted: March 13 2009 at 13:17 |
stonebeard wrote:
Zitro wrote:
I don't believe in any G-d, but I think this stuff is ridiculous, especially if these people complain that religious people impose their religion on others and are self-righteous, which would mean total hypocrisy.
|
Perhaps in a society where all opinions on faith were equal, but atheism is so completely and clearly misunderstood and feared that this calm exposure is quite reasonable.
Although Peter did bring up a good point about maybe, possibly, however improbably the bus-goers may be targeted as riders on such an advertisement, I have a few things to say about that:
1) These buses tend to allow all sorts of messages, so long as they don't make unprovable claims (don't bring up the validity of the atheist claims--I don't care about discussing them), including religious ones. These messages are positive and should be encouraging to people.
2) Given that buses allow all sorts of advertisements, the drivers of such buses cannot pick and choose when to drive and not drive because they don't like the message. How much chaos that would cause!
3) Advertisements of this positive and minimally inflammatory nature can never be held accountable as the cause of violence against them. It is always the terrorist who would try to harm those on the buses who is at fault.
4) Not that is justifies the violence, but an attack on the buses would strengthen the atheist movement. It would be a terrible strategy to do violence to them if you want atheists to go away.
5) Atheism needs as a lot of exposure to not be held as a demonic ideology. Any place where atheism is advertised is likely to be vandalized by Christians and Muslims (congrats Jews, Buddhists, etc. for being fairly meek). Thus no place is "safe." It may well be a necessary risk for equality and the betterment of society.
|
I second this, particularly #2.
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: March 13 2009 at 14:38 |
Sorry Stoney, but respectfully will disagree with each and every one of your statements:
stonebeard wrote:
Perhaps in a society where all opinions on faith were equal, but atheism is so completely and clearly misunderstood and feared that this calm exposure is quite reasonable.
Please Stoney, we've dobne polls here and the majority claim to be atheist.
People will always misunderstand religious (belñief or disbelief) concepts, despite only 2% of the priests accused of pedophilia are guilty, now Priest is synonymous of rapist for most, even in CSI and Law & Order make jokes.
But atheists have made the greatest conquest, in USA,. a country where 95% of the people claim to have religious beliefs, religion has been banned from schools, what else do you want? To make religion illegal?
Although Peter did bring up a good point about maybe, possibly, however improbably the bus-goers may be targeted as riders on such an advertisement, I have a few things to say about that:
1) These buses tend to allow all sorts of messages, so long as they don't make unprovable claims (don't bring up the validity of the atheist claims--I don't care about discussing them), including religious ones. These messages are positive and should be encouraging to people.
Positiive attacking the believes of many people?
The argument to ban religion at schools in USA was that it was a desrespect for the rights of the atheists, this case is exactly the same, if somebody paid an advaice "God exists, be good" I assure you all Civil Right societies will jump against it.
2) Given that buses allow all sorts of advertisements, the drivers of such buses cannot pick and choose when to drive and not drive because they don't like the message. How much chaos that would cause!
That's absurd, you are underrating the bus drivers, because in your opinion because they are poor and have to work, they have to accept everything that is written in their buses.
What if a bus said "Latinos are taking our jobs, don't hire Latinos", or "Maybe Hitler was right, segregate the Jews"....Wouldn't they be entitled to protest and not drive? I wouldn't drive a bus with that advice.
Don't the Governments allow Conscience Objectors in the army? Is a bus driver too small to have conscience?
We need thinking people, people with criteria and strong values, but when it's against our convenience we juidge those who dare to have a strong believe.
3) Advertisements of this positive and minimally inflammatory nature can never be held accountable as the cause of violence against them. It is always the terrorist who would try to harm those on the buses who is at fault.
Why minimally, because you say so? Fundamentalists are dangerous, from both sides, and are everywhere.
4) Not that is justifies the violence, but an attack on the buses would strengthen the atheist movement. It would be a terrible strategy to do violence to them if you want atheists to go away.
Great, it will stregth Atheist position...But the dead people???????? Who asked them to be martyrs of the Atheist cause???????
5) Atheism needs as a lot of exposure to not be held as a demonic ideology. Any place where atheism is advertised is likely to be vandalized by Christians and Muslims (congrats Jews, Buddhists, etc. for being fairly meek). Thus no place is "safe." It may well be a necessary risk for equality and the betterment of society.
False, Atheism is sold everywhere, religion is progressively banned...The atheist may not vandalize, but they sue everybody for millions to pay their anti-evangelism evangelist camopaign.
|
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - March 13 2009 at 14:39
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Atheist bus campaign
