So Overwhelming!
Campaign Updates January 16th, 2009The amount of response that we have received today has been totally overwhelming. I always knew the Canadians were out there who wanted to support the freethought and secular movement – and it’s so great to finally be getting in contact with those people. Donations are rolling in left right and center and I would specifically like to thank Mr. Trevor Byrne for donating $3000 to our campaign this morning! If you want to see your name on the donation list along with Trevor Byrne and other donors, please follow the instrutions listed here before you donate. Thanks everyone!
January 16th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Just a thought. If you plan on writing, “There *probably* is no God….” wouldn’t that make you agnostic, not an atheist?
Cheers and interesting task. Very timely.
January 16th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
At the point when you can confirm that the TTC will allow the ads, I promise a substantial donation (and I suspect a number of other people are waiting for this announcement, as well).
January 16th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Would it not be a better idea to collect the money and help one of the millions of people who go to bed hungry every night?
January 16th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Agnostic asks:
“If you plan on writing, “There *probably* is no God….” wouldn’t that make you agnostic, not an atheist?”
Good question. Richard Dawkins makes the following useful example of what he calls the “religiosity scale” from 1-7. At one end of the scale, starting at 1, are theists who hold the belief “I know there is a god”. At the other end of the scale, at 7, is the atheist who holds “I know there is no god”.
By saying there is “probably no god” one is saying that they are a “de facto” atheist (6 on the scale). That while there is no proof that god does not exist (hence why one doesn’t endorse 7), the probability that there is a god is so low (on par with the probability of dragons and pixies) that you live you life *as if* it were proven that god does not exist, just like you live your life as if it were proven that no dragons or pixies ever existed. So Dawkins puts himself in category 6 on this spectrum– the “de facto” atheist, though technically it is agnostic.
Now one might then say, as you do, that it is more accurate to say you are “agnostic”. But the danger with that term is that most people assume you think there is a 50/50 chance that god does or does not exist. But that is inaccurate. The odds are more like 99.99% in favour of there being no god. And unless one is willing to retain the label “agnostic” with respect to their belief in the existence of dragons and pixies, then you can call yourself an atheist with respect to god since you live your life in ways that are practically indistinguishable from people who put the probability of god’s existence at 0% (the “strictly speaking” atheist).
Also, the insertion of “probably” is a PR strategy. Religious people won’t be as offended as they would if you say “there is no god”. I would prefer the small print to say “… and the probability in question here is very miniscule and equal to the probability of the existence of dragons and pixies”.
January 16th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
I wanted to let you know that I wrote a brief article about your campaign yesterday… and I am rementioning it in an article I am working on now. Hope it has helped and that it will continue to help.
To see yesterday’s article, go to http://www.examiner.com/x-2044-Atheism-Examiner~y2009m1d15-Canadians-getting-on-board-the-atheist-bus
I wish you much success!
Trina Hoaks
January 16th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Great website. Richard Dawkins explanation makes so much sense….I was just wondering the meaning of the numbers
2, 3, 4 and 5 ?
January 16th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Here is the link to today’s article…
http://www.examiner.com/x-2044-Atheism-Examiner~y2009m1d16-Montreal-CFI-considering-atheist-bus-campaign–watches-Toronto
Hope it helps.
Trina Hoaks
January 16th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
To Agnostic… you are mistaken.
Read this article for some clarification.
http://www.examiner.com/x-2044-Atheism-Examiner~y2009m1d15-Agnosticism-vs-atheism–get-it-straight-before-you-speak
January 16th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
This is all a joke, right?
January 16th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
I think “free thought” is a little humorous as the name of an organization that has no goal other than to attempt to change the beliefs of others. I agree with the person who said maybe the money should be used to help a starving person. I came here to see what kind of humanitarian or chartiable programs your group was involved in, and not surprisingly, there were none. Your public appeal might be increased if you were doing something to benefit society instead of begging for money for nothing other than support of your own political agenda.
January 16th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
free thought as a name of your corporation… athiesm… you guys have just been angry about sum events in ur l ives and are looking for “scientific” reasons…. science doesnt explain everything…this message goes to scientoligist as well… and this is coming from a Dr. Jason Palmer at Jamaica Hospital in Brooklyn, New York Radiology Dept.
January 16th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Free thought. Why are you asking for money?
January 16th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Mars… is donating to this cause any worse than what churches do, scraping the pocket linings of their faithful followers every [Sunday] morning? Why don’t you plead your suggestion towards a local minister?…
January 16th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Free thought includes christianity….. doesn’t it? I take it, like most free thinking people, you do not support censorship? Why would you support destroying or even mocking anyones belief systems.
January 16th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Shyam… where do you think your tax dollars go… anything more worthy? I don’t think so. Does the name Harper ring a bell?
January 16th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Palmer… go bury your head into your Rt Ax…
January 16th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
I’m an atheist, but I see no point in advertising non-belief in God. To me that’s silly. Those dollars are better spent helping people.
January 16th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
I don’t know if it has been mentioned yet but there is a website for “brights”,
http://www.the-brights.net/
that is persons who have a “naturalistic worldview” and therefore do not believe in the supernatural.
January 17th, 2009 at 12:30 am
I want to thank Chris and others involved with this endeavour. I’ve been hoping for someone to kickstart such a campaign in Toronto, and was happy to contribute.
January 17th, 2009 at 1:18 am
great ads – bravo!
January 17th, 2009 at 1:37 am
I think that they are using “probably” to promote discussion and thought. nothing can be 100% true and it appears less offensive to those who are believers.
January 17th, 2009 at 2:39 am
“I think “free thought” is a little humorous as the name of an organization that has no goal other than to attempt to change the beliefs of others.”
- Who says the goal is to change the beliefs of others? The goal is consciousness-raising, to initiate dialogue and to show that there are happy, caring, intelligent people who function just fine without blind faith in undetectable, invisible friends.
“Why would you support destroying or even mocking anyones belief systems.”
- What is the one message that virtually all religions convey? That everybody else is, at best, a misguided fool and, at worst, a damned sinner. Is being mocked for having unsupported beliefs worse than being told you are evil and will burn in hell because you don’t share an irrational belief system? Is being told to produce some evidence or keep your silly beliefs to yourself any more hurtful than dissing their favorite politian or sports team?
“I’m an atheist, but I see no point in advertising non-belief in God. To me that’s silly. Those dollars are better spent helping people.”
- Then don’t contribute. It would be very silly to donate money to a cause you don’t believe in. Almost as silly as using your tax dollars to create multiple school boards with separate infrastructures so that nobody’s children have to hear about anything their parents don’t want them know. Almost as silly as giving tax breaks to any group of scam artists who set up a business that involves taking people’s money for the priviledge of telling them what a bunch of sinners they are.
January 17th, 2009 at 2:51 am
“I think that they are using “probably” to promote discussion and thought. nothing can be 100% true and it appears less offensive to those who are believers.”
– Like beauty, offense is in the eye of the beholder. Do you really think putting the word ‘probably’ in there will stop people who are determined to be offended from doing so?
I am happy to see that word in there because it keeps the statement from being absolute. If I said ‘there is no god’ it sounds an awful lot like ‘I know this for a fact and nothing will convince me otherwise’. That would be a ‘religious’ position to take.
I don’t believe there is or ever was a god because I have never seen any evidence of one. Every statement I have ever heard in support of the existence of a god turned out to be unsubstantiated or untestable BS.
January 17th, 2009 at 3:13 am
Lynne, the numbers 2, 3, 4, etc. just denote different weightings on the probability of god’s existence and non-existence (the higher the number the lower the probablity, with 7 =0%). Dawkins invokes the scale in this lecture:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=9112899495889928903&ei=h0lxSbvsO6GG_AGG1_SsBQ&q=richard+dawkins
Re the comment “Those dollars are better spent helping people”. There are direct ways of helping people and there are *indirect* ways of helping them. Raising public consciousness about the importance of scientific habits of mind (like the importance of evidence and logic) and the dangers of dogma can reap society many different benefits. It could lead to advances in knowledge that improve medical advances, economic prosperity and overall human happiness.
Knowledge helps people. Indeed, it is the greatest force of good in the world and has directly lead to the improvements that have more than doubled the world’s life expectancy in the last 200 years. And this was accomplished with the vast majority of humans espousing dogma. Think of what we could collectively achieve if we discarded the archaic blinders of religion!
January 17th, 2009 at 3:19 am
The National Post also published an interesting feature in their “Avenue” section a couple of weeks back on the Atheist Bus campaign going on in London. Let us hope that such financial support only conceals what some day will be demonstrated by overt pronouncements.
January 17th, 2009 at 5:33 am
I think this is a great idea. The slogan used in the UK really makes me smile! I’m neither an atheist or a xtian, but I really look forward to this campaign reaching its goal.
I believe Atheists should be allowed to publicize their beliefs the same as so many xtian groups do. I’ve seen biblical quotes on billboards, barns and transit – paid for by religious groups. If they can promote their beliefs, why can’t atheists promote their non-beliefs?
I find it amusing that some people are objecting to this because they think the money would be better spent elsewhere. I think they are just attempting to stop this atheist group from publically disagreeing with their beliefs, lol. If the objectors to this campaign are so worried about starving people, then they should give up their internet access and donate the monthly fee to some feed-a-starving-person group.
January 17th, 2009 at 10:03 am
I think this campaign is a fascinating idea. I just hope that the people who support it don’t think that if you believe in God that you should worry. Matthew 6:27 says “Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?” A lot of Christians and other theists give religion a bad name by worrying and trying to force everyone else to get worked up over religion, heaven and Hell, etc. And it seems that the picture that many non-religious people have of religion is that it’s all about judgment, telling everyone what not to do, and following rules. I realize why you would think that, but Christianity, and I’m pretty sure most of the other major religions are based on love, charity, compassion, peace, all kinds of other good things.
One poster said the odds are 99.9% that there is no God, rather than 50/50. I don’t think it’s a good idea to try and put odds on his/her existence. Really, it’s 100% one way or the other; it’s only our limited understanding that makes it seem like a 50/50 chance, or 99.9%. So, either all the atheists are all wrong, and they’re going to be in big trouble with Yahweh/Allah/Shiva/whoever else, or us believers are wrong, in which case we just disappear after we die. But I ramble.
I really hope no religious groups start complaining about this and saying this campaign should stop, because obviously that won’t work, and no one should ever try to discourage anyone from voicing their opinion. If your campaign encourages civil discourse from all groups, then it’s a good thing, and you should be commended.
By the way, a lot of the Christians that I’ve known, and gone to church with, who you never see ranting and raving on tv believe that our beliefs should be free – free to take as your own, free to discard, free to question and argue.
January 17th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Congrats on the campaign! It’s about time! But I think it would carry more weight if you changed “There’s probably no god” to “There’s almost certainly no god.”
January 17th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Re: helping people
People are free to donate to whatever cause they choose – this organization existing is doing no harm to starving people or others in need. I don’t believe everyone who donates here would otherwise give all that money to other charities. This is simply another option and people who feel strongly about it are free to offer their support.
I don’t think it’s right to criticize when people spend their money on something that isn’t feeding people – i don’t criticize people who buy big screen TVs or expensive meals in a restaurant – it’s a free world.
January 17th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Let’s bring positive atheism to the forefront. Atheism give us the opportunity be responsible, respectful, and tolerant. It is an alternative to needless guilt, prejudice, and manipulation. Everyone should be open to the many wonders of our world, marvel in all of its philosophies, and constructively discuss its many problems and dilemmas. The world will be a better place for it.
My position is that that the question of the existence of a supreme being is unimportant. What is important to me is personal responsibility. I choose to live my live without religion because I want to look at the world with both eyes open and I choose to be directly responsible for my actions.
Regarding atheism and helping others: we should form the Society of Benevolent Atheists. Many atheists are good people and should not hide in the shadows.
There are also good people who are religious, and I am thankful for their good deeds too. Religion vs. atheism is not at all a question of good vs. evil. There is no exclusive enclave that can claim to hold all of the good in our universe.
January 17th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Some other ideas I’ve seen for messages on buses or billboards:
Beware of dogma
Imagine no religion
Faith is not a virtue (but don’t take my word for it)
January 17th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Secularism is finally defending itself !
Dare I say – Thank g-o-d !
Wow, I suddenly feel like a giddy happy pig in a muddy barnyard on the first day of spring ….
This website’s page on Atheism includes the following sentence, “Atheism is simply a word to describe a person that does not subscribe to religious beliefs in a God, Gods, or a supernatural being.”
‘Nuf said. That is a definition I can support.
My response to the religious commentors:
A democratic secular state constitution includes “freedom OF religion”, but although intrinsically implied yet not specifically stated, should also include “freedom FROM religion”.
The difference between me and secular states – and religious ‘believers’ and religious states, is that I can respect AND defend their right to believe what they believe and not kill them for it. But they can Not respect my right to Not believe what they believe, and will kill me for it.
Religions have killed / still kill, are killing as I type this, far FAR more people than the collective total of disease, accidents, starvation, and peaceful old age.
(hmmm, perhaps religions do serve a purpose afterall by minimizing overpopulation of the planet)
Religions spend far more money on “administration” than does the most crooked charity scam (and governments) – approximately 99.999 %.
A religious state is inherently dictatorial, which inherently has no other recourse but to force or try to force everyone to comply to the beliefs and dictates of whichever religion is the dominant power within that state, while other lesser-power religions within that state strive, and kill, to become the dominant power of that state. And, when not engaged in that internal state struggle, religious states dominated by different religions, even the same religion, kill to dominate each other. And it happens because everybody of every religion is in fear of being dominated or (and) killed by another religion.
Democratic secular states that respect all religions, and beliefs, do not suffer from that curse.
Democratic secular states should not be including religious declarations in any government-political manner, such as “God keep our land..”, “In God We Trust…”, “God is on OUR Side in this…”, “We are waging a Holy Jihad…” – whatever.
When GW Bush declared he’d had a religious epiphany and became a born-again Christian, I knew a War(s) was immminent. When Barack Obama got elected, I really got scared.
When religions vie for control of the state, the inevitable question arises, – who’s God and who’s religion does that refer to ? And, another war begins.
Democratic secular states must NOT fund religious-based educational schooling, no child should be allowed to only attend religious schools. Public, non-religious, secular schooling is the only form of education that should be state funded.
AND, all children’s education must include learning and respecting that freedoms and rights are for everybody.
On the OTHER hand,
Any state that bans all religions, is not a democratic secular state. It is an anti-religious state, with the state itself and it’s current dictator taking the place of God, Gods, or supernatural beings, and is just another religion.
NOT separating religion and state always leads to Religious Killing Wars.
It is 1,000s of years long overdue that free thinking people stand up to religious dictatorships and put an end to religious killing madness once and for all.
Thank you for these websites !
January 17th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
@ Jeff Wellwood
Not to pick on you, because your post made you seem like a thoughtful guy, but saying that we shouldn’t take it upon ourselves as individuals to assess the probability of God just because “it’s 100% one way or the other” doesn’t really hold. When making a judgment on which sports team will win (or anything else whose outcome can be based on observation and reason), it’s “100% one way or the other” after the outcome has been seen, but that doesn’t mean we don’t use reason beforehand, when there’s no absolute proof of that outcome yet. If everyone followed your logic, then we’d simply never user probabilities, because in the end it’d be “100% one way or the other”
But that was a small part of your post, and very much beside the point! It sounds like you have a great take on religious freedom
January 17th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Hey, I just received notice of your site from a buddy. Are you sure this is a charitable organization and that I will receive a genuine tax receipt? Well, then here comes $100 – my first donation of 2009, and perhaps the most enthusiastic. Fantastic organization, keep going!
Bill
January 17th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
I’m an atheist and I’m going to donate to this campaign.
Why? Because I think it is absolutely necessary to create a stir and get people thinking on this whole issue. It might turn out to be a short-lived campaign with long lasting effects.
January 17th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Great campaign! Donated a small amount since I’m a student, I’d give more if I could. Good luck and I hope this comes to Montréal soon!
January 18th, 2009 at 1:41 am
I tried donating using my US VISA card, but it was blocked. (I called VISA but they say my card is clear.)
Can you check please. You could be losing masses of dollars from US donors (like me) but get blocked.
GOOD LUCK WITH BUS CAMPAIGN!
I also supported the same campaign in the UK. Time to push back against superstition…in the 21st Century!!
January 18th, 2009 at 1:55 am
I will be donating as soon as the advertisements are authorized. I too prefer not to have the “probably” in there but I recognized that one cannot prove something does not exist. Just like you can’t prove that there isn’t a Teapot orbiting the sun in space (not on earth of course) or that Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t exist.
The probability in my books that god does not exist is 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999….% with writing 9 nines until the end of the universe occurs. In other terms, the probability that it exists is 1 divided by infinity which is for most, almost ZERO.
For those of the religious kind who want to bet against this, then you should go to http://www.betonjesus.com and you could make lots of money for yourself, your church and a friend……
I am a proud wearer of the scarlett A.
Thanks Chris for starting this here in Canada
January 18th, 2009 at 1:58 am
Power House – your wrong.
No one has killed in the name or cause of Atheism.
All wars happen because of Religion!
January 18th, 2009 at 2:28 am
I just wanted to say thanks to everyone for all of your support so far, I appreciate the amount of positive feedback we’ve received and hope that we continue to gain momentum.
Although I’ve read every comment posted and I will continue to read all comments as they come in, I unfortunately don’t have time to reply to each one in detail. Thanks to everyone that has tried to respond and answer other peoples questions. I really appreciate the help.
January 18th, 2009 at 3:02 am
Hal says :
” Power House – your wrong.
No one has killed in the name or cause of Atheism.
All wars happen because of Religion!”"????
The idea that religion causes violence is one of the most prevalent myths in Western culture (Please read the last book of Cavanaugh).
Cavanaugh explain : … such arguments are so prevalent because, while they deligitimate certain kinds of violence, they legitimate other kinds of violence, namely, vioence done in the name of secular, Western states and ideals.
Hal says : “No one has killed in the name or cause of Atheism.” You forget Staline, Lenine, the communist country…
January 18th, 2009 at 4:01 am
Greg, your wrong too.
Staline was an atheist but he didn’t do the things he did because he was an atheist. BTW, Hitler was an RC before you get to that myth too….
Religion is the cause of all the wars…..
January 18th, 2009 at 4:06 am
I thought being an atheist was a non-issue in Toronto. Most of the people I know who attend synagogues are atheists. You know the old joke. A kid asks his dad why he goes to “shul.” He says, Dad you don’t believe in God. His dad says, “I know. But my friend Harry goes to shul to talk to God and I go to shul to talk to Harry.”
January 18th, 2009 at 4:33 am
A lot of us are not in Toronto but that is where the big buses are…
It is all about the OUT Campaign and the atheist voice being heard as a force for REASON. Too much religion in the world which is destroying it.
January 18th, 2009 at 7:38 am
I think it is a great idea that this campaign is spreading so quickly, and I am glad to be able to contribute to help start this campaign where I grew up. Of course, we are lucky that Canada is a much more secular country then much of the world. Even the comments from the religious in the Globe article were very tamed and thoughtful. However, the discussion of religion must be brought to the surface, and these adds are perfect at consciousness raising. Best of luck!
January 18th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Atheists kill too, happens everyday in abortion clinics.
Will this be removed again?
Not much free thought on this “Freethought” site
January 18th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Power House – I do hope your post does not get removed. However, let’s pretend for just a second that I agree with what you say – that atheists kill too, happens everyday (for the record, I don’t, see below). Now we have a level playing field. The religious kill. The non religious kill. So what’s your point? It’s as though a murder claiming the man in the cell beside him also kills, ergo he is innocent. If you point is merely to prove that atheism is bad, I think you need to delve much further into the rational for a disbelief in god, and then we can have a good discussion.
Now, onto your statement that Atheists kill too, everyday in abortion clinic. I have a strange field that abortions are not limited to just those who do not believe in god. In fact, I would wager my life savings (sadly, not all that much) that people who choose (there is no forcing here) to get an abortion come from all walks of life. Religious, and not religious.
I don’t think the point of this thread is to debate abortion, so lets not do it. If you don’t support the campaign, the perhaps you can organize with your like minded group and create a response? It seems that your only intention is to post something that will get removed, and then turn around and say “aha! Just as I thought!”
I pray it won’t happen.
January 18th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
I think the point of expressing the atheist proclivity to kill is to refute the idea that “religion” (whatever that is) is somehow the culprit for the evil that it is accused of by many comments on this site.
It isn’t necessarily an attempt to say “yeah, you do too” so much as its a statement that the alleged cause of intolerance and hatred is inadequate to the phenomena it claims to explain.
January 18th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Obviously, Power House is one of the religious people without reasoning skills. As I suggested before, go to http://www.betonjesus.com and put your money where your mouth (keyboard) is.
Science rules.
January 18th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Conflating abortion and atheism is ridiculous. Many Christians are pro-choice, and the Bible actually says nothing about abortion at all.
Please leave Mr. Powerhouse’s comments up. He is very useful as a walking compendium of misconceptions about atheism, and is a very helpful pinata for us.
January 18th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Not only does Power House’s argument conflate atheism and killing by abortion, it’s also wrong in the implicit assumption that xtians do not have abortions. Turns out that many xtians believe that the strictures against abortion apply only to others, and when faced with an unexpected pregnancy in the family turn as readily to abortion as non xtians.
And of course this not getting into the case of god the cosmic abortionist who terminates upwards of 50% of all pregnancies.
January 18th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things. For good people to do bad things – that takes religion.
– Steven Weinberg
January 18th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
who is this dawkins who keeps getting mentioned, is he like the aethiest pope?
January 18th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Excellent quote, Blondin!
January 18th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
To Powerhouse: People brandish signs (In Ottawa, corner Bank and Sparks…right in front of Parliament) stating that women who have abortions will burn in hell, or asking if God really wants abortion
However, the bible states in several places that God ordered his people to destroy entire populations and had his own people violate the infidels and rend the wombs of his enemies women.
I smell the stench of hypocrisy…And that is one of the things that I hope this campaign hopes to shed some light on.
In fact, I hope that this campaign is the start of something that will shake the very foundations of churches and shatter the core of fait (I felt that I had to use some sort of biblically dramatic language to get through to you)
January 18th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Good job Katie, Justin and everyone else at the FAC!
January 18th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
“It’s an incredible con job when you think about it, to believe something now, in exchange for something after death.” -Gloria Steinem
January 19th, 2009 at 1:11 am
Will & Richard,
My point is that the atheists who have expressed themselves seem to think that atheism is the answer to the world’s ills. That atheism won’t cause wars or killing of innocent people.
January 19th, 2009 at 1:49 am
Power House (troll), John Lennon said it perfectly in his song Imagine.
Atheism does not cause wars. No one has killed in the name of atheism.
Religion is the root of all evil!
Religion causes wars and killing.
This is getting tiring. Please leave since you are beyond reason like all your religious kind are.
January 19th, 2009 at 1:57 am
PH, maybe we feel that if everybody acted like this life is all you get and this world is all you can leave for your children people might be little more careful about starting fights or trashing the planet.
Imagine no 72 virgins, no bless me father and I’m forgiven, no abstinence only policies in countries being decimated by AIDS, no children and women being treated as chattels, no young girls being stoned to death because they were raped…
Imagine no religion.
January 19th, 2009 at 2:08 am
Power House: Neither atheism, nor the belief in a God necessarily results in mass killings. The real threat is dogma…the greatest enemy of reason and free thought. So in essence, you are correct that atheism does not preclude evil. Unfortunately, dogma is usually associated with the fervent belief in a deity….
Where reason is applied in the face of belief in God…the God usually ends up going extinct…In other words, where no evidence is found, the null hypothesis is accepted.
I try to be agreeable and friendly with most everyone because it makes more sense to get along with others. However, when I’m constantly being told that I am subhuman because I don’t accept the Lord Jesus Christ into my life…I don’t have to quietly put up with their nonsense…especially when there is not a shred of evidence to support the existence of a God. I’m done turning the other cheek.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:38 am
In response to:Blondin “I think “free thought” is a little humorous as the name of an organization that has no goal other than to attempt to change the beliefs of others.”
These buses are a defense, not an attack.
Religions maintain an arrogant monopoly on all that is “good” and “kind” in the world, and they constantly strive to make these religious views into law. Remember, it was not so long ago that you couldn’t open a store or a restaurant on Sunday because it was “un-Christian”.
These days, as Christianity wanes in the West, Islam is taking its place. Again, not so long ago Ontario introduced Islamic Sharia law into the Family Court system to deal with Muslim divorces. (It thankfully got struck down).
This is not about attacking religious people. It is about stating quite clearly that there are opposing points of view: that religions are not the end-all and be-all of decent, kind behavior.
Wm. Hopper,
author, The Heathen’s Guide to World Religions.
January 19th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
William, I was quoting/responding to someone named Shyam at comment #10.
January 19th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Hal,
My being here bothers you?
Clearly shows my point, atheists can and will persecute those who don’t believe as they do.
Its a new religion, not based on deity, but rather on the “probably” no God theory.
Same persecution of others who don’t hold the same belief.
New dogma, atheism.
January 19th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Power House, you are the biggest troll I have seen in a long time.
People here are “persecuting” you not because you don’t hold the same belief, but instead because you are not participating in intelligent conversation. You being here is not constructive.
Anyways…I really like this campaign, I think it can get people thinking. There are a lot of people who are just in a religion because they think it is a necessary part of life, some of them actually shop for the one that suits them
I would like to say that I am in favour of “There is almost certainly no god” as opposed to probably, we don’t go around saying there probably aren’t fairies and dragons
(For those who are not familiar with the term “troll”, it is used to describe someone who makes unfounded inflammatory remarks on forums, with the sole purpose of getting everyone riled up. For example “This is all a joke, right?” or “Free thought. Why are you asking for money?” quoted from Power House)
January 19th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
PH, it’s funny how you would think it is a bad thing if atheism was just like religion. As it happens it isn’t. This charge keeps coming up and it is bullshit. There is no dogma in atheism, nothing is sacred, everything is open to question. Atheism does NOT require faith. Atheism is a belief system like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
As for those nasty atheists ‘persecuting’ the pool little gotbots, well, sometimes a picture says it best:
http://www.atheist-community.org/atheisteve/?id=19
January 19th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
PH, you are just like every other religious fanatic out there when someone questions your belief.
If you religious fanatics would live peacefully amongst yourselves without causing the wars and deaths that you do and not impose your belief systems into governments that affect our lives, then there would be no need for our actions today.
Get it into your limited brain, atheism is not a religion!
January 19th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
To Power House (#64): Atheism is not a religion. Atheists are individuals who do not believe in the existence of a god or gods.
In the 21st century, it’s embarrassing that so many adults still believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful supernatural being. I assume you don’t believe in Santa Claus, and yet, jolly old St. Nick is just another version of the god you believe in: “He knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you’re awake, he knows when you’ve been bad or good, so be good for goodness’ sake!”
And if you were to study religion, mythology and culture, you’d learn that gods are imaginary beings invented by our uneducated ancestors to explain things they didn’t understand. In modern times, parents use religion (and Santa Claus) to scare kids into behaving, while those in power use religion to exercise control over the masses.
I personally don’t like the use of the word “probably” in the campaign. I’d prefer:
“God is imaginary. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”
January 19th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
This is a cause worth getting behind, because faith in pixies and such is a drag on society and progress.
If ad standards reject the ad (fear or whatever), please consider an alternative publicity campaign to generate awareness (guerrilla or similar).
January 19th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
powerhouse, it is not “persecution” if your inane posts get deleted from this site, which is a PRIVATE site primarly intended for atheists to discuss this campaign. Intelligent and respectful theistic comments are likely welcome… unfortunately your comments are neither intelligent nor respectful. If it we up to me, I’d leave your comments up… your inanity does more good for our cause than we do ourselves…. but don’t be surprised if your fatuous trolling gets taken out with the trash.
January 19th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
The argument, “shouldn’t you be taking that money and giving it to __insert seemingly more worthwhile charity here__” is both predictable and resoundingly hollow. One could just as easily make this argument every time a church is erected, a bible is printed, or a minister or mission is sent to a needy nation carrying a box load of biblical material rather than bananas.
This is an investment in sparking a dialog – a dialog that hopefully results in a movement – a movement that results in a very large number of people embracing reason, compassion, rationality and understanding as opposed to faith, ignorance, hate and intolerance. On a larger social scale, that is a MUCH better investment for your charity dollars. Feed a man for a day… etc. etc.
January 19th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Power House it isn’t just atheist who have abortions. That is a totally unfair comment.
January 19th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
To expand on the “Atheism is not a religion. Atheists are individuals who do not believe in the existence of a god or gods.” definition above, I would say that atheists are people unwilling to accept the truth value of a proposition with out supporting empirical evidence.
Religion seems to generate more than it’s fair share of untestable propositions, and then insisting that these propositions be treated “respectfully” and acting hurt when their claims are treated with the derision that they deserve.
In any other field (art, science, politics) the players are grownups who realize that if they make foolish claims they will look like fools and are willing to modify their position when presented with new evidence.
January 19th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
There’s probably no sushi place around that corner with the flashing lights. So stop worrying about it and go home.
See!! I told you, there is *no* sushi place here!!! Oh, but there’s a book store? Ha! So what, I only watch tv!
January 19th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Free thought only if it agrees with your thoughts.
Otherwise they are removed.
You do the same actions you are accusing the religious of doing.
January 19th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Powerhouse…which comments were removed?
We’re they disrespectful? inflammatory? Irrelevant?
I see that most of your comments are up…so why do you complain?
So far, you have accused atheists of being killers, dogmatic ideologists, hypocrits…Not very conducive to friendly chat.
I would suggest that you stop being a contrarian and try to understand why it is that we are what we are…We have had to put up with threats from the religious for a long time. We are the only group against whom discrimination is still generally accepted…or ignored. Our current of thought is actively discriminated against and yet you have the gall to come here and claim that you are not being respected in your beliefs.
Remember: God made us atheists…who are you to question his judgement?
January 19th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Its Amazing to see all the atheists fired up about a few people’s comments. The atheists are making all sorts of hypocritical comments as if only those that believe in a God have killed, caused wars and persecuted others. When called to fess up to their own actions they are crying poor me we are being discriminated against. Why don’t you remove all the comments that aren’t what you believe in like the ones from Shyam, Me, Blondin, Powerhouse. That way you’ll feel good cause it’ll look like no one disagrees with you. Isn’t that what this is all about cramming you believe on others because you feel others have done it to you. This is so one sided its ridiculous.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Any possibility I could get a small mention on the Supporters page? I donated $5 yesterday.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
When I was a child of five, I came to the conclusion that God (like Santa) didn’t actually exist. At first I was afraid to disbelieve, because I was told that disbelievers would spend an eternity burning in hell.
Eventually, my developing mind came to realize that IF this all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful god actually created me, then how could he possibly PUNISH me for using the very brain he gave me to use? (Duh!)
So… to those of you who’ve been indoctrinated to believe in a supernatural sky daddy: Don’t be afraid to use your brain… it’s okay to question everything!
January 19th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
My Issue is not with you, John, Power house is just a troll, they get kicks out of getting people angry. He is not making any constructive arguments, only accusing people of random things.
There is an old internet saying “Don’t feed the trolls”
It is very hard to do, but if you don’t respond to their random, unfounded, provocative statements they will stop.
Unfortunately we (me included (right now)) have fed this troll enough for him to keep coming back for more for quite awhile.
I called into question his/hers? motivation for posting and they responded with this unrelated, unfounded, crap
“Free thought only if it agrees with your thoughts.
Otherwise they are removed.
You do the same actions you are accusing the religious of doing.”
Really, I am making a promise not to respond to Power House anymore, He takes up too much valuable time
January 19th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Sorry Devon,
That’s exactly what I mean. Why let someone like PH and others upset what your trying to achieve. If you respond to him in the way he has been responded too, I find it just proves him right that the atheists are acting just like what they are accusing others of.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Sorry when you said Me I thought you ment you (John)!
I was a little confused, I do agree with you, and most people are pretty good on here, I love a good debate!
January 19th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
To Power House and other theists who have posted here:
I am an athiest who does not believe that religion is the root of all evil. Nor is atheism. I would enjoy a civil discussion but I think this is not the forum for it. If you are interested in truly understanding the underlying belief systems (of skepticality, secular humanism, etc.) there are many places to do so. I am not trying to censor your posts here. If you chose to continue posting my hope is that admin will allow you to do so.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:28 am
John, your reading comprehension skills leave something to be desired. If you actually read these posts you would realize that I am not on the side of Shyam nor PH nor, judging from the tone of your comments, you.
Your accusation of one-sidedness is bullshit, too. It’s ironic that there are so many comments on here complaining that dissenting comments are being deleted. It seems rather obvious that, if any comments were deleted, it was not simply for disagreeing.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:11 am
As a contributor to the atheistbus.ca campaign I’m interested in the reactions of like minded people (hopefully also contributors or soon to be contributors).
godbots, cretinists, various forms of religious thugs and assorted bottom feeding trolls may feel more comfortable on other sites such as the Discovery Institute or Answers in Genesis. Your opinions will be welcome there as long as they agree with the local dogma.
I’d like to see issues like how to proceed after the initial ad campaign discussed. I’m sure there will be lots of offended bleating from organized religion. It doesn’t take much imagination to figure out how they will repond (i.e. atheism is a religion too, what about Stalin and Hitler, etc. etc.).
Rather than responding reactively it could be useful to have the next stage already to go. Could literally be rebutting their arguments (such as they are) as they are leaving their mouths.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:50 am
Steve I am slightly confused by your post, do you mean to say “Your opinions will be welcome there as long as they agree with the local dogma.”?
Do you mean with regards to suggestions? Or are you saying that this is not an open board?
It just sounds like you are going to silence peoples opinions…
January 20th, 2009 at 2:21 am
I believe steve is referring to the comment policies of the Discovery Institute in Seattle, WA and Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis . Both sites accomplished liars for Jesus. Why not pop over there and see how many dissenting opinions you can find on their pages?
January 20th, 2009 at 3:07 am
That is very obvious to me now that I know…I feel stupid…thanks for clearing that up for me Blondin
January 20th, 2009 at 3:39 am
I misunderstood Steve, and right away I went off half cocked fighting for the freedom to express ideas…sorry Steve
As for next stage campaign ideas…most religious responses will be more of the same old non-rational stuff, not really directly about the campaign, that is what the campaign is meant to combat in the first place.
Therefore continuing to put out good, thought provoking adds would still be just as effective.
I will try to find out what people are saying about the British Atheist bus movement, but from what I have seen, it is all old news, most of the arguements made in favour of god have been around for centuries, and were shot down centuries ago. Religion is not exactly the best at developing new arguements… see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism_(Roman_Catholicism)
I think there are a lot of good quotes out there, to continue with as a means of promoting discussion.
January 20th, 2009 at 6:31 am
By the ad statement saying that you should enjoy your life because you believe there is no God I am just curious what makes you believe that God would not want you to enjoy life? And what are we talking about when we say enjoy? Are we talking about sin? Is that enjoyable? I guarantee you that if you truly examined the things and behaviours that we call sin that you would know that they are poisons to what is natural in all human beings. Is poison enjoyable to you?
What is natural in life bears the handiwork of God so evidently that for someone to state their lack of belief in God is nothing more than purposeful blindness. Look at nature and your body and there is enough evidence in the masterful hand of God because none or the order you see in nature can come about by coincidence or through chaos.
January 20th, 2009 at 8:49 am
This is a great idea. I am still quiet about my atheism with family, as some are committed Christians themselves, but little by little I feel braver, and feel all the better for it!
January 20th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Tim, welcome and this what it is all about. For more information on coming out, check out Richard Dawkins’ sites, http://richarddawkins.net/
http://outcampaign.org/
and all of his works and videos on the web.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
One resource that organized religion seems to have tapped quite successfully is mainstream media. There is always some pompous religious type pontificating in a TV sound bite or a newspaper opinion piece.
Perhaps we should try the same approach.
For example, there is the Michael Coren show on Crossroads Television System. I know that Michael Coren and CTS are both died in the wool fundie types, but to his credit Micheal Coren seems to put this all aside and is willing to provide coverage one rarely sees on CBC or CTV. Wouldn’t be great to get atheistbus.ca coverage on his show. Talk about hitting the right demographic.
There is also the print media approach. For a few hundred dollars press releases can be sent on on various news wire services such Canadian News Wire (http://www.newswire.ca). All newspapers subscribe to these services and will see the release.
And of course there is our national pride and joy, the CBC. Perhaps an appearance with George Strombopolous on The Hour is possible. It would be a true miracle.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Neil, the ad actually says to enjoy the only life you will ever have and not waste your time trying to placate an imaginary sky fairy.
It all just voices in your head, not evidence of a bid daddy in the sky, but perhaps evidence of a mental disorder in yourself. In any other venue, when you allow your life to be controlled by imaginary friends that only you can hear and tell you to do things, you are considered to be a public nuisance and asked to get treatment for your afflication.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Like Tim, I’m quiet about my atheism too; many of my friends are religious. I don’t care to convince anyone, nor do I want to preach. It’s just nice to know that there are other people out there who feel the same way.
Neil, it’s fine if you enjoy life with your god. We’re just saying we enjoy ours without him.
January 20th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Spotted this on Yahoo Canada.
http://ca.lifestyle.yahoo.com/family-relationships/articles/archive/cp/home_family-atheist_transit_ads_proposed_for_toronto_could_roll_into_other_canadian_cities
January 20th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
I am amazed. So many Unbelievers!
As an “unbeliever”… All I wish is that I would not be treated as some kind of heathen or subserviant just because I do not believe in the same belief structure someone else does. I do not in any way force my beliefs on other “believers”, I respect their decision. If it makes them feel good to believe in a higher power, I hope it helps them be a better person. My beliefs (or unbeliefs) make me a better person because I am unbiased and I can open my mind to a world of possibilities beyond that of someone who has to believe a certain way because of faith in a system of one sort or another.
One thing that drives me nuts is people from other religions who come to Canada and try to change the laws here because the laws do not fit into thier belief system. Why? … Why come here if all you want to make it like home? … Why does it matter how I live my life? … Why cant everyone just live and let live?
To those who think Atheism is a religion… Where are the churches and preachers? I see none for Atheism. Where are the wars in the name of our non-God? I see many, but only in the name of God. Such as the one that has gone on for the past 60+ yrs in Palestine (or modern day Isreal). This war is about two different religions claiming the same land. What a waste of time, money and human life. Anyone who thinks that war will ever end is almost as folley as the extremists who think they will create a martyr of themselves by going on a suicide run to take some other people with them. The only way that war will end is by Isreal committing genocide and destroying all the Palestinians. And in that case making the rest of the world, especially the UN upset because they broke the laws of the Geneva Convention.
Sigh… I have gone off on a tangent because some people do not understand the right of “Freedom of Religion” or in better words used previously “Freedom from Religion”.
January 20th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Neil,
If you deny evolution, you are ignoring 150 years of science, thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed publications and you are demonstrating a lack of scientific understanding of the theory.
Steve, Although I agree with your position, people Like Neil need to express their views and this is the best place to have a debate…accusations of mental illness are counter-indicated. I would suggest that you should refer to indoctrinations rather than mental illness.
Neil, to finish this off…If you are unwilling to question your beliefs, you disrespect yourself. A person who respects himself is willing to challenge himself. If you won’t do it, then I will challenge your beliefs. If I didn’t, then I would be telling you that I have disdain for your ideas, or that you are unworthy…that is not the case. Please present any evidence you wish to support your view of the existence of a god….you are welcome at this debate…as long as you remain respectful…and quoting scripture is not useful…
January 20th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
What steve said.
Neil, you pontificating, pompous, religious type, if the sins your are refering to are things like what goes on in the privacy of bedrooms of consenting adults, using birth control, having access to abortion and other such matters that are none of your goddamn business, then YES, sin would be (part of) what we are talking about.
The very concept of sin is a very large part of what atheists object to. If you can’t propose laws or policies that can be justified without invoking scripture or your imagined divine directives then just keep your beliefs to yourself.
January 20th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Thank you, everyone for your posts. I will argue from experience and say that I have met far more happy Christians than happy atheists. In fact the overwhelming majority of atheistic writing is bitter. I have noticed this even when these authors write on topics totally separate from the ‘existence or non-existence’ of God. If you would like more proof, simply read through these post and see which ones seem to have a chip on the shoulder.
January 20th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Steve, Richard, and Blondin…. thanks for the replies and the chance to debate this topic. It is always good to be able to talk and discuss. Steve and Blondin I did find your comments a bit on the aggressive side but I will address them. I was not attacking you but simply offering my views; that is after all part of the freedom of speech you are talking about in this site.
One thing I always point to in my belief in God is the order in nature and I did allude to this in our bodies even. I use the example of a car to illustrate since we likely all do drive one these days. As we know there are tons of parts that go into a car that make it a functioning piece of equipment. If we took all those parts and laid them on the floor beside each other or through them in one big box do we have a car? We would only have the parts. It requires some orchestration in design to have all these individual things perform their function in a car. Car’s don’t naturally evolve; we design and create them. Our bodies are similar in that there are millions of parts that make it all a functioning body but without some masterful integration they are just parts. No human of their own willing can bring a human into being let alone design, of their own intellect, another being. Over the centuries we have studied the body but from what we were given… it was never something man planned into existence like the making of an automobile or the technologies that preceded it. So even if today we have studied the body enough to clone etc. we still have not come up with with anything that WE have made but rather are using the blueprints of what already exists. So how did it come into existence. If we talk about evolution, have we stopped evolving? Will we eventually sprout wings because we desire to one day fly or need to? Theories of evolution are speculative as we do not witness first hand what has been theorized and this may be no different that faith passed down because we go by what has been passed down to us in thought.
Regarding Blondin’s response… first of all don’t be insulting in your address I thank you ver much. I respect your dignity and do not attack you and expect the same grace in return. Sin does not need to be given you by any faith or person of faith; it is unwritten in every human heart. It can be reasoned without doctrine. It is funny that you point straight to sexual things as being sinful. Human sexality is not sinful at all. It is in fact quite natural but it does have consequences and requires responsibility. When you look a human sexuality you see the complementary nature of man and women in the sexual act and in their bodies. I think this in itself points to some greater intelligence in it’s design. There is no doubt that there is pleasure in the sexual act but that is not it’s purpose or function if you truly examine it. Take eating for example. We derive some pleasure in eating through taste but the purpose of eating is to nourish our bodies. You have to separate sensation from function to understand. In human sexuality in complementary nature of man and woman we know that both play a part in the creation of a new life by the reproductive organs of male and female. As much as you can experience pleasure in your sexuality you can see this as being the purpose of it’s function. In abortion and birth control you even RECOGNIZE this but go against it because it is not your DESIRE to bring forth new life. In this case human sexuality is being misuded and I don’t see how one can deny this accusation. Make no mistake tha abortion is the killing of a human life. There is life being formed in the womb and it is not a dead thing that grows within the body. One would be blind to believe this but alas look at the laws in our society that say this is ok.
I apologize for the length in writing but hope I addressed what has been brought up. I hope we can discuss matters further. By the way, Blondin… I find what you write contradictory in places and hypocritical. I am sure if you re-read what you wrote you will see it too. Just an observation. God Bless you.
January 20th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
it’s an interesting idea…
but it’s also pretty bizarre how this is something that people find necessary to donate money to…when there are so many homeless people, children that go without meals, abused women, foundations for research for diseases, third world countries that need our support, animals at the pound that have no home… jeeze, i could even use some extra money! :-p
it’s a little self-centered to raise awareness and money for your opinions, yet not give care to other things in the world.
as funny as i think this whole thing is, i definitely won’t waste my money on some bus ad that throws in people’s faces that there may not be a God. don’t people have anything better to do with their time and money? and don’t get me wrong–i don’t care for those church ads i see scattered along the ttc either. Religion and beliefs are personal opinions, and don’t need to be tossed into anyone’s faces. people are also quite sensetive to their beliefs, so this is yet another way that so many people will be offended. freedom of speech is great and all, bravo if you accomplish it. but that’s like me going out and telling everyone “YOUR SKINNY JEANS ARE UGLY!” just because I don’t like them. who cares?!
maybe i should start up something similar with my opinions of ugly shoes. that makes just as much sense.
*edit by admin* Please read the FAQ as your comments and questions are answered there, especially the one about homeless etc.
January 20th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
and just for the record, one issue that people can never win with when debating, is religion.
January 20th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Justin Trottier on the Athiest Bus Campaign
The World Tonight Redux with AM 770 CHQR’s Rob Breakenridge.
http://emedia.am770chqr.com/podcasts/worldtonightreduxjan19.mp3
January 20th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Neil,
I understand the temptation to adhere to the argument from design when you see the wonders of nature….however, Intelligent design fails to explain sub-optimality. It also fails to explain the tape worm, tuberculosis and AIDS…unless you believe in a malevolent creator.
Finally, if you adhere to the design theology, then you shouldn’t be too worried if the doctor offers you anti-biotics that were effective against ailments from the 1950s…since, in your view, bacteria haven’t evolved, but were designed, then you shouldn’t worry about anti-biotic resistant strains…because they shouldn’t exist. (btw, I have actually seen with my own eyes the emergence of new bacterial strains…right in a petrie dish…perhaps I witnessed creation, but somehow I doubt it)
I guess we should also continue to use DDT despite the fact that mosquitoes have evolved resistances to these.
As for your views on abortion, I would submit that they are limited by your views regarding the moment that a life begins. The fact is that there is no biological evidence for your position. It is rather arbitrary to assume that life begins at the fusion of spermatozoa and ova. In fact, if that were the case, why wouldn’t you want to save all sperm and ova from destruction…all of these have the potential to contribute to the formation of a life. By preventing them from fusing, you are de facto aborting. Therefore, anyone who ever abstained from sex is an abortionist. I would therefore suggest going to protest in front of Kimberly Clarks kleenex factory…many more abortions caused by these than you are willing to admit.
You will also note that a large proportion of pregnancies abort spontaneously. In a world of design…that would either be caused by an abortionist designer, or a faulty design. And if the designer has so many faults…can he/she be a god worthy of worship? The truth is that abortion occurs in a huge variety of species…please read up on Eberhard’s evidence for female cryptic choice in multiple species.
Unfortunately, your views fly in the face of 150 years of science that has produced thousands and thousands of peer-reviewed articles which support the precepts of Natural selection. Intelligent Design has been debunked over and over again…
On the ethics side…I would posit that most women who have an abortion don’t set out to have one from the start and that it is generally not used as a means of ‘after-the-fact’ contraception. An abortion is not something that a woman takes lightly…and piling loads of guilt on said woman and brandishing the threat of eternal damnation is counter-productive at best and downright cruel at worst.
Finally, on the issue of the morality of sexuality…I have to disagree with you relative to it’s purpose. Sexuality is not necessarily limited in function. Sexuality can be used to reinforce bonds between individuals and in some cases, to select an adequate mate. You’ll find this to be true in nature as well..lots of research on this subject. Although I do not practice polyamory, you’ll find that monogamy is certainly not the norm in nature (it exists in bird species but that is more the exception than the rule)…that is due to the conflict of interest between sexes. As a general rule in nature, as females produce a limited number of gametes throughout their lives that are physiologically costly to produce, they should be seeking quality mates to ensure their fitness, whereas males who generally incur little cost for the production of gametes, gain greatest fitness benefits from mating with as many mates as possible. I didn’t invent this so don’t be scandalized with me. Look up the scientific litterature on conflict of interests between sexes and sexual selcetion.
Furthermore, the simple act of providing pleasure to another is kind of a nice thing to do…if both are consenting.
I would ask that you consider each word in here. These have been written with a full understanding of evolution and natural selection as well as in full knowledge of Behe and Dembski’s flawed arguments for design.
Thanks and feel free to comment…
January 20th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Neil, since you have taken the time to explain your position I feel obliged to apologize for being insulting. Since I’m at work right now I’ll keep this short and respond at greater length on my own time later on. In the meantime could you expand on what you find contradictory or hypocritical in my previous posts?
For the record, when I use language implying people should keep their beliefs to themselves I do not mean to say that they should not be allowed to discuss/debate honestly. People who throw out tired old cliches, that have been rationally refuted many times over, are the people I tend to get very short with. You don’t appear to be one of those post & run types (although your car analogy comes dangerously close to Paley’s watch or Hoyle’s tornado in a junkyard, both of which only indicate the authors’ ignorance of what Darwin’s theory actually says).
Cheers.
January 20th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Are you sure you’re atheists? “There’s probably no God” is either non-commital or more of an agnostic comment.
I’ve been an atheist and an agnostic so I know the difference.
Why do you attack the simple-minded believers? Here is a Gnostics blog-spot; why not prove him wrong?
January 20th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Wow, thank you, Mr Byrne!! What a donation! That’s awesome!
January 20th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
The website for the Gnostic blog didn’t find it’s way into my comment above; so I’ll add it here:
http://brotherofyeshua.blogspot.com/2008/09/reply-god-who-wasnt-there.html
January 20th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
I certainly won’t support atheists that attack everyone and everything that doesn’t agree with their ideologies.
January 21st, 2009 at 12:51 am
Nikki, the argument that this money could go to a better cause could be applied to anything. The money I spend on restaurants could go to charity, the money I spend going on vacation could go to charity, the money I spend on feeding my birds could go to charity… you get the idea.
Atheism goes a little further than just a matter of opinion. Atheism often stems from skepticism. I don’t mind spending money on promoting rationality. Blind faith is too often touted as a virtue.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever worked oversea in countries where freedom of expression is limited? Even though people are hungry or abused, they will try to find money to promote their ideas and their opinions. Without public discourse, how does a culture evolve?
January 21st, 2009 at 1:41 am
Well said Finch,
I was going to say something, but you pretty well covered it.
January 21st, 2009 at 3:46 am
Thanks again for the dialogue in responses and I will try my best to be brief.
Richard you had mentioned sub-obtimality and specifically in way of disease, illness, or plagues of sorts and saying that this can’t reflect the presence of a malevolant deity. I think that is a weak argument in that illnesses are heriditary in some cases and aflictions can be the result of outside circumstances. While I don’t have a medical background I would refer to things like technology and radiation that can lead to problems like cancers. Look at things like smoking that can cause problems. The problems you have mentioned have to be examined from their root and I would suggest in the lifetime of any one person there is not history enough to make absolutely accurate conclusions as to cause and effect. We live in a world that we say that the effects of certain toxins are negligible and won’t harm us unless exposed for 100s of years but yet I dare say that study has gone so far as to empirically note this. To sum this thought I would say that once an imperfection enters a person it is possible that this imperfection be passed on heriditarily and so I don’t see it as malevolance in God; it’s very original and root cause has to be understood and it’s first instance traced to know.
Regarding evolution I do not say that evolution refutes God in the sense that I see your point by way of bacteria and it’s evolution over time; ability to adapt and change. But this is far different than saying humans evolved from apes yet there are still apes and humans in the world today. I don’t know what Darwin says of this or what you can explain to me but I don’t see there being proof and fact that such a drastic evolution as I said has happened. At the root of this argument where and how does the first instance of life begin. If we know that humanity reproduces to bring new life into the world then doesn’t it tell us that it had to begin somewhere down the line in the same way? There is no proof of it happening otherwise. Even our immune systems get strengthened as you may point out but this is far different than the evolution you are alluding to in trying to say there may be no God. It’s like looking at the fact a bullet can pierce flesh and saying that human skin will one day be immuned to this… there are limits that we know of. I guess I’d need other examples perhaps.
I find the argument on abortion absurd. I can’t believe that a growing being that starts as a single cell continually forming in the womb can be seen as anything less than a living being. The seeds of life are the sperm and the ova but on their own are not a life. I guess that is arguable. Your equating the fact that in the natural process of the sexual act there are many sperm and one ova, to being as abortion is absurd.. not to be insulting but one process is random for lack of a better word and to abort and kill a fetus is intentional!! Don’t even try to equate them. It may be like me calling someone prejudice because they do not shake hands with everybody in their entire college. I don’t have a good example but I think you can understand what I mean in the idea being absurd.
From what I see much of what you argue is that the lack of perfection and perhaps absolute uniformity not unlike that which could be through cloning is your point to the lack of existence of God.
Going back to abortion and that which is deliberate in removing the growth of a live fetus is nothing less than evil. Don’t look for grey in this. Either something is alive or it is not. Killing what is alive is wrong. You don’t need faith to tell you this. Look to your very own existence and you can’t see that the snuffing out of a life is anything good; and you can’t blame God for such a choice.
About sexual morality I didn’t say that sexuality is limited to function. I said that you find it’s core purpose in it’s function because when carried out the seeds of life are brought forth with the opportunity to create life. If they are presented as such then to deny this “meeting” by whatever means is to not fully use the act and thereby reduce it to something which it is not meant for. In essence it is to shortchange yourselves to remove it’s function and simply use it for pleasure. You argument of using it to find your mate is cheap. You are suggesting that to do so for lust as being in accord to it’s purpose and I can’t agree with that at all. As I mentioned before .. there is responsibility to be taken. To also bring it down to animal parallel is also not rational since humans are not on the same level as animals.
Sorry as I did hope to be brief.
Getting to Blondins comments ….thank you for writing and the civility in your response; meaning rather than the more aggressive first note. I just found it cotradictory and hypocritical to say not to state my beliefs while those who would be opposed are also stating their beliefs.
I guess in the end we can go back and forth but minds and hearts are set and made up.. I just wanted to give my two cents because I strongly believe that if we look there is enough reason to believe in God as I do. I don’t wish anybody any harm as I am sure the same of you all. I guess I don’t see why people seem so offended and so certain to say that there isn’t a higher power and the need to lump people of faith and having faith as being something that will repress ones happiness. That is what I found inaccurate in the campaign that the idea was that if there is a God that it frees you to “enjoy” your life. In my love for God I enjoy my life more and feel that it is a natural blueprint to be a blessing to others; so I guess I just think there is a wrong reference in the underlying message.
+
January 21st, 2009 at 5:41 am
Neil, if you want to do a bit of reading about evolution and the process of natural selection check out:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
or
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php
For information about Charles Darwin:
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/
Some of your comments reveal that you don’t understand what Darwin’s theory of evolution actually says. Your remark about there still being apes is like the center square on the creationist bullshit bingo card.
Think about this: the theory of evolution says that ALL species evolved from a common ancestor. Now, if the theory states that every new species replaces it’s ancestor, then you should be asking why there is anything other than humans or at least why there is more than one species. It should seem obvious that species don’t replace their ancestors and Charles Darwin never claimed they did.
The concept of evolution (or descent with modification) was not a new concept in Darwin’s time. Artificial selection was a very well known and well understood phenomenon. Animal breeders knew how to breed for desired traits and attributes, killing the runt of the litter, mating prize horses, cattle, sheep, etc. Darwin’s great insight was simply that a similar process might be occuring in nature. He observed that:
1) more offspring are born than will survive.
2) there is variation in every generation.
3) those individuals who are born with some natural advantage tend to survive
That was really it. The rest of his book, “The Origin of Species” was filled up with every test he could think of which might disprove his theory (but subsequently didn’t). He didn’t know about the mechanism by which variation was introduced in each generation (genetics) and he didn’t quite get everything right but he was quite thorough in his examination of the theory. He foresaw issues like the complexity of organs like the eye or the wing and gave completely viable and elegant explanations for how these could have come about.
In the years since Darwin, geology, archeology, anthropology, biology, molecular biology and many other areas of study have probed and tested every aspect of the theory of evolution. Many of the murky areas have been filled in and various adjustments made all of which only strengthens a theory.
Evolution could be so easily disproven, for example, if even one fossil showed up somewhere that the theory says it shouldn’t (Haldane’s rabbits in the precambrian). Not only has nothing like that happened, but scientists have been able to make predictions about fossils that should be found in certain locations and then found them there (see: http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/).
Of course none of this proves that there isn’t a god. But there are resulting implications that make god irrelevant. By far the vast majority of all species that ever existed are extinct. The more we learn about the path our evolution has followed the more we realize that there was no design, no goal toward which evolution is directed. No evidence at all that anything was ‘meant’ to happen or evolve a certain way.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:04 am
Neil,
I won’t answer everything that you put out there because I’m not sure I understood all your arguments. What you need to understand is that macro-evolution is the accumulation, over very long periods of time, of modifications through descent. How much change do you need to spearate one species from another. You would like to see a fish turn into an amphibian…or a frog turn into a goat..then you misunderstand and don’t have a full appreciation of how much time life has been on earth…
It is entirely possible that humans and the great apes diverged from a common ancestor a very long time ago. The introduction of mutations and directional selection could very well have resulted in what we have today…..
Second, evolution does not mean progress, nor succession. It means modification through descent. Hence, that is why it is not necessary for apes to be extinct. Especially because we did not descend from apes, we diverged from them. Evolution does not imply that species become more intelligent over time…it means that those individuals that are adapted to their environment tend to produce more offspring and propagate….Under Religion, humans tend to see themselve as the pinnacle of ‘creation’ and typically, the religious cannot bear to be part of the very nature they were told to subdue and dominate in Genesis. It kinda says, ‘Hey, we aren’t so special after all’ or…’wow..you mean the universe was not created as a big testing ground for us?’ You do realize that we are only on a small planet circling a minor star in a very ordinary looking galaxy among millions of other galaxies. To give ourselves such great importance is somewhat arrogant, doN,t you think.
With respect to sexual morality…I’m not quite sure what you mean…Are you suggeting that people shouldn’t have sex unless they intend to produce offspring? My friend…although I respect your choice, I don’t think you’ll be getting some tonight…but that’s just perfect..right. There is nothing wrong with sex for the sake of having sex…as long as the partners are consenting. Yes, partners need to be responsible, but to suggest that it should only be done with the intent of reproducing seems a little rigid…no? I mean, if both are responsible, why not? If you cannot accept that, that is fine with me…but please don’t let the church impose this sort of logic on me.
With respect to abortion…you, quite frankly, don,t know what you are talking about. To state that any point in a cycle is more important than another is false. You have tinged this issue with your own personal values and perceptions..and that is fine, but from a purely scientific point of view, it makes no difference to abort 1 second before conception by using a condom, than it does 1 second after by using the day after pill…It is all in your mind and ethically equal. The moment where a life comes into being is not yet determined by science. If you choose to state that it is when sperm meets ova, then that’s your choice…My point is that until there is any evidence that a blastula is a life, I will continue to see it as a potential life. Especially considering that a large proportion of blastulae spontaneously abort.
Fourthly, Human’s ARE animals…we are part of the Mammalia. We share approximately 99% of out DNA with Chimpanzee’s. We may have superior reasoning capacities (at least in some cases) but some animals are vastly superior in other instances. Some have better eye-sight, others are much stronger, or faster and some can swim much better…to state that we are not at the same level as animals is a gross misunderstanding of Nature…but that is also very typical of religious thought. In fact..should a large disaster occur on earth..I’d put my money on the cockroach rather than on humans. I would suggest reading Evolutionary Ecology by Doug Futuyma to get up to speed on the whole thing. Once you have informed yourself of the theory, we can discuss this point in much greater depth.
Finally, The underlying message of the bus campaign is that we don’t have to be good to please God. Especially since there is no evidence for his existence. Be good for the simple sake of being good and do it by using reason. There are enough reasons to be good without invoking the fire and brimstone of hell. If people need the incentive of heaven and the threat of hell to be good to others, then without God…would they be good? or is that just an imposed obligation.
January 21st, 2009 at 12:22 pm
The evolution theory has it own flaws.
To make it all seem possible so called scientists say it took millions of years to happen. To explain even harder things a few billion years. Amounts of time seem to be the miracle to make it all plausible.
You accuse others of having blind faith when you yourselves are blind to the faith you need to believe in your own theory.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:50 pm
If everyone in the world would “stop worrying” and “enjoy their lives”, there’d be “no holds barred”.
A better message (and “probably” the real one) from the atheist should be “Life leads to non-existence, so live for yourself or commit suicide.”
The atheist offers a message of no hope and anything they do for future generations doesn’t matter because it all leads to the same end — nothing!
January 21st, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Just to let you know: Many of us who beleive in God are neither worried nor unhappy.
That assumption is akin to my assumption that all athiests are angry, self-indulgent people using the athiest label as an excuse for inconsiderate and intolerant behaviour. Yes, intolerant.
I will not be donating to your campaign; however, I gladly donate at church every week, knowing that my money helps people in our community — whether they be beleiver or non-beleiver.
Who exactly are you helping with this campaign????
January 21st, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Mike, do you have some evidence that the Earth is considerably less than 4.7 billion years old?
F_N, you scare me far more than any atheist I’ve ever met. Yeah, you must be right, that invisible big brother in the sky will make you pay for all your evil deeds so you better just keep on believin’!
January 21st, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Blondin, I sure hope you are referring to another F_N, because I certainly didn’t mention anything about believe or you’ll “pay for all your evil deeds”.
I’m far more concerned with the well being of a person who seems to have no hope.
Don’t forget, 97%+ of the world’s pop. believe in something.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:50 pm
No, F_N, I was referring to you.
Did you not imply that the atheist message equates to “no holds barred”? If this is not a restatement of the “why should I be good if there’s no god” argument then maybe you could explain what you did mean.
I truly pity people who feel that life has no meaning if there is no afterlife. To me the lack of an afterlife only increases the value of the life we do have. If everybody in the world acted like this life is all any of us get and this world is all we have to leave to our children then maybe more people would be interested in solving problems that plague us now instead of trying to appease the big kahuna (especially when appeasing the big kahuna often involves being nasty to others).
btw: 97% of all statistics are made up.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Oh, and one more thought…
If 97% of the world’s population believed that Elvis was alive and living in Alaska would that make it true?
January 21st, 2009 at 8:00 pm
lol Blondin on the stats remark.
The “No holds barred” comment is suggesting that some people might interpret “stop worrying and enjoy life” because God “probably” doesn’t exist, as a reason to be selfish and inconsiderate of others because they aren’t accountable in the end.
January 21st, 2009 at 8:13 pm
You mean to tell me that Elvis ISN’T alive?
January 21st, 2009 at 10:12 pm
I am a little annoyed by the fact that the admins here decided to allow this site to turn into yet another “God or not” discussion arena. There are thousands of those all over the web. In my opinion the religious folks who come here wishing to learn the basics of Darwinism or science and reason in general, should be politely directed to other web resources. Those religious folks who are opposed to the bus signs idea should be treated like trolls (posts deleted).
For those who don’t know what trolling is – that’s for example when someone goes to a church and starts shouting that there’s no God and nobody should donate.
I know my opinion may come across as harsh, but that’s how I feel, especially after donating. I am starting to feel nervous about that, seeing no update from the owners on the progress of the bus sign negotiations.
As I said, there are thousands of other web sites for philosophical discussions, what the owners of this site promised and people like me want to see is the first Canadian bus with a sign that there is (OK, even with the word “probably”) no God.
January 21st, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Blondin,
How do you know the earth is 4.7 billion and not 4.6 billion years old?
To make evolution plausible scientists conjure up huge amounts of time for it to look possible.
Its a flawed theory. It assumes many variables to come up with its theory.
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:10 am
Beeblebrox, I feel your feels towards these religious trolls on here. You did not make a mistake on your donation for the ads. I just donated as well. There is no way TTC will deny these ads since they were already on UK buses and there is nothing untruthful in its message. That is why “probably” is used. We all know the probability of its existence is as close to zero as one can get but scientifically, one cannot prove something does not exist.
I keep telling these trolls to go to http://www.betonjesus.com and put there money where there mouths and unintelligent minds are. I really feel sorry for those people who waste their lives away believing in fairy tales.
And Mike, whats a few hundred million years here or there. Mike, what day were the fossils made?
January 22nd, 2009 at 3:28 am
Beeblebrox: Rest assured that discussions are ongoing with the TTC and the administrators of this site are hard at work. The management of this initiative is a lot of work. It includes managing media requests, a website, a facebook page, now in both official languages (btw) and money drive while coordinating with various humanist, atheist, agnostic and secular groups and negotiating an advertising deal with a company that has its own priorities and timelines. Soon, this website will be available in French as well…so there is another task. …and with all that we have to manage our own lives plus dodge bullets from angry theists who accuse us of living a big lie because we believe in Evolution, or because we ‘have no hope’, or don’t fear God.
It’s a lot of work and we are few actually doing it…but stay tuned, your patience is appreciated and I am confident that when you see that first bus roll out with a healthy message of reason on it, you’ll find that it was well worth the wait.
As for those who wish to defend their views of religion or irreligion on this site…as long as it is a respectful conversation, let it fly. There is nothing wrong with opposition, but If opponents that say that evolution and atheism are without basis, I would recommend that they offer a more plausible, scientifically-founded theory to replace the exiting ones..otherwise, things degrade quickly into one-dimensional contrarianism…That is only counter-productive.
If people come here to preach and have no intention to examine the evidence in a truly unbiased way, then they are wasting their time.
To those that insist on faith in a deity and cannot understand our position…let me just say this…most of us here were once connected to a religion in some way. Either we were born into it, or some members of our family are religious. We did not choose to stop believing. Disbelief is a condition that you arrive at after you’ve weighed all the facts before you. Unless the facts change, there is no way we can bring ourselves to believe, because that would amount to lying to ourselves.
Finally…to those that think that the message is one of hopelessnes..I have to agree with Blondin…what makes this life so special is that it only happens once (of course, if you can prove the opposite, I won’t be angry)…now stop worrying about what comes after and enjoy. The best way to enjoy it is to get along with others and savour every moment…life goes by so fast…you spend way more time in oblivion than you do in sentience…use your time wisely.
I hope this addresses some of the concerns…stay tuned
January 22nd, 2009 at 3:45 am
Mike…according to you, how old is the Earth? You can try and criticize other theories, but if you have nothing to offer as an alternative, you are just a hollow man.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Richard,
I’m a hollow man Mike. Why do you care to know who old I think the Earth is?
Hal,
Fossils were made at the time those species were covered. Its amazing to read all your accusations and name calling towards those who do speak different than you do. This shows your atheism views produce no better actions.
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Beeblebrox, I sort of agree with you but unfortunately some of us suffer from ‘SIWOTI syndrome’ http://xkcd.com/386/
Mike,
4.5 billion, 4.7 billion… in that neighbourhood. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:34 pm
The belief in the nonexistence of GOD is not reason. It is the ego gone haywire, the spiritual senses dulled. The only proof there is that GOD exists is with the people who have had personal experiences with GOD. You will not set aside your own ego to see reason. I feel sorry for you. May GOD find some way to bless you someway. Amen
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:54 pm
I seriously don’t understand the need for discussion about the existence or none existence of God … I mean … there is no intelligent argument that one could say to a person who believes in something so unbelievable and so incredibly impossible that could change the way they think …
I mean … religious people have voices in their head for crying out loud!!!! … What can you possibly say that would make them change their mind without them wanting to look for the truth themselves? … I think is a waste of time and energy …
We should concentrate our efforts in making our voices be heard … let the world know that we are here … Make our rights count … stop being apologetic and discriminated against, become a political power, influence change and make the rest respect us … that is the best way … to teach by example … this bus idea is a great way of doing that …
Discussion about this even though can be lots of fun, and if done with intelligent people help you grow and learn … and more often than not, better understand yourself, are unlikely to happen in spaces like this that fill up very quickly with narrow minded fanatics (sometimes on both sides) and all you get in return is negative feedback that will eventually affect you … so cooomeee oonnn …. Let’s just get stronger as the biggest minority that we are … better organized … and let our presence be known …
January 22nd, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Mike: It’s not that I really care how old you think the earth is…but you can’t criticize someone else if you don’t have a solid position upon which to defend base your opposition…that is just contrarianism and it defeats the purpose of healthy debate. The problem with your posts is that you criticize but you don’t contribute.
In terms of ad hominem attacks…I agree…people should show restraint. But it does not demonstrate that atheism does not produce better actions. It’s not the concept of atheism that is flawed…it is what people do with it.
January 22nd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
So, no God ? OK, what’s life all about then ? Just all have a good time ?? and then die ? This is a recipe for Anarchy if you ask me.
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Name calling? Religious fanatics are unintelligent people. If they had intelligence, they would see the truth in the evidence that science provides as opposed to the written fairy tales of their fictional bible that they think is factual.
WWFSMD?
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Richard,
I’m not trying to be contrary, just trying to express the flaws in the theory and bring a more balanced understanding. In my personal opinion I wouldn’t base my non-belief in a God based on a flawed evolution theory.
As far as the ad hominem attacks…The reverse applies too.
Its not the concept of Christianity / Islam / Judaism etc… that is flawed, its what people have done with it in the past and some continue to do with it today.
So many labels have been applied to believers of various faiths in posts on this site that are really only applicable a select few who abused of their positions. Not all belivers are what they are being portrayed to be here.
Just as I’m sure not all atheists are as some on here who have denigrated believers actions to prove their point.
Those who hold placards saying repent or burn in hell are a tiny minority who clearly have chosen to scare people into belief due to their misunderstanding of scriptures.
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
The minority of those people also flew the planes and blow themselves up taking others with them….
There are no flaws in our theories and facts.
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Sorry Hal,
Even evolutionary scientists can’t agree on their FACTS.
Its not an absolute science. Much of it is based on assumptions. That’s the reality.
That said I repeat that I wouldn’t base my non-belief in a God based on a flawed evolution theory
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Sorry Mike but it is up to you to prove that your god(s) exist and no your bible is not proof. Faith is not proof or satisfactory as an answer.
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Mike, I agree that the vast majority of religious people are generally reasonable, non-fanatical individuals. The problem is that all levels of religiosity are based on unsubstantiated claims and assumptions. While that silent majority of moderate believers out there make little demand on the rest of society they provide the environment in which the fanatics feel justified in demanding respect for practices that would normally be considered criminal or anti-social.
One example would be the current case of the BC polygamists who have stated they intend to defend themselves by claiming religious persecution. Another would be the case, in the States, of a little girl named Kara Neumann who was denied medical attention for a treatable condition by her faith-healing parents. Even when she lapsed into unconsciousness her parents chose only to call on their church congregation to pray harder. Read about it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/us/21faith.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1232643662-IaavHdVdPOD/8IakxbVAMA
I’m sure you can think of many other examples like these, some more extreme or tragic than others. You say that the concept is not flawed, only what people do with it. How do you separate these things? If Kara’s parents have a right to believe that only God can heal their daughter then it might seem logical (in their minds) that they also have a right to act on that belief?
I also want to clarify something in regard to your statement, “I wouldn’t base my non-belief in a God based on a flawed evolution theory.” I want to make it very clear that my position on the existence god and my position on the correctness of the theory of evolution have nothing to do with each other. I do NOT base my judgement that there is no god on my acceptance of evolutionary theory. I base both on the evidence (or lack thereof) that I have been able to find.
It just so happens that the evidence for the evolution of life on Earth appears exactly as we would expect it to in the absence of any gods.
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Mike…please point out the flaws in evolutionary theory. I am an evolutionary scientist (as you put it) and I am unaware of any significant discord amongst this community that would imperil the validity of evolution as a cogent scientific theroy, on par with the theory og Gravity and the theory of heliocentrism.
The theory is sound. Some conclusions made based on the theory may be wrong, but alternative hypotheses, also made under the same theory, generally resolve any disputes.
We agree that neither Christianity nor atheism is the root of all evil…it is dogma. Although I think that God is a fairy tail for grown-ups…it is not the belief in and of itself that is destructive, it is the lack of critical skills of those individuals that adhere to it that is destructive. So the real struggle is against the lack of critical thinking.
He who does not question himself, finds answers in the most peculiar of places.
As I said in a previous post…most atheists (whether strong atheists or atheist leaning agnostics) did not choose disbelief, it is a condition that we arrived at after considering the evidence or lack thereof.
Any honest atheist will gladly change his/her viewpoint when confronted with sufficient evidence…otherwise, that person is dogmatic…just like those they oppose. However, to be quite honest, no one has ever provided compelling positive evidence for a god…hence we retain the null hypothesis.
Good for you for defending your viewpoint…but we still await the evidence…and we doN,t have too much faith that it is coming after over 1500 years of failure.
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:35 pm
“Its not an absolute science. Much of it is based on assumptions.”
What assumptions are you referring to? Evolution is not based on assumptions. This is another of those creationist claims (‘B15′ on the creationist bullshit bingo card). All scientific theories are based on hypotheses. Things like the hypothesis that the laws of physics are the same everywhere and always have been. Extrapolation of timelines based on layers of strata. The reliability of radiometric dating methods.
I think you don’t understand how science works. Nothing in science is ever ‘proven’ (except mathematical concepts). All attempts are made to DISPROVE hypotheses. Any theory that is proposed based on untested or poorly tested hypotheses (or assumptions) are treated as questionable until all possible flaws have been pointed out and addressed. Many theories are subject to great ridicule for some period before they finally become accepted (like Warren & Marshall re: h pylori). Others simply deserve to be ridiculed (like Pons & Fleishman re: cold fusion). Most theories have to be adjusted many times over the years as new observations provide more data.
The reason that Darwin is considered such a giant among scientists is because he overlooked so little in “The Origin of Species”. He didn’t get everything 100% right but the basic theory and the majority of his hypotheses have been supported and/or strengthened in the 150 years since he wrote it.
“It’s all based on assumptions” is nothing but a wisecrack from the peanut gallery unless you are prepared to state what such an accusation is based on. Thanks to modern technology it is not hard to google up some references and provide links. In the words of Marlon Brando, “Whadya got?”
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Richard and Blondin. Thanks, you have a way with words.
Once you see the evidence of science, it is impossible to go back to religion unless you are stricken with some mental disorder, drugs or injury where reasoning is affected.
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:54 pm
I just reread what I wrote and realized I left out an important point. Some people seem to thing that testing a hypothesis entails arguing, debating, campaigning, browbeating, etc until a consensus is reached. It doesn’t.
It involves making predictions, conducting experiments, publishing the method and results of those experiments, duplicating the experiments and comparing the results, making more predictions about the effects of changing some of the parameters, more experiments, etc, etc…
In other words, testing the shit out of it until a consensus is reached. Bear in mind that the biggest rewards in the scientific community go to those who successfully upset some bit of generally accepted wisdom. There is a huge incentive question the status quo and that’s how progress is made. It’s certainly not made by uninformed bystanders casting aspersions (like Sarah Palin pointing & laughing at fruit fly research).
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:42 am
Peanut gallery, hollow man, troll etc…
I can see that being atheists hasn’t made you better men.
Probably evolution will fix that in a billion years, give or take a few million years.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:59 am
Mike, we have tried to give you full explanations for our points and we’ve politely requested some specifics regarding your generalizations about flaws and assumptions. Do you have anything to base your statements on or are you just parroting the catchphrases you read on a creationist propaganda website?
Your responses thus far have been compared to those of a peanut gallery, troll, hollow man, etc.
If the shoe fits…
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:12 am
parroting, peanut gallery, troll, hollow man, etc
1 Cor 2:14
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Where is the troll button on this web site?
Responding to these religious fanatics is like talking to a block wall.
$20,900 and rising.
Dawkins is coming to East Lansing MI on March 2. Got my ticket to see him. Very excited!
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Finally…someone quoted scripture. I am surprised thatit didn’t happen sooner.
I’ll have to look at 1 Cor 2:14…but unlike some I will read it in the context of the wider piece and probably provide a link to the Atheist’s annotated bible.
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:24 pm
And here we go:
1 Cor 2:14: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (King James version)
Now…let’s take a look at this section:
1 Cor 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. – If you are to be a good Christian you must try to know nothing (except for Jesus, of course).
1 Cor 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. – Which means, only Christians can judge others but Christians are beyond reproach
and how about this gem:
1 Cor.14:38 – Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak …. If they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home.
Mike…either your reading of the bible is quite selective or you endorse these primitive and discriminitory points of view. Which is it? Either way, you end up looking morally bankrupt.
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Let me guess Mike’s response:
“parroting, peanut gallery, troll, hollow man and morally bankrupt…”
Mike, I thought maybe you were actually interested in contributing something to a discussion. Obviously you are not. If you want to live in the bottom of a cold dark cave that is your prerogative but don’t expect the rest of us cower in there with you.
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Here is the list of absurdities in Corinthians:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1cor/abs_list.html
January 23rd, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Richard, your father of atheism, Charles Darwin has himself some primitive and discriminitory points expressed the Descent of Man:
“The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than woman can attain – whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses………….the average mental power of man must be above that of a woman.
BTW Richard you’ve used those Bible verses out of context to support your own misunderstanding of Christianity.
Blondin, I don’t live nor cower in a cold dark cave. My house is quite nice.
Hal, responding to atheist fanatics is also like talking to a block wall, the peanut gallery, trolls, and a hollow man.
January 23rd, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Troll button required!
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Hal, you’re the TROLL and I’ve already pushed your button.
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:20 pm
So Mike, is it your point that the whole of the theory of evolution must be nonsense because Charles Darwin apparently had some (by today’s standards) male chauvinist tendencies?
You must have a pretty low opinion of all of Victorian society in that case. Why, even here in Canada women were not given the vote until 1916. Even then, women were not officially declared “persons” until 1929.
For the record, Mike, you’ll find that anybody who is knowledgable on the subject will tell you that Darwin got a lot of little details wrong and came to a number of incorrect conclusions because A) he was only human and B) things were different 150 years ago! But the underlying principle of evolution still stands the test of time.
You’re pretty good at pushing buttons, Mike. In fact it seems that’s pretty much all you’re good at.
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Blondin,
So according to your theory women have now evolved compared to what they were 150 years ago.
Now if Darwin got a lot of the details wrong then, it can only be possible that there are still lots of incorrect atheistic conclusions today as your still only human.
Yes, I’m getting really good at pushing the SUBMIT COMMENT button.
Thanks for yet another insult, I’ll add it to the list:
parroting, peanut gallery, troll, hollow man and pretty much only good at pushing buttons.
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:42 pm
By the way, for anyone who is interested, the entire test of Darwin’s “Descent of Man” can be viewed here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man.html
The last part of the section Mike’s quote-mined snippets are from goes like this:
It is, indeed, fortunate that the law of the equal transmission of characters to both sexes prevails with mammals; otherwise, it is probable that man would have become as superior in mental endowment to woman, as the peacock is in ornamental plumage to the peahen.
Read it for yourself and decide if Darwin was discussing possible evolutionary causes for differences between the sexes in different species or advocating treating women as inferior creatures.
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Mike..are you suggesting that one shouldn’t quote Bible verses out of context?
It seems that when you do it, it’s alright and that we can ignore all the other crap in the bible because that one selected sentence, pulled out from it’s book, might make sense. And you do that in full knowledge that the surrounding text is pure nonsense.
However, if someone else does exactly what you do, it’s wrong…You took the bait, hook, line and sinker and demonstrated for us all the double standard imposed upon the rest of us by the ‘chosen’.
The fact is that the bible is the work of primitive, woman-fearing men and when you put all the verses into that context..it loses any and all credibilty.
You may go now…
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:48 pm
You may go too…. Richard.
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Mike, I would like to say that you are the most obstinate willfully ignorant person I’ve ever conversed with. Unfortunately you are only typical of many of your god-bothering brethren.
No, I wouldn’t say women have evolved very much in 150 years, but men’s (and society’s) attitudes have. Your’s hasn’t and shows no signs of doing so. It’s sad, really.
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Its pretty clear Blondin,
“The CHIEF distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by MAN attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, THAN WOMAN CAN attain – whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses…………the average mental power of MAN MUST BE above that of a WOMAN”
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Richard,
You took the bait, hook, line and sinker and demonstrated for us all the double standard imposed upon the rest of us by the ‘ATHEISTS’
Plus plenty of insults.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Mike…You appear to have no understanding of science. You are therefore unqualified to even be discussing the validity of a scientific theory until you understand how theory is developed. I bet you’re one of those that say…’It’s only a theory’. Do you even know what the word ‘theory’ means?
The underlying precepts of evolution through natural selection have never been disproven…in 150 years of scientific trial, not one person has ever been able to falsify natural selection. No other theory has as much scientific evidence in its favor than that one…yet you continue to challenge it based on you belief that God created the earth in 6 days, some six thousand years ago…because it is written in a really old book.
I guess evolution is just another heathen conspiracy led by satan to distract the masses from the true meaning of life.
Come now…contrariansims without proposing alternative hypotheses is simply worthless banter.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Mike…you are obviously the victim of evil atheists.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Mike, that last phrase, “the average mental power of MAN MUST BE above that of a WOMAN” is not part of Darwin’s text. It is the conclusion of who ever quote-mined that little snippet.
You didn’t even bother to look that one up yourself, did you? I’ll bet you learned everything you know about Darwin and evolutionary theory from a creationist propaganda website.
You’re pathetic.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Blondin, to be fair..it is stated in Darwin’s, ‘the Descent of man’
It is also noteworthy that Darwin had no understanding of genetics when he wrote either of his treatises and was clearly speculating based on what he saw before him without considering the actual effect of social and religious pressures.
Since then, science has controlled for these factors and the theory of evoultion has become evolutionary synthesis. The fundamentals of the theory have never been in doubt…they have survived the test of rational inquiry…although they continue to suffer the attacks of ignorance and wishful thinking.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:47 pm
So Blondin,
So as Richard has shown,
you’re the pathetic one.
You didn’t even bother to look in the book!
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Thanks for yet another insult, I’ll add it to the list:
parroting, peanut gallery, troll, hollow man, pretty much only good at pushing buttons and obstinate willfully ignorant person.
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:22 pm
oh and pathetic too!
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Sorry, Richard. I’m not sure what you’re refering to. What is stated in Descent?
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:23 pm
While I’m waiting for Richard’s response I’ll clarify my position:
I don’t deny that Darwin said, “The CHIEF distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by MAN attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, THAN WOMAN CAN attain – whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses.”
As I explained previously, this displays an attitude that was typical for Darwin’s time but was only mentioned as part of a discussion about differences between sexes of different species.
For example he also states:
Woman seems to differ from man in mental disposition, chiefly in her greater tenderness and less selfishness; and this holds good even with savages, as shewn by a well-known passage in Mungo Park’s Travels, and by statements made by many other travellers. Woman, owing to her maternal instincts, displays these qualities towards her infants in an eminent degree; therefore it is likely that she would often extend them towards her fellow-creatures. Man is the rival of other men; he delights in competition, and this leads to ambition which passes too easily into selfishness. These latter qualities seem to be his natural and unfortunate birthright. It is generally admitted that with woman the powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man; but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilisation.
However, the statement, “the average mental power of MAN MUST BE above that of a WOMAN” does not appear in ‘The Descent of Man” (or in “Origin of Species”). At least I can’t find it. (Read between the lines here, Mike. This implies that did look.)
If Richard shows me that I’m wrong, then I’ll admit my mistake. It may be that Richard misunderstood something I said, in which case I expect he will admit his mistake.
So Richard or I may be mistaken but you are a willfully ignorant imbecile. Richard and I can be corrected and admit our mistake but you will still be an imbecile. Don’t forget to add “imbecile” to your list.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imbecile
January 24th, 2009 at 12:16 am
Blondin,
It’s no use…Mike is not interested in bringing positive evidence to support his views. He hasn’t even tried…If you ask him to present any evidence to support that there is a God..all he will be able to do is quote scripture or talk about intelligent design.
He is getting his kicks by trying to make us angry but he brings nothing to the table. He is a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian and adds nothing of value to the debate…
…and by the way, I have used my psychic powers to predict his four last posts and I have been absolutely correct. Care to wager that I’ll be right about his next response?
As for the Darwin Quote..I’ll get back to you.
January 24th, 2009 at 12:26 am
Blondin…
The quote can be found in Chapter 19:
here is a link.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=FkRJrFLdbr0C&pg=PA504&lpg=PA504&dq=the+average+mental+power+of+MAN+MUST+BE+above+that+of+a+WOMAN%E2%80%9D&source=web&ots=fqRvVcSRxq&sig=cwpmvhp0gdQ_1m64d5I4M8ccCX4&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result
But that point of view has been effectively falsified without trashing the fundamentals of the theory. Unfortunately, that won’t deter Mike because he is more concerned about telling us that we are wrong than he is about demonstrating that he is right.
January 24th, 2009 at 12:46 am
Mike….Where are you? You gonna prove me right?
January 24th, 2009 at 3:26 am
Thanks, Richard. Got it now. The full sentence is:
We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on Hereditary Genius, that if men are capable of a decided pre-eminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.
It’s a subtle difference but it does change the gist of the statement, doesn’t it? By replacing selected bits of text with “…….” it sounds more like a proclamation rather than the bit of speculation that it was. Not that it matters. It’s been acknowledged many times that Darwin sometimes exhibited some of the racist and sexist attitudes that were common for his time. You also have to remember that Darwin, Wallace and Galton didn’t know anything about Mendel and Mendel didn’t know anything about them. It’s amazing how, later on, Mendel’s work provided the explanation for the genetic mechanism of heredity that fit so well with so much of Darwin’s speculation.
It turns out that “intelligence” is much harder to define, let alone measure, than was once thought. Current scientific consensus is that intelligence has more to do with nutrition, health and socio-economic status than genetics.
Mike throws these little quote-mined snippets out there, carefully tailored by somebody, in an attempt to make Darwin look like some kind of ogre. We happen to know from contemporary sources that he was actually a very kind, caring and gentle man. But the bottom line is, even if he was a mean old bastard, it has no bearing on the truth of evolutionary theory and these ad hominem attacks by creationists only reveal the incredible lack of intelligence on their part.
If ignorance was good for me, It’s good for children, too;
If I get by not knowing bupkus, so by god can you.
Them science types, they use big words–don’t understand a bit.
I’m happy with Creation, cos it keeps me dumb as shit.
If Darwin’s evolution says we’re all just beasts and brutes
There’s no room for religion, or for spiritual pursuits.
Creation puts us humans at the top where we belong
Besides, I don’t want my kids to learn the fact that… I was wrong.
– The Digital Cuttlefish
January 24th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Just once I would like any christian to admit the real reason they believe in the mystery man.
Is it A) Love? Unlikely, for how does one go about feeling the most beautiful of emotions unique to our species, for someting they cant see or caress or talk to (and get answered back). Altruism is of course observable in ants, bees, birds and many other species.
Is it B) The hope of spending eternity floating around the ether like some queen at he gay pride parade? That could be monotonous after a few billion years doncha think, and wtf would the purpose of this existence be? Terribly boring.
Is it C) Admiration for such a wonderful job he’s done with mankind over four millennia, teaching us our morals and how to be kind to one another etc.,
Excluding of course such gems as the Inquistion, the Crusades, slavery, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot (yes they are his creation, not atheists) killer viruses and the starvation of 25,000 children every day worldwide.
Or is it D) Fear, fear of spending eternity in hell because you didn’t suck up. Fear is the ultimate motivator none can deny.
Just wondering.
January 25th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
I keep reading and hearing of people who where Christians or of some faith and became Atheists because the logic didn’t support the believe which is understandable.
My thoughts on this differ slightly even though I didn’t realize it until reading more and more of these posts. My parents took me to Church when I was young and they where quite religious and my grandmother was very religious. But I would have to say that I never believed in a God or Creator. I can remember quite clearly the day in church and the minister was doing his sermon and saying to myself what is he talking about? Do these adults really believe this?
Now you have to understand I was only 6 or 7 years old and church had been kind of a Sunday social time until that moment. My parents and others seemed so serious about this God thing that I didn’t say anything for a while just keep mulling it over in my mind.
My father is a farmer and is a very logical and thinking type of person, so after a while when just he and I where doing the chores in one of the barns I took my chance and said to him “Dad how do we know there is a God” and he stopped spreading hay and said to me “we don’t, it is just something we believe to be so”.
I thought this over for a while and said “if I don’t believe should I still go to church” and he said to me “if you don’t believe and don’t think you should go I won’t make you, it is your choice” and I have never gone since. I am 44 now so it has been a while.
So would most atheists say they never believed in a creator or was something that came over time?
I must say I am truly pleased with the bus campaign as it is nice to know there are lots of like minded people out there.
Todd
January 25th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Richard,
Have those psychic powers that you have been proven by science?
The words and actions of the atheists on here have simply proven that you’ve only replaced God the Creator with your own god, SCIENCE.
You are willing to insult others who do not share the view point of your god. Your holy scriptures are the science textbooks.
In time this mindset will continue to grow, now its insults, later physical attacks and then you atheists will do the same as what the religious have been accused by you, wars.
You are blind to your own lies.
Science is not going to make you a better person or our society a better place. It has absolutely no effect on your conscience.
You have to ADMIT that the morals most of our modern societies share today are rooted in a believe of a God and His Laws of conduct for His people. Science cannot give or teach you morals.
January 25th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Mike…the angry victim is right on cue…and just after the brief hiatus…exactly as I predicted. Want another go?
January 25th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Oh…and you can add ‘indoctrinated’ to the list if you’re still counting the insults.
Isn’t it your own belief system that suggests that you can see the speck in the others eye…
Like I said in previous posts…If we’re wrong, we’ll own up. I fear you have neither the courage to ask yourself that question, nor the willingness to admit it if you are wrong…We don’t pick and choose the answers that we like…in fact, it would be a lot easier if ther were a God because then we wouldn’t have to make any effort to think and learn. We put hypotheses to the test.
And thanks for calling us all immoral…I guess insults are wrong if their pointed at you, but it’s alright if a godfearing person spouts them. You appear to have a warped sense of morality.
Now…let’s see if your next post will be as predictable as the previous.
January 25th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
And quit voting for you own posts…sheesh!
January 25th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Richard,
I did’t say you were immoral.
I said: SCIENCE CANNOT GIVE OR TEACH YOU MORALS.
January 25th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Richard,
Remember you are the angry victim of years of religious abuse. Not I.
That’s your reason for this publicity campaign.
January 26th, 2009 at 2:11 am
Mike
You seem to be quite a religious soul, so I was hoping you could help me with a couple of questions that I have.
1st do all religions believe in the same God and just interpret its meaning differently?
2nd are all religious people born with their belief and faith?
3rd and this is the toughest for me, what makes people of faith believe there is a after life as most religions are vague on what exactly the after life is?
Now I want to emphasize that these are real questions. I have never disliked or liked a person for their faith, believe what makes you feel good.
Thanks Todd
January 26th, 2009 at 3:10 am
I will seal and send my donation by mail tomorrow. I feel oppressed by religious people who want to impose their values on others at all costs. I will be very happy to see these ads go on buses in Toronto and hopefully also in Montreal – where I live.
Although I am not entirely an atheist, I believe that doubt is very important in everything. There is no science and no free thought without doubt. Why not question God? Why???
January 26th, 2009 at 3:26 am
If there is probably not a God – why does anyone care? Such ado about nothing!
January 26th, 2009 at 4:06 am
Mike…You waste all of our time by continously trying to parry our comments (again, as predicted) with useless retorts… you have yet to show any evidence that our point of view is wrong. All you do is say that we are wrong because that is what you want to believe…not because you can provide any evuidence whatsoever.
Science cannot give ot teach us morals…correct!…but you have also told us that we replaced God with science..the sole provider of morality…ergo, you have called us all immoral. please be consistent.
I’m glad that you accept the fact of religious abuse…
January 26th, 2009 at 4:08 am
Lee…because this improbable creature is the motivation for thousands of years of unreason and current attempts to remove good science from schools to replace them with junk…in the name of God.
January 26th, 2009 at 5:37 am
Morality existed well before any religions. Morality grows naturally out of a social context. Many years ago extended families formed a tribe. Through marriage and births, the tribe grew. Stealing, lying, and other “immoral” actions were not acceptable, because they disrupted the harmony of the tribe. Humans naturally band together for safety, companionship, and as a workforce to help build homes, to hunt, and perform basic community tasks. Morality is necessary in order to live in an organized community. Morality is natural and basic to humans.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Richard,
I feel really sorry for you.
Science will never make you a better man. You yourself have proven it.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Todd,
Spiritual things are matters of the heart (I speak not of the physical heart).
Seek God and he will find you and guide you.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Mike,
How do you know science hasn’t made Richard a better man.
What are you basing your assumption on?
Did you know him a week ago, month ago, year ago, decade ago?
January 26th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Thanks Todd…there is no point in responding to Mike. He has made up his mind about ‘people like us’ who base decisions on evidence and reason rather than faith. He cannot imagine that the ‘faithless’ can have morality. He also cannot imagine that his position can be doubted.
Mike…you have surely learned something about yourself today. I probably haven’t succeeded in sowing any doubt in you…likewise, nor have you in me. But it is a beautiful thing to have one’s ideas and ideologies challenged. Perhaps now you realize that the alternative to religion and faith that we propose is a viable and legitimate alternative. I certainly hope that is what you come away with.
Finally, Science imparts knowledge. What one does with knowledge is a question of ethics. I use the knowledge that I have obtained to help other people. Sure I’ll make mistakes here and there, but my ethic also includes the honesty to admit that. I will not base my actions on the will of a God for which there is no evidence. I will base my actions on the fact that it makes sense to get along with others. I am constantly being challenged by people who think I should believe in God or that God is a necessity for goodness…rubbish..I am living proof that a god is not necessary for one to be ‘good’. And goodness is not equivalent to lawfullness…because one can obey the law without necessarily intending to be good. The thinking man understands why he acts in accordance to the conventions of society. The unthinking man blindly obeys.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Todd,
I know science hasn’t made Richard a better simply by his words. No assumptions, just read his words they speak of what’s in his mind. Unfortunately a poor man puffed up by what he thinks is rich knowledge.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Richard,
I never said the “faithless” have no morality. I said that your science can’t teach you morals. Morals are not determined by science in a laboratory or with mathematical equations. They are conventions of our society founded on religious beliefs.
Unfortunately you offer no viable or legitimate alternative with your science. The whole objective of this atheist bus campaign is to prove others wrong in light of your apparent scientific proof.
As for you being a living proof that a god is not necessary for one to be “good” your words actually speak the contrary.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:03 am
Mike,
“I know science hasn’t made Richard a better simply by his words. No assumptions, just read his words they speak of what’s in his mind.”
If you do not know what was in his mind or what his words where before, there is no comparison. Therefore it is an assumption to say it hasn’t made him a better man.
You obviously know this?
So your words where meant to slander Richards belief and therefore you would only have to look in the mirror to find “a poor man puffed up by what he thinks is rich knowledge.”
All this would lead me to believe, the whole objective of your campaign is to prove others wrong in light of your apparent lack of proof.
Regards Todd
January 27th, 2009 at 5:48 am
The problem with religious or any other kind of trolls is that they don’t actually follow an argument, they are just there to intimidate. Mike has been given the facts (in Harvard’s post) only a few posts before his statement “They (morals) are conventions of our society founded on religious beliefs.” If he’s not a troll, he has big issues with sticking to the simplest line of logic. I somehow doubt he’s the latter, though, I think this is the “overload” mode that religious apologists enter when they’ve completely run out of arguments in defense of their dogmas. They just start repeating them like a skipping record. I think it’s the most we can do – if religion was made to be compatible logic, it would have self-destructed centuries ago.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
I had to laugh at “They are conventions of our society founded on religious beliefs.” As if we take our morals from the bible! If we did we would still be stoning people to death for working on sundays at walmart. I know some people take some of their morals from religion, but to imply that without it, we would be immoral is either laughable or offensive.
I don’t think Mike is a troll (maybe by accident…overload) sometimes he seems to respond to things and actually seek knowledge…
January 27th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Sorry guys,
Do share with us all where Science teaches you morals and where our societies like here in Canada have not based their moral laws on their religious beliefs.
Its obvious you all take things to absurd extremes with comments like stoning for working on Sunday. You need to take the dust off your Bible and read it before misquoting it. The bible doesn’t say to stone someone for working on Sunday.
Your only responding to me with the same overblown fanaticism you accuse supposed religious fanatics of in this campaign. You’ve simply replaced a creator God with a thinking man’s god of Science and are now trying to push that point at the expenses of civility and respect.
Your whole campaign is to intimidate, not educate.
Only if someones speaks like you will he be considered by you thinking man following logic. Otherwise he’s ridiculed and called all sorts of names.
Science will not make you better men as you yourselves have shown.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Mike,
First,did you actually read what I said, or did you just pick and choose like you do when you read the bible? You demand respect but offer none. You demand the truth but are unwilling to look at the lies. You try to provoke us, but you accuse us of being provocative. You imply that we are immoral without god, but when confronted by your own words, you try to weasel your way out of it by rationalizing your own words…or outright lying….oh the morality. You accuse us of being insulting, yet you plead self-defense when the favour is returned in-kind. We will have you know that this site and this campaign were not intended for those people who are not willing to question their own beliefs…these people would refuse to see an alternative viewpoint no matter how much evidence was available. Therefore, we wonder why you are so persistent. Perhaps you are trying to evangelize us. We woN,t go the way of the aboriginals…you can’t snuff us out with smallpox. Belief is a choice…disbelief is not.
Second, WE KNOW THAT SCIENCE DOESN’T = MORALITY…Science is neutral on the matter. It is cold and unforgiving. It provides knowledge and understanding. Knowledge is power…and power needs to be used responsibly. What you do with that knowledge is up to you, but ignoring knowledge is done at your own peril.
As requested by several posters, I would invite you to stop wasting your time with tit-for-tat argumentative posts and perhaps contemplate answering some of the questions that were addressed to you earlier when you were posing as an inquisitive person…rather than be evasive.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Thanks Richard,
Again my points have been validated by you.
Goodbye.
January 27th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Mike,
Goodbye? I assume that you’ve given up…
Hey, everyone…it worked!
January 27th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
“Sorry guys,”
No you’re not.
“Do share with us all where Science teaches you morals and where our societies like here in Canada have not based their moral laws on their religious beliefs.”
Stop trotting out the straw man arguments, you disingenuous troll. Nobody claimed that science teaches morals. Societies developed codes of behaviour and justice systems completely independant of religious beliefs. Moral systems have varied over time and from culture to culture, place to place. Traditionally morals have most often been association with religious beliefs in order to justify behaviour that is NOT universally acceptable (like slavery, spousal/child abuse, clerical authority, etc). The fact that morals/ethics that are universally agreed upon happen to appear in holy books (stealing, murder) is pure coincidence.
“Its obvious you all take things to absurd extremes with comments like stoning for working on Sunday. You need to take the dust off your Bible and read it before misquoting it. The bible doesn’t say to stone someone for working on Sunday.”
http://bible.cc/exodus/31-15.htm
also Numbers 15:32 – 36
“Your only responding to me with the same overblown fanaticism you accuse supposed religious fanatics of in this campaign. You’ve simply replaced a creator God with a thinking man’s god of Science and are now trying to push that point at the expenses of civility and respect.”
More “lying for Jesus”. It’s been pointed out to you time & again that science does not rely on dogma; everything is subject to question and the highest rewards go to those who disprove “accepted wisdom”. There is no such thing as blasphemy or heresy outside of religion.
“Your whole campaign is to intimidate, not educate.”
I can only marvel that your head doesn’t explode due to irony overload when you type the above statement.
“Only if someones speaks like you will he be considered by you thinking man following logic. Otherwise he’s ridiculed and called all sorts of names.”
No. Only if someone thinks and employs logic will they be considered a thinking, logical person. It helps to articulate their thoughts clearly and make their case using evidence and examples as opposed to parroting (yes, parroting) indefensible, bullshit catchphrases.
“Science will not make you better men as you yourselves have shown.”
More meaningless, unsubstantiated, trite, self-serving drivel.
February 2nd, 2009 at 6:45 am
So — Is that it? End of comments?