Atheist Bus Hits Toronto Streets and Brick Wall in Ottawa
Advertising, Campaign Updates February 15th, 2009The Canadian Atheist Bus has officially hit the streets of Toronto with more ads en route to be displayed in the follow weeks. Starting Feb 23rd our subway interior ads will posted and the following week (March 2nd) on the sides of streetcars in the downtown Toronto area. If you are lucky enough to catch a photo, we’d love to post it online. Please email photos to “photos {at} atheistbus.ca”. Buses change routes daily as they are returned to TTC garages and picked up by different drivers that drive different routes so keep your eyes peeled.
Unfortunately we also have a bit of bad news about our campaign. We’ve been rejected by OC Transpo and at the moment our advertisement is not permitted to be displayed on any Ottawa public transit vehicle. OC Transpo’s response:
“The Advertising Standards section of our contract specifically excludes religious advertising which might be offensive to transit users, so we cannot approve this ad”
This comes as a shock to us and also Pattison Outdoors whom was forecasting a positive response. OC Transpo has permitted religious advertisements in the past but it is not yet clear what message was being advertised. On Tuesday (Monday is an Ontario provincial holiday) we will attempt to contact OC Transpo to try and discuss our options. Hopefully we have more success in Ottawa compared to Halifax where Metro Transit has rejected every offer for a meeting thus far.
This past week our advertisement was also rejected in Vancouver, Victoria, Kelowna British Columbia, and London Ontario. The three cities we applied to in BC follow identical transit standards, their response:
“No advertisement will be accepted which promotes or opposes a specific theology or religious ethic, point of view, policy or action.”
In London we were simply told that no religious advertisements were permitted despite Atheism not being a religion.
February 15th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Are the atheists here really looking for discussion ?
Some of the interactions I have seen here in the comments would lead me to believe this campaign and blog has nothing to do with civil discussion or free speech.
I think Ottawa must have been here to read the discussion before making it’s decision.
Smarten up. Now this Campaign probably doesn’t exist…..
February 15th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
“In London we were simply told that no religious advertisements were permitted despite Atheism not being a religion.”
You guys have successfully turned Atheism into a religion by banding together. We have followers, preachers, T-shirts …. Next thing you know we’ll be drafting a set of Commandments, a Constitution and electing a Pope.
“A religion usually encompasses a set of stories, symbols, beliefs and practices”
Now that we have a banner and this blog we have the symbols, stories, beliefs and practices. Justin is our God. He is our leader and ruler over all. – Or maybe it’s Dawkins.
I don’t know how you can’t see your folly.
Atheism is dead. And the Atheists killed it. It’s now a religion.
February 15th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
my 12 year old sister loves the Nightmare Before Christmas too.
February 16th, 2009 at 12:18 am
If some of the comments on here are the best the atheist’s have to offer – I’m not very encouraged. Where are the intellectuals ? The thinkers ? The scientists ? The philosophers ? Do we have these ?
I’ve scrolled trough some of the discussions on here and from what I have read so far there are only a few people who have posted anything worth reading. Jeff k, newsun, offgird and a few others.
The atheists have nothing to say. Have they also decided to stop believing in books ?
Where are the heavy hitters ? Pull out the big guns. I just see crybabies.
February 16th, 2009 at 1:22 am
Are you looking for encouragement, or a fight?
I think you are mistaking ‘discussion’ for ‘conversion’. If you like to read books (unlike us, apparently) pull out a dictionary and look up ‘religion’, then look up ‘atheist’. You don’t need to be a scientist, thinker, philosopher, or anything else but a disbeliever in god(s). After you’re done with the dictionary, pick up a few books that have rebutted theists arguments in great length. Everything presented these days is a recycled abuse of logic.
I think the ‘intellectuals’ ignore your comments because you do a fine job of making yourself look stupid without outside help. Your bias is clearly visible when you say the only notable comments come from people who post nothing but standard theistic and anti-evolutionary drivel.
Before you start talking about ‘civil discussion’, give your post another read before hitting submit.
February 16th, 2009 at 2:03 am
It has likely been a while that I have had something positive to say about the Toronto Transit Commission, but I am glad that they are willing to run the Ads. In time, I hope other public transit systems will do the same.
February 16th, 2009 at 2:19 am
Vadim.
You missed my point completely.
This campaign says that there “probably isn’t a god” But have failed to address the question – what is “god” Read Jeff-k’s comment about “ignosticism” (under the Evolution Post)
You are all very infantile in your attitude that “god” is a man in heaven with a beard like Zeus or the description of YHWH. Do you actually think anybody believes this ?
You are a fool. Or that “God” has “finite” will or intellect – You have will and intellect – it is infinite – use it.
Yes there has been evolution. Our minds have evolved. And many people have come to understand “G-d” as something very different than what I have seen expressed here on this blog by you so-called “Atheists” You cannot be an “atheist” if you don’t even know who or what “G-d” is ?
Do you actually take the Bible and other mythologies as literal ? You have to be kidding me. What grade are you in ?
Please, define what you mean as “G-d” Before you state that there probably isn’t one.
The argument can then begin.
February 16th, 2009 at 2:29 am
I’ll give you a hand ……a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition cannot be falsified, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term “God” is considered meaningless.”
Tell me what you mean by “God”
February 16th, 2009 at 2:59 am
JackSkellington is just an angry troll.. There’s no more proof of a god then there is of a flying teapot and people like him just can’t seem to comprehend that.
For all we know the universe could have been around forever.. maybe at some point in time it will retract. We know that time is not a constant so why does everything always have to have a beginning and an end, maybe the universe is infinite and has always been around. Maybe there will be some sort of cosmic disaster that causes the universe to implode and the explode in another big bang, maybe that happens over and over. Again, time is not a constant, we may have evolved to understand time only as a way for us to evaluate our surroundings but the universe could exist forever.
It’s funny that people always attribute the unknown to “God”. Just because we don’t know what happened before the big bang doesn’t mean it was a god.
—
Anyways I hope JackSkellington gets banned, I know these ppl here are all for free speech but JackSkellington is just going around spreading BS. Atheism is not a religion, it is the absence of a religion and a belief in a god. I guess he would rather watch the religious teach and kill generations of childrens’ intellect with stupid creationism rather than having atheists band together to finally put an end to religious nonsense once and for all.
February 16th, 2009 at 3:02 am
As for a definition of god… any super natural god you believe in, that is where I will say there isn’t a god.
If you can prove there is a god then that’s great but the burden of proof lays on those that make the claim. That claim has been made over and over and there’s never been any proof at all.
February 16th, 2009 at 4:50 am
What’s with the ad hominems? You’re making yourself look desperate. I think I was pretty clear in expressing my views, it should be self-evident that I am an atheist. Why do you assume that I take the Bible literally? How else can you interpret “Doom has come upon you—you who dwell in the land. The time has come, the day is near; there is panic, not joy, upon the mountains. I am about to pour out my wrath on you and spend my anger against you”?
My definition of god is any that’s been and being used by theists worldwide. In a nutshell: supernatural. And yes… many people do believe in god as “a man in heaven with a beard like Zeus or the description of YHWH”.
For your sake, I think you need to research ignosticism a bit more before stating that we’re fools for saying “there is probably no god”. Ignostics would say, “there is no god”, because that which is incoherent can’t exist. But then what exactly are millions of people worshipping?
February 16th, 2009 at 7:23 am
JackSkellington
Either you have mixed up your pronouns or you are confused about your own feelings on the subject. Please explain: who are the “we” in the following sentence “We have followers, preachers, T-shirts …”?
Re: “The argument can then begin.”
Yes, the atheists here [are] really looking for discussion, not an argument.
I’m sure that the serious thinkers who participate in the discussion read, some of them may even read the Judeo-Christian Bible. It’s a piece of fiction that has influenced some of the best Western fiction; however, the Judeo-Christian Bible is still fiction.
Hello serious members of this discussion. If you haven’t already read it, the article in Saturday’s Globe and Mail is worth reading:
IN ATHEISTS WE TRUST
52%: YES THERE IS GOD 48%: NO THERE ISN’T GOD
Sorry, the URL is too long to post here.
February 16th, 2009 at 10:00 am
To JackSkellington,
I personally do not believe that a God exists but you claim there is one based on your explicit support of religious right wing posters that you think are “great thinkers and worth responding to”. The burden of proof is really on you to define God then.
Atheism is a religion with followers and preachers? Please back off for a second and think this through rationally before you make such a statement because it makes you look like a brainless fool. Do we have any special mysterious initiation rites for new members? Do we have a book of Bible enumerating strict moral commandments that is also filled with antediluvian questionable angry primitive rants or threats? Do we force our “followers” to put on veils or turbans or coerce the government into closing malls on Sunday because it is deemed sinful unholy? Do we jump into your bedrooms and determine what you can or cannot do with loving couples? Do we put banners up all over the place with slogans like “If you do not start praying then God’s wrath will punish and you will go to hell”? The chasm of difference is astonishingly vast that I do not even know how to begin! Your imperviousness to logic is astounding! All you can be capable of is just angry invective.
February 16th, 2009 at 10:01 am
“In London we were simply told that no religious advertisements were permitted despite Atheism not being a religion.”
My favourite counter to atheism being a religion…
“If atheism is a religion, then NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.”
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, London Transit
“The Advertising Standards section of our contract specifically excludes religious advertising which might be offensive to transit users, so we cannot approve this ad”
And of course, religions safety blanket rears its ugly head. According to that you could say “there probably was no holocaust” but we can’t say there probably is no god?
Do you know how offensive I find consumer bulls*** plastered all over? Finally an ad that promotes discussion of very important issues and it is not allowed.
Correction is not allowed in many cities across Canada, but is alowed all over England.
“No advertisement will be accepted which promotes or opposes a specific theology or religious ethic, point of view, policy or action.”
Wow so every single consumer-capitalist view based advertisement they allowed slipped by this “rule”?
Seriously when I first heard of the atheist bus campaign, I was ecstatic, finally my viewpoint was going to be recognised publicly. After all the religious door knockers, ads, and church signs, there was finally going to be my alternative view expressed. Now I see that atheists are still held back by the majority, we are not allowed to offend people (so long as its enough people) by politely offering a different view. I thought we had come futher than this, Canada’s capital denies the ads, but Washington allows “Why believe in a God? Just be good for goodness’ sake.” ???. This is just embarrasing…
I think we should organise protests if they still won’t allow the ads. This is a matter of free speech and minority rights. Or a lawsuit…(any lawyers out there? Pro bono (public good)?
February 16th, 2009 at 10:05 am
JackSkellington, I recommend that you read “The God Hypothesis” by Stenger. This book examines just about all types and definitions of god(s). It will also clarify for you how and why atheism is not a religion. For example, if there is a belief that there is no deity, there are no reasons for those who believe this to have symbols or practices associated with the (very) simple belief that there are no deities.
Just because an organised group of people all believe the same thing does not make such belief a religion. 50,000 people can organise and believe that there’s is the best team in the world, but the players are not deities. 10,000 members of a fan club does not make their favourite performer a deity. More trivially, a thousand people on a platform believing the 10:56 will arrive does not make the train a deity nor make their group a religion, either.
For another example, a deity under consideration might be what is known as a 3O deity (omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent). Such a construct fails simply by examining the 2006 tsunami: a 3O deity would have known about the coming wave, and would have used its omnipotence to be benevolent to ALL the ~120,000 innocent children who died under the wave (assuming that all the adults were no longer ‘innocent’). The 3O construct fails almost immediately one looks at the natural world around us.
Also, there’s nothing wrong with having an argument about a topic. You seem to confuse ‘argument’ with ‘quarrel.’ Please refer to your favourite dictionary to see the differences between the two words. For example, one argues a case in court, one does not have a quarrel about it.
February 16th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Trevor: You are correct true atheism is not a religion. But if the people here believe what they say then why use the word “Probably” ? It makes us look like complete fools.
Probably: “In all likelihood; in a probable manner”
Probability is the chance that something is the case or that an event will occur. Probability theory is used extensively in such areas of study as mathematics, statistics, finance, gambling, science, and philosophy to draw conclusions about the likelihood of potential events and the underlying mechanics of complex systems.
Once we intoduce “probability theory” the onus is on us to provide the evidence. A statistic from the Globe and Mail or a poll doesn’t cut it.
We have left a crack. Close it. Change the banner to read something like. “There is absolutely no god(s). Human’s must solve the World’s problems.”
February 16th, 2009 at 10:23 am
OC Transpo: “The Advertising Standards section of our contract specifically excludes religious advertising which might be offensive to transit users, so we cannot approve this ad.”
Not only might I take offence at ANY ad on public transport that speaks of, relates to, etc. ANY deity, I DO take such offence. Their policy statement goes both ways, so this should be interesting because, evidently, I (or any non-theist) alone can stop all religious ads on OC Transpo. OC Transpo cannot eat their cake and have it, too.
Evidently, what is needed now is an ‘angel’ who wants to help support the Human Rights court case(s). Perhaps, a U of Ottawa HRC law professor would like this as a pro bono test case. I guess any other constitutional law or HRC prof. would do, too. This is not only a case of tolerance, it’s a case of whether Canada is prepared to uphold its laws, including its Charter of Rights.
Other transport authorities write: “No advertisement will be accepted which promotes or opposes a specific theology or religious ethic, point of view, policy or action.”
I have no trouble with a blanket denial of ads that relate to the existent or non-existence of a deity, provided that policy is CONSISTENTLY applied to both sides of any such arguments, which would include no ads promoting church/temple/etc. meetings or bake sales, etc..
February 16th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Trevor, What I see here so far is known as “Weak Atheism”
“The term weak atheism (or negative atheism) is used in two main senses, describing those who (a) do not assert strong atheism (“God(s) do not exist”) but rather the more minimal statement that for a variety of reasons (principally the lack of credible scientific evidence) there are no good reasons and no credible grounds for believing that gods exist (“I do not believe that god(s) exist” as opposed to “I believe that god(s) do not exist”); or (b) neither believe that god(s) exist, nor believe that no god(s) exist. This is orthogonal to agnosticism which states that whether gods exist is either unknown or unknowable.”
February 16th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Trevor,
You say “Just because an organised group of people all believe the same thing does not make such belief a religion.”
Correct – it is called a “Cult”. And that’s where all religions start.
A Cult refers to a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding population considers to be outside the mainstream.
Atheistbus.ca has destroyed “Strong Atheism”
February 16th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
What are you on about Jack? An organization like
Greenpeace isn’t a cult because their members share beliefs, just because all the members of the NRA believe the sky is blue doesn’t make them a cult.
“Strong atheism” is not really logically correct, there is still an insignificant chance that a god of some sort exists….
We are not even organized! I am not part of atheistbus.com, I just support it. Someone once said that organizing atheists is like herding cats, they all have their own minds. The only thing we all have in common is a lack of a belief in god
February 16th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Jack @ 16, 18, 19
As Devon 2 20 says, “What are you on about Jack?”
Enough already with the dictionary definitions, the incorrect use of capital letters and the apostrophe.
First, “probably” is used on the signs on the London UK buses to conform to British advertising standards.
Second, cult is not spelled with a capital c; it is not a proper noun.
Third, your suggestion “There is absolutely no god(s). Human’s must solve the World’s problems,” is grammatically incorrect. world does not need a capital w, You have used the apostrophe incorrectly by spelling humans as human’s. The apostrophe is for the possessive; the correct way to say this is
Humans must solve the world’s problems.
Using weak grammar in an argument (not a quarrel) is worse than what you call “Weak Atheism,” and when you use the terms “Strong Atheism” and “Weak Atheism,” get rid of the unnecessary capital letters.
February 16th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Correction to #21
In the previous sentence, world does not need a capital w.
February 16th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Thank you, Vronvron, for your response to Jack’s comments. You have saved me some time.
It seems to me that when people are discussing a matter utilizing the English language it is best to stick with the accepted definitions found in English dictionaries. Words such as “god”, “religion” and “atheism” do have meanings clearly established in dictionaries that help to make discourse more productive and meaningful.
If one wants to spend their time re-defining these words then finding a literary or linguistic forum might be more appropriate.
February 16th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
I’m not a resident of the city of Ottawa and have not had the opportunity to keep track of previous ads permitted on their buses. Do they consistently follow this policy of not accepting advertisements that have content with religious implications? If they do remain neutral when approving ads then it would seem legitimate to refuse the present agnostic ad.
It appears they will allow ads about religious meetings so perhaps this ad would be accepted:
“The Judgment of God has been canceled until further notice so stop worrying and enjoy your life!” (Just being silly now!)
February 16th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
It’s a pity that OC Transpo has turned down our bus ads. They ran ads for Alpha in 2003:
(From the Alpha Course news archive, archived in October of 2004). It may be worth mentioning this when talking to OC Transpo.
February 16th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
For more exact numbers on the Alpha course signs, see: http://www.alphacanada.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=189&Itemid=202
February 16th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
The answer from OC Transpo is outrageous. First of all, what do they mean by: “The Advertising Standards section of our contract specifically excludes religious advertising which might be offensive to transit users, so we cannot approve this ad.”
Are they saying that ALL religious advertising is excluded, or only the advertising that is offensive to transit users? Who defines what is offensive? How many people have to be offended?
I cannot believe the hypocrisy of theists in blocking out the atheist ads. Every year, In Ottawa, I am surrounded by ads for the “Red Shield Appeal”, which supports the Salvation Army, one of the most right-wing, conservative and blatantly homophobic churches in the world (yes, it is IS a church — look it up if you don’t believe me.) The Salvation Army has fought against gay rights and gay couples’ rights all over the world. To reinforce its position, it threatened to close all its soup kitchens in New York City when the city government proposed legislation that would require all organizations doing business with it to provide equal benefits to unmarried domestic partners.
In countries like New Zealand their members helped with door-to-door petitions to keep protection for the rights of gays and lesbians out of the country’s human rights code.
Am I allowed to consider the “Red Shield Appeal” offensive, given that this organization is dedicated to the eradication of my rights?
February 16th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Erigami noted: http://www.alphacanada.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=189&Itemid=202
Given this public enumeration and accompanying photos, it would seem that OC Transpo may be in deep, and expensive, doo-doo: Alpha Canada’s pride may become OC Transpo’s fall.
February 16th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
On the issue of ‘probably,’ it’s there for more than one reason.
First, it makes the ad the same as the original in the U.K..
Second, it had to be in the U.K. ad to meet the U.K. ad standards (and Canada’s standards may well be similar).
Third, it is impossible (currently) for anyone to prove _conclusively_ that there is no deity in the universe, since we are currently not in a position to search all parts of the universe in the detail required for such a proof. However, it IS possible to show the existence of a deity is very, very unlikely (again, see Stenger). Since we cannot prove absolutely, we maintain intellectual honesty by saying ‘probably.’ ‘Likely’ or some other word could have just as easily been used. I don’t think that for the few works of an ad on a bus, anyone would realistically want to start an argument about the semantics of ‘probably.’
Fourth, by using ‘probably’ in the ad, we challenge theist ads to be as intellectually honest as us. With the exception of UCC (a few days ago, in response to the AB campaign), theists have yet to be as intellectually honest by saying in all their statements that they believe that their case is ‘probably’ true. For example, religious ads generally project certainty in their wording, yet I’ve not seen even a whiff that their assertions can be likely, let alone are proven.
Fifth, we maintain a certain humility, in that we demonstrate that we are prepared to be swayed by evidence. I find it interesting that most religious statements seem to be made as certainties (but without evidence), yet they come from religions that nominally profess a need for humility.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:31 am
Although a freethinker myself, a good friend of mine mentioned that the inclusion of ‘probably’ made it possible for him, as a convinced christian, to accept the bus-campaign and consider its message in a serious way. Without the ‘probably’ he would have dismissed the campaign and the message outright.
February 17th, 2009 at 8:37 am
It’s not so bad that OC turned you down, as The Skeptical Inquirer, although acknowledging my letter to them some months ago, prior to this campaign in fact, did not publish a soft rebuttal I made about Dawkins. I can see that in Britain Dawkins is concerned about people’s opinions about religions, but there is a worse problem in North America with the misunderstanding of Dawkin’s 1970’s book “The Selfish Gene”. He has accepted accolades for it without humility even in the face of the fact that Enron and Lehman Brother’s executives (Enron is mentioned in the 3 month old Skeptical Inquirer I mention) misused this book because they mistook its message. In essence, their mistake is the equivalent of misreading “There is probably no God, so stop worrying and enjoy your life” with, “There is probably no systemic effect, so stop worrying and enjoy the promotion of greed as an exclusive characteristic among your traders”.
You can’t have free speech with only one side of a dialog, and the damage that the Lehman collapse has and continues to have is *immeasurable*.
February 17th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Perhaps, they did not publish it because Dawkins has already covered the misuse of the teachings of natural selection? He even mentions Enron in that Genius of Charles Darwin Documentary.
They can’t publish everything, they have limited space…
And above all, that does not make it any better that the OC turned us down.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Jack is some form of “gnostic” and is speaking in Code.
His Capital letters are the following … CWWASA
Cult – World – Weak – Atheism – Strong – Atheism.
CWWASA. Look it up in Google. Makes reference to Serpent as Figure in Old Testament. Serpent = Desire for Knowlege
(Figures or Types of the Old Testament by Samuel Mather)
Dan was a serpent Gen49:17
Regarding “Human’s must” – look up “Must” on Wikipedia. (non-alcoholic wine seeds, fruits and skin) represent the “divine essence”
Must (from the Latin vinum mustum, “young wine”) is freshly pressed fruit juice (usually grape juice) that contains the skins, seeds, and stems of the fruit. The solid portion of the must is called pomace; it typically makes up 7%–23% of the total weight of the must. Making must is the first step in wine-making.
The length of time that the pomace stays in the juice is critical for the final character of the wine.
When the winemaker judges the time to be right, the juice is drained off the pomace which is then pressed to extract the juice retained by the matrix. Yeast is added to the juice to begin the fermentation, while the pomace is often returned to the vineyard or orchard to be used as fertilizer. A portion of selected unfermented must may be kept as Süssreserve, in order to be added prior to bottling as a sweetening component. Aquinas himself declared that it is forbidden to offer fresh must in the chalice, because this is unbecoming owing to the impurity of the must; but he added that in case of necessity it may be done.
He’s making reference to a gnostic parable.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:18 am
I used to be a frequent OC transpo rider and seem to remember seeing both planned parenting ads as well as anti abortion ads inside the buses (the anti abortion ads being funded by a christian group with a website at the bottom). Unfortunately this was some years ago and I don’t remember the group/church name. It might be worth looking into in order to help fight for the atheist ads. Does anyone else remember these ads or who funded them?
February 17th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
What happened in Ottawa is a disgusting attack on free speech. So the advertisement is offensive in Ottawa but not in Toronto? Ridiculous. I hope we get the campaign in Montreal…
February 17th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Nietzche “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?
February 17th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Thanks, Erigami, for the Alpha Course link. I think it gives a good clue as to why their ads were accepted and the atheist bus ads rejected. Their ads do not mention “god” or anything of a religious nature. Even though they are a religious organization they have cleverly avoided spilling the beans about their intent to proselytize and used a message that appeals to everyone and invited people to visit their web site.
Has another slogan even been tried with the Ottawa transit system along the line of, say, “Want more out of life? Explore the possibilities! Visit (insert a web site here, such as the Freethought Assoc of Canada web site)” ??
February 17th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
There’s an interesting story online today about free speech in Canada.
http://www2.canada.com/theprovince/news/editorial/story.html?id=8ebe5f86-3e96-4846-84ee-617811e62b30
February 17th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
I agree that the message itself could be better.
Something like:
There is probably no god.
So get off your ass and fix the world.
would seem more appropriate
February 17th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Jack; Trevor’s recommendation “God Hypothesis” is a bit of a waste of time. If you want a theological discussion of which “definitions” fit observation, try Alistair McGrrath’s “Dawkin’s Delusion”, but I’m more interested in the logical fallacies of atheism; more so from trying to understand why people who know a little bit about science, draw incomplete and in fact wrong conclusions from this knowledge and then believe it permits them to destroy the economy through their ignorance.
If you can stomach the anti-religion, even Shermer’s “Why Smart People believe stupid things” could be skimmed at the book store, everything he (founder of the skeptic magazine) believes applies to his straw-man “believer” (he even calls it ironic without even realizing he is referring to a straw-man), actually applies to the three main problems with atheistbus.ca 1. That children need reeducation 2. That microbial evolution explains all evolution and 3. The “3O” believer straw-man is what they’re “fighting”.
February 17th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Oh and almost forgot, Bill Maher is a turkey too. Do schools promoting atheism have a special class for unlearning scientific rationalism when talking about something they jump up and down about and say they know nothing about? Amazing.
I read these comments I see a lot of “We are *atheists* we know nothing of any deities, and if you tell us anything about deities, we wouldn’t be good atheists to listen” or some such. Not that I’m offering anything, just that the argument’s structure is a logical fallacy.
Did any of you study “Mathematical Logic”, by the way? I’d be pleased to express that in p’s and q’s for you.
February 17th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Jeff K what do you believe? You seem to happily dismiss evolution without explaining your position.
“I read these comments I see a lot of “We are *atheists* we know nothing of any deities, and if you tell us anything about deities, we wouldn’t be good atheists to listen” or some such. Not that I’m offering anything, just that the argument’s structure is a logical fallacy”
Talk about strawman arguments, you just acuse all of us of not listening? I am pretty sure that almost everyone on here reads even offgrid’s posts thoroughly.
Your posts are the most intriguing yet…I find them difficult to describe…I would say they lack substance, and make many unbacked accusations.
Please I don’t know exactly what you are referring to
“Oh and almost forgot, Bill Maher is a turkey too. Do schools promoting atheism have a special class for unlearning scientific rationalism when talking about something they jump up and down about and say they know nothing about? Amazing. ”
Please don’t be afraid to write a bit more, this is to vague to comprehend without context.
And please instead of just referring to your own vague arguments, elaborate, you might know “the logical fallacies of atheism” are, but I assure you I do not.
February 17th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Jeff, you almost seem to be presenting yourself in a dishonest manner, no disrespect intended. You seem to suggest that you view the world from a rational, scientific, perspective but than procede to discount evolution, perhaps the most robust scintific theory in existence.
I sense that you believe in a god and are trying to find a scientific basis for it…
There is no evidence I know of for god, please present it if you think you have it.
P.S. I was raised with spell check, all my typo’s are embarrasing. I apologise, but I think my meaning still makes it through and thats what matters.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Devon,
We are at the point in a discussion where conversation is required, as I would need to point you to things that have already been written and I’m sure no one cares to read twice.
Actually, about “a god”, I thought I’d first establish whether or not the generally accepted principals of atheism were scientific and rational (or rather present obvious evidence that they’re not).
I don’t actually like to use the word “god” because of the priciples of ignosticism. We’d have to agree on something else you want me to prove the existence of that would suffice.
However as to why OC shouldn’t bother with the ad’s slogan and why the one on the TTC should really be different, is exactly what you just said, suppose there was someone searching for “something” we agree to define, and they were doing it rationally and scientifically to seek its basis, would they not wind up reading of “Logic” and “Reason” and science? Why does your campaign unknowingly, apparently, use a slogan designed to end the search for ways of seeing why the atheistic viewpoints are fallacious (or in your case, possibly, “claimed to be fallacious by some guy whose references I don’t want to look up”)?
The campaign uses the word “worry” as if it was somehow worrisome just to look.
I was raised with a spell-check too. Phrases like “tea pots” and “3O”s and “stop worrying” have no hypnotic affect on me, but you should be concerned about citizens riding buses who have not learned how to break these spells.
[That was a poor attempt at a joke. I can't be serious all the time -- it would sound like I'm not "enjoying my life"].
February 17th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
“In London we were simply told that no religious advertisements were permitted despite Atheism not being a religion.”
That’s taking things too literally. If you possess a worldview which you feel needs advertising throughout the transit systems of the world, you pretty much have yourself a religion in every way that counts.
I used to think organizations like Alpha Course used cryptic ads to trick people into visiting their websites. Now I think it was probably just a means of getting around advertising restrictions, the same restrictions the atheist campaign is now experiencing. Unless we can clearly show that these agencies have approved overtly religious advertisements in the recent past, it’s not worth calling every obstacle a “free speech” issue. We don’t get to rewrite the policy manuals just because we think we’re right.
SkepticaLynda is right, it’s time to come up with something new. The existing slogan is “probably” coming on too strong; it is a presumptuous at best – and offensive at worst – to flatly equate enjoyment of life with atheism. Was the intention of this campaign to piss off the religious world, or to introduce ourselves to them?
February 17th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Well, can you sum up some of the logical fallacies of atheism for me? I don’t see any references to read.
You seem to believe in a “god”. How can you believe in something that you say is impossible to define? I would take that to mean that you don’t know what “it” is…
I am sorry, maybe its me, but I find your posts hard to follow…I still can’t figure out where you are coming from, you are not very clear about your arguements, beliefs, or world views.
February 17th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof
February 17th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
GOOD NEWS FROM OTTAWA!
The Ottawa Citizen reports today (Feb. 17) that Ottawa City Councillor Alex Cullen, who is also chirman of Ottawa’s transit commitee, wants to know why city staff refused to allow atheist ads, even though ads quoting the Bible have been approved and could appear on buses in the near future. See this story at http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Life/Cullen+demands+review+atheist/1295922/story.html
I urge everyone to email Alex Cullen at Alex.Cullen@ottawa.ca and encourage his principled stand. As a resident of the National Capital, I am looking forward to having the freedom to voice my opinion on buses if I am willing to pay for the ads. The funniest part of this is that OC Transpo needs all the advertising money it can get.
February 18th, 2009 at 3:11 am
Negative proof shmegative proof… it’s not that because religion has failed to show evidence for the existence of ‘god’ that he ‘probably’ doesn’t exist… it’s that they CAN’T show evidence. ‘God’ is incoherent. Therefore, he doesn’t exist.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Jeff K,
At the link you provided for a definition of negative proof, I read, “Though a lack of positive evidence can never disprove a hypothesis, a statistically large number of negative instances may make it highly improbable.” Thus, “There’s probably no god.”
Michel,
Thanks for the links. I’ll check out that news item and email Alex.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:18 am
My Email to Alex Cullen:
The Atheist Bus Ad is to read:
“There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”
As a descendent of the Anishinabek (Ojibwe) of Canada I have the following problems with this Advertisment:
1. What is the atheist definition of “God” ? The First Peoples of Canada call “God” – Gitchi-manitou “The Great Mystery”
We believe that “God” is in everything. Not necessarily an Old man in the Sky -like Zeus. God lives within us. (our spirit, our soul)
Also as Jesus taught: “The Kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:21)
It is our spirit and also our Way of Life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anishinaabe
2. The message of “Stop Worrying and Enjoy Life”
When people are starving in Africa, and here in Canada, is this the message we want to send our children ?
When people are losing their jobs, their homes, their lives, is this the message we want to send them.?
Just to Stop Worrying. Oh – and by the way – you do not have any Spirit or soul within you ?
We need messages of Hope. Not some atheist telling us not to worry and to be happy.
As a descendent of the Fist Peoples in Camada I am deeply offended by this Ad.
It is not just the Christians, Jews, and Muslims that are being told that their beliefs and Way of living is a complete Joke.
It is the Anishinabek of Canada.
Are you prepared to offend so many people ? This is exactly what this Ad does.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Michel,
I think it’s very interesting and encouraging to read David Harrison’s reaction to the atheist ad campaign. He’s jealous of the financial support it has received when his own ads are still waiting for sponsorship. He doesn’t find the ads offensive.
Thanks again for posting the link!
February 18th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Jeff K, I think that SkepticaLynda summed that up nicely. I know you can’t prove certain things don’t exist, I have stressed that often enough on here.
Its just like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
Without evidence of a god I won’t believe in one…that would be irrational and illogical.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:47 am
That is great news from Ottawa… I hope he can get things turned around.
February 18th, 2009 at 10:17 am
I’ve changed my mind – run the Ads.
February 18th, 2009 at 10:22 am
SkepticalLynda,
I think we need some “Mathematical Logic” here. Let’s start with something to represent “God” in a logical statement. Let’s call it “Z”, short for Zeus, but it has enough analogs in math for me to like it.
Now give me the *minimum* requirements for Z that place it in the set of “Gods”, that you are comfortable with arguing with me.
You’ll note you just took me up on the ignosticism argument.
February 18th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Let’s start with “Do you think Z” has the power to demonstrate that all mathematical proofs will be incomplete as Godel showed? Will “Z” have the power to represent all the states of a computer simulation. Will “Z” provide you with the ability to generate all possible images of size 1024×768, 32 bits per pixel, will Z innumerate all the possibile states of the US National debt? How about in 6 months?
February 18th, 2009 at 10:29 am
“we were told no religious advertisements were allowed, but atheism is not a religion”.
Let’s not split hairs here. Atheism is not a religion, true, but the ads in question are “religiously themed” you might say, and fall under the spirit of the “no religious advertising” policy. I don’t think we should complain about it too hard.
If a transit company accepts advertisements from churches, etc, but not from us, then that’s a different matter of course.
February 18th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Here’s another idea for an Ad in Ottawa:
“When you walk through the garden
you gotta watch your back
well I beg your pardon
walk the straight and narrow track
if you walk with Jesus
he’s gonna save your soul
you gotta keep the devil
way down in the hole.”
Tom Waits “Way down in the hole”
February 18th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Another vey good Ad for Ottawa.
“I’d sell your heart to the junkman baby
For a buck, for a buck
If you’re looking for someone
To pull you out of that ditch
You’re out of luck, you’re out of luck
The ship is sinking
The ship is sinking
The ship is sinking
There’s leak, there’s leak,
In the boiler room
The poor, the lame, the blind
Who are the ones that we kept in charge?
Killers, thieves, and lawyers
God’s away, God’s away,
God’s away on Business. Business.
God’s away, God’s away,
God’s away on Business.
Business.”
Tom Waits “God’s away on business”
February 18th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Jeff you are still doing a good job of assuming we know what you are thinking…
Look, if you believe there is a “god” I hope YOU have a definition for it, otherwise what do your believe?
There is no evidence of a higher power of any sort
February 18th, 2009 at 11:07 am
You really don’t respond to other people’s input do you?
You just move on to some other random arguement.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Devon: The only “theist” on this board that described exactly what they thought “God” is, was offgrid. And he was banned from the site for all eternity. Jeff K knows that the minute he describes “God” that is different from the Atheist’s perception of “God” He will be banned also. The only way to stay on this board is to claim that you are an Atheist – as did Jack Skellington. Who is a “theist” of sorts.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Oh – by the way – I am now an “atheist” per your definition of “God” (Zeus/YHWH) Judeao-Christian “Literal man in a beard” with Thunder and fury, sending me to Hell – Devil in the Hole. LOL …. ha ha.
So I am very happy to have found a home here on the Atheist bus.
I have rewritten my letter to Alex Cullen and Mayor Obrian asking them to please run the Ads without further delay.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Gabriel, you are atheist relative to a definition that not many theists hold as true.
Devon, I am not moving on, I got Gabriel to give his defining belief.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
And if you want me to summarize my findings so far;
Hal appears to emphaise by association (religion = bad, so therefor talk of god or gods is bad)
Dawkins was hung up with the hell thing Grabriel mentioned, presumably both defining God as jealous for some reason.
SkepticalLinda equates the word “probably” to “there is”,
Trevor likes to dispute the 3O thing,
and you push to find something it might be possible to attach an ad hominem attack to.
All of these short-comings can be overcome just by picking up one of those mini books on scientific reasoning at the bookstore. You don’t need to follow this propaganda of “don’t worry”, it is not a worry to walk to a book store. I think Shermer’s book is even in the “Science” section, so you can even bypass “Philosophy” if you so choose.
I still don’t see why the average person on a bus should also be encouraged to bypass bookstores in this manner.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
I really don’t understand why anyone (Christian or Atheist) is arguing about ‘evidence’ or ‘proof’ of God. Christianity is based on FAITH. End of Story.
I was an Atheist my entire life until I was baptized and born again last year. My decision was based entirely on a new found FAITH that never existed before. Honestly, before I was saved I thought Christians were crazy, I thought religion was the root of all evil and a terrible man made control tactic. Well my views have radically changed. This was entirely a personal decision, with no input or coercion from anyone else. Believing in God and accepting Jesus as my Lord & Savior was with out a doubt a completely spiritual experience, it had nothing to do with someone proving anything to me. I didn’t wake up one day and say “wow, there is so much evidence of this, how did I not understand all of this before”. As a Christian I now completely agree with Proverb 3:5 “Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding” but again this is not because someone proved to me God existed, this is because the spirit led me. As an atheist this is something you do not understand, there is really no point to try and PROVE using tangible, scientific EVIDENCE to unbelievers there is a God. All we (Christians) can do is love them, pray for them and educate them (if they care to listen) on our understanding and the mighty word of God. As a former atheist, bible believing, born again Christian I just wanted to share my thoughts on this because at the end of the day just as scientist/mathematician Blaise Pascal once said to elequently “There is a God-shaped vacuum inside every man that only God can fill.” God Bless you all!
February 18th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Gabriel did not give their defining belief…they just said what they don’t believe
Offgrid didn’t do a good job of describing his god to me…I tried very hard to get him to clarify…I don’t think he was banned, his last post said that he felt hated here so he was going to leave, Hal really didn’t like reading his blocks of irrelevant quotations and they got into a bit of a “quarrel”
“Gabriel, you are atheist relative to a definition that not many theists hold as true.”
Actually I have talked to hundreds who hold that literal definition as true, its what the Catholic Schools teach. I think you would be hard pressed to find many theists who are unwilling to say what they believe god is, like yourself. Seriously this is the first time I have come across people trying to use ignosticism as a serious proof of anything. Most theists, in my experience, actually hold onto a literal zeus-like belief, why not? , they don’t need proof for it, they have faith!
Whatever your personal definition of a god, if there is no evidence for it I don’t believe it exists. If you can’t define god than you don’t know what you believe, maybe its definition will turn out to be a squirrel?
February 18th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Devon: Hey that’s my definition of God. God is a squirrel. God is in your spit. God is everywhere.
I am an “atheistbus-atheist” who believes in God.
I believe in God – just like you do Devon.
Only I can give my defining belief. And as offgrid, I believe I AM. And so are you. All of our minds are an extention of the “divine intellect” or Great Mystery that many call “God”.
So I am an atheist, and I am a Theist.
Because God is in both.
The universe is infinite. And so is my concept of God.
God bless you.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
God = Father, Son (Jesus) & Holy Spirit.
*Genesis 1:26 God said, Let Us make mankind in Our image, after Our likeness.*
Whether he has a white beard, black beard or a beard at all, no one knows, but it can be understood since we were made in His image, he would ‘appear’ like man (arms, legs, head etc.)
February 18th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Right…but what exactly is everywhere?
So we are an extention of a “divine intellect”? Wheres the proof for that? are squirrels part of it too?
The universe is very big but not infinite…
Again, I find it hard to see what exactly you think god is, and why you think there is a god.
Atheists by definition don’t believe in any god, I suppose you could say that christians are atheists with regards to zeus…but technically they are not atheists because they believe in another god…
You pantheists are confusing….
I ran into this with offgrid, he almost changed the definition of god to simply the universe as we know it, which I would agree exists, but then he always pulled back to a more traditional definition….
February 18th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Let be be absolutely and infintely clear.
I am an atheist. But I am also a theist. All thought comes from “God”. The infinite intellect.
The universe is infinite. There was no beginning – it has always been. There is no beginning and there is no end. It doesn’t matter what you believe. In the end your only belief will be “infinite” So you believe in God.
At some point in time (which really doesn’t make any sense in an infinite universe, you will come to be realized as God. Since your intellect will also be infinite.
The only thing your mind really comprehends at any given time is this very instant. And at this instant you are becoming God. Your mind is infinite and it is God.
February 18th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Devon : Exactly
God is the universe. But that is a very simplistic view.
God is nature, God is man, man is God. (essence) I didn’t see where offgrid pulled back from that. His view as I read it was that several historical teachers have understood this. The veil was lifted from their eyes so that every thing hums and shimmers with the divine light of an “infinite intellect” – infinite mind. The absolute and creative essence of all life. Enoch, Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Melchizadek. This is our inheritance also.
February 18th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
The most common term for “universe” among the ancient Devon: Greek philosophers from Pythagoras onwards was το παν (The All), defined as all matter (το ολον) and all space (το κενον).
The broadest definition of the universe is found in De divisione naturae by the medieval philosopher Johannes Scotus Eriugena, who defined it as simply everything: everything that exists and everything that does not exist. So if God exists – he’s in the “Universe”. If he doesn’t exist – he’s still in the “Universe”
As a specific example, every electron is intrinsically identical to every other; therefore, probability amplitudes must be computed allowing for the possibility that they exchange positions, something known as exchange symmetry. This conception of the universe embracing both the existent and the non-existent is loosely related to the Buddhist doctrines of shunyata and interdependent development of reality, and to Gottfried Leibniz’s more modern concepts of contingency and the identity of indiscernibles.
February 18th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Gabriel said, “The universe is infinite. There was no beginning – it has always been. There is no beginning and there is no end.”
The evidence suggests otherwise.
The rest seems to follow from your false premise, assuming I could make sense of it.
If you define God as the Universe, does the Universe prescribe morals, does the Universe expect worship, does the Universe provide an afterlife beyond being worm food?
February 18th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
So how did the protest at 9:30 in Ottawa go? Lots of stimulating insight into people’s beliefs?
Anyway, as for a definition of “god or gods” as in “An atheist has no belief in god or gods”, this is a logical discussion, I have already established that I am running into issues with the interpretation of meaning, but I’ll give it a shot anyway:
A “god or gods” is defined as something with the minimum set of characteristics for an intellectual atheist to believe that he is talking about a “god or gods”.
I mean its a losing proposition for you right there, I just have to find an intellectual atheist that has developed his meaning with the “negative proof” as a starting axiom. For certain the development of the meaning of the concept of god or gods for him will be invalid (or illogical) simply from the structure of his beliefs with regards to meaning and logic.
Voltaire had a good quote for that.
February 18th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Darwin : No.
Here you go: If you travel in space say 90 billion light years away. Would you run into a wall (like Truman did) ?
And if you hit that wall – what is behind it ? Solid ? That’s something. Nothing ? What is nothing ? It is an extention of the universe.
Explain to me how the universe is finite ? Bubbles ? planes ? Where do they stop? Or are you afraid of the “Big Rip”? like Devon is.
The universe is infinite. And God is infinite. So yyou are in God and God is in you.
The universe appears to be governed throughout by the same physical laws and physical constants.According to the prevailing Standard Model of physics, all matter is composed of three generations of leptons and quarks, both of which are fermions.
What’s a fermion ?
February 18th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Darwin ?
What perscribes morals ? The “God/universe/conscience/insight/infinite mind” that is within you and outside of you.
Worship? Give thanks to the Creator/Creation/Universe. It is a true mystery. “The Great Mystery”. The Gitchi-manitou.
Give thanks that you are here to experience life in all of it’s beauty and suffering. Learn.
Is the Universe infinite ? It is movement and repose.
February 18th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Those attuned to the inner life of the spirit understand the value of this kind of reflection. The search for “knowledge of the heart,” known to the ancients as “gnosis,” provides a process by which we can recognize the illusion of opposites, begin to understand them, and ultimately transcend them.
Jesus spoke of this in The Gospel of Thomas, when He said, “Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All.”
Along with this process, the pre-Christian myths provided a content model to help people deal with dualism. The ancient Gnostics described a human body formed only of clay, but containing a spark of divine light secretly hidden within by Sophia – divine wisdom. This dual nature, the Gnostics speculated, explained our constant struggle between earthly and material distractions, and the yearning of the Spirit for God. Mainstream Christianity speaks of this dualism, too, but usually counsels suppression and denial of our darker sides.
Mystics of many faiths, though, maintain that we must recognize and understand these aspects of ourselves before we can hope to master them. This sounds surprisingly like depth psychology, and in fact no less a figure than Carl Jung considered the Gnostics the world’s first psychologists.
The process they used, according to Jung, closely paralleled what he called “individuation,” or the path to psychological and spiritual maturity. To reach this maturity, children as well as adults need to follow a process of seeking, finding, reconciling, and mastering life’s difficult questions. Myth provides a framework for learning to deal with opposites – good and evil, weakness and strength, safety and danger, day and night, the finite and the infinite, movement and repose.
February 18th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Gabriel asked, “Here you go: If you travel in space say 90 billion light years away. Would you run into a wall (like Truman did) ?”
Scientists think that gravity curves space enough that the universe curves back on itself, so that if you travel is one direction long enough you will come back to where you started. (May may have to go faster then the speed of light because it universe is expending fasting then the speed of light)
Gabriel says, “Explain to me how the universe is finite”.
The Universe had a beginning at the Big Bang and has had a growing, but finite size since then.
Gabriel says, “What perscribes morals ? The “God/universe/conscience/insight/infinite mind” that is within you and outside of you.”
I am within the universe, conscience and insight are within me. God and infinite mind aren’t supported by evidence, therefore it is irrational to believe they exist.
I’d thank the Universe, but I don’t think it would appreciate it.
February 18th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
“Scientist’s think.” Is that your proof of a finite universe ?
The imprecision of current observations has hindered predictions of the ultimate fate of the universe.
What was before the Big Bang ? Nothing ? Read Eriugena’s definition of “Universe” again.
The only new thing that comes into the world when we are born is “Mind”. Our bodies and everything in it are a re-formation of the atoms that have existed since eternity.
Tell me where your mind comes from ?
February 18th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Joseph Silk: Maybe long before inflation there was a Universe that was collapsing near a singularity, which then inflated again, so there was already a history before the Big Bang. Some people think there was a ‘pre-Big Bang’. One possibility is that this pre-Big Bang, if there was such a place, would have made lots of entropy (the amount of disorder in the Universe). And the Universe we live in does have huge amounts of entropy. That’s one theory. But we have no understanding of how to change from collapsing to expanding. There’s no physical way to explain that transition. Some people believe that they have explanations of the pre-Big Bang, so it’s a respectable theory….
It just goes on and on. Some day we will “know.”
Then Maybe not.
February 18th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Gabriel – “I am an atheist. But I am also a theist.”
You clearly do not prescribe to Religion, understood.
Your theory is interesting, however what is your point to all of this?
At the end of the day you are basically saying you believe in God, just not the God that anyone else does? Then why call it/him God?
Essentially you just believe the universe has always been, will always be and so it is God?
Obviously, as a Christian, I totally disagree.
To me it is very clear who/what God is, and it most certainly is not what your talking about.
February 18th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Gabrial said, ““Scientist’s think.” Is that your proof of a finite universe ?”
Perhaps I should have said “The evidence suggests” but “Scientist’s think” is stronger then “Gabrial thinks”, which is all you seem to have.
Gabrial said, “What was before the Big Bang ? Nothing ? Read Eriugena’s definition of “Universe” again.”
“Johannes Scotus Eriugena, who defined it as simply everything: everything that exists and everything that does not exist.”
That’s a terrible definition of the Universe. Why should it include everything that does not exist?
Gabrial said, “The only new thing that comes into the world when we are born is “Mind”. Our bodies and everything in it are a re-formation of the atoms that have existed since eternity. Tell me where your mind comes from ?”
It come from when atoms end up organized in such a way that they become capable of the various functions that the mind has.
Our atoms haven’t existed since eternity. The Hydrogen atoms where formed shortly after the Big Bang and the rest where formed in stars that went nova or supernova later on.
February 18th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Jeff K,
Your sentence, “Now give me the *minimum* requirements for Z that place it in the set of “Gods”, that you are comfortable with arguing with me” makes no sense.
You’ll have to write more clearly and coherently for me to engage in any discussion with you.
February 18th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Gabriel,
Gee, your comments are so much like Offgrid’s. Isn’t that fascinating? Do you know him?
February 18th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Hey guys, there’s lots of good discussion going on here but I want to remind you that we have a forum for this type of thing. http://atheistbus.ca/forum
Comments below articles are meant for response directly about the article, I don’t mind that people wander off a bit but I’d like to see it take place on our forum rather then here.
I see some of you are already on the forum.
February 18th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Sorry Chris, I just get caught up in these threads, I don’t like to see comments go unanswered.
Gabriel really does sound like Offgrid, I was wondering if they were one and the same as well…Perhaps pantheists are predisposed to talk the same…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
I find it strange and frustrating that pantheists say god is everything but won’t say what they mean by “god”. If their definition of god is “everything” than they are just calling the universe god instead of calling the universe the “universe” like everyone else. Usually as with Gabriel and Offgrid, they attribute many other random things/powers to the universe for no apparent reason.
Neurons make up our mind, damage neurons and your “mind” will change (lol change your mind, i rather like that).
February 19th, 2009 at 12:31 am
Jeff K wrote of me: “Trevor likes to dispute the 3O thing,”
Not particularly. It just happened to be a convenient argument to make my point. In other circumstances, I might have used one of many other arguments; one more suited to those circumstances. In the case I cited, I simply demonstrated that the hypothesis that a 3O deity exists was soundly disproven by the Tsunami. Just one invalidation of just one hypothesis. That’s all.
Theists have many hypotheses about many forms of deities. I’ve seen sound logical and/or repeatable experimental invalidations of every theist hypothesis I’ve ever encountered. I’ve yet to see a single invalidation of the hypothesis that no deity exists; but that does not prove that a deity exists.
Put another way: I’ve yet to see a theist/believer present me any evidence or argument that has remotely swayed me towards even a smidgen of a belief in their deity (however they define it); and all the evidence and logic I do see points to the lack of any deity.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Glorious … You’re a Christian ? Really ?
I would say that you have never laid eyes on the WORD.
The WORD says “Thou shalt not Kill”. And your Christian armies are slaughtering innocents. As are the armies of the Jews and the Muslims and anyone else that kills their fellow man.
“Thou shalt not kill”. Read the WORD. Love your neighbor as yourself. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The path is narrow. And no one is on it.
Maybe a few atheists, humanists and vegetarians.
According to the definitions I see here and what is happening in the world right now even Jesus would have been an atheist.
February 19th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Devon, Primum non nocere
Pantheists are like medical students and Google. Do no harm /do no evil…. pointing out that any harm done to another is doing harm to oneself because what harms one harms all. What is good and evil isn’t the mandate of something outside of us, but as a result of the way we are all interconnected. Instead of good choices being based on fear of divine punishment, it comes from a mutual respect from all things.
Silly huh ?
SkepticalLynda sounds like Devon, sounds like Hal, sounds like Darwin, sounds like treetri, sounds like Vadim, sounds like Vronvron, sounds like Jack, – are you all One ? Yes we are all One.
February 19th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Not silly given your view of the universe, I find your basis for morality better than just acting out of fear of judgement.
But I still don’t see any proof for your pantheistic god…
February 19th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Devon,
If you agree that we are somehow connected through “creation” (that we are both created) then that’s all we need for a basis of this kind of morality.
We are all here together. Let’s stop killing one another.
I’m afraid that this Ad will enflame the fanatics, rather than create an opportunity to discuss the basis of mankind’s morality (ethics). Living in Peace for the betterment of mankind.
What is the atheist “basis of morality” is there a Code of ethics ? How do you see mankind ?
What is the humanist stand on armies, guns and killing your fellow man ?
Feeding the poor, healing the sick ?
February 19th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Devon.
“We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself.” Carl Sagan.
Sagan was, however, not an atheist, expressing that, “An atheist has to know a lot more than I know.”
February 19th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Gabriel said, “What is the atheist “basis of morality” is there a Code of ethics ? How do you see mankind ?”
Perhaps we can continue this discussion in the Ethics and Morals section of the forum. It has already been started in the The Origin of Morals thread.
February 20th, 2009 at 4:02 am
Hello Rationalists !
From this discussion page, I got the name of Alex Cullen, an Ottawa City Council member who, I believe, is standing up in council to support the atheistbus ads there.
I sent him an email of support, and he encouraged me to pass on my views to all the council members. Responding to my request, Mr. Cullen sent me the email addresses of every council member.
I proceeded to send an email to all the 22 members and the mayor of Ottawa, Larry O’Brien. I urge all of you out there to do the same – we must stand up for freedom of speech and democracy.
I could paste the words of my letter here, but it’s probably better if you compose your own.
I said I stood for democracy, honesty, truth, and reason, etc….
Here is the mayor’s email ( larry.obrien@ottawa.ca ), and if you want the emails of the other members, just ask. I’ll post them.
Rationalism, skepticism, humanism, atheism, are not religions. Rationalists are simply ordinary citizens who question the validity of any claim, especially outrageous ones.
February 20th, 2009 at 7:51 am
Harvard. Way to go.
This is an “atheist” message we need everybody to hear.
Every thinking Man, Woman and child.
This message is so important -especially now.
Jesus taught:
“Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.” Matt 6:34
February 21st, 2009 at 7:12 pm
You’re really not helping things, Jack Skellington.
You’re just putting up smoke and mirrors in an attempt to slow the progress of some people who’ve decided to take up an atheist banner of some kind. We really don’t need your kind of cowardly closet atheism infecting this otherwise healthy experiment. You come here painting yourself as the intellectual heavyweight disappointed by the caliber of discussion you’ve found, scolding the crybabies. But your notion that we should all remain under our little rocks and not ever unite behind something or someone is just plain stupid. Thankfully you weren’t a black person when Martin Luther King Jr. was around. Since when did you become the judge on how atheists are supposed to behave- a notoriously independent lot- announcing that atheism is dead because atheists killed it. Get a grip. Its never been more alive and thats the whole point. We choose what to support when it seems right to us.
So yes, Ill buy and read my Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. Its “intellectual ammunition”, in the words of Ayn Rand. Ill donate to the site and buy a bumper sticker for the Atheist Bus campaign, thank you very much. While you come and fling mud, because the people who are actually doing something, unlike you, aren’t up to your lofty individual standards.
The fact is I’m not going to go around beating my head against a religious wall of obfuscations and glib irrational cop-outs. But, if someone else wants to enter the fray, by all means I say. This is the first atheist based movement that has actually had an impact locally and I choose to support that.
I support it because ultimately religion in the modern age is just slowing humanity down. They slowed stem cell research and cloning, sources of potentially unlimited organ transplants and medical breakthroughs. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a religious one that is sapping that entire area’s resources and a source of seemingly endless conflict.
I support it because to take most religious beliefs literally is silly. It makes me wonder what kind of critical thinking is being encouraged in those kind of people. A world full of that kind of thought would be a strange place full of much devotion and idol worshiping but no miracles or messiahs to merit it. Besides, of course, the glib ones we’ve been given so far and perhaps eventually some fake ones with the advancing realism of computer graphics.
I support it because not to take the Bible or Koran or whatever literally is akin to hypocrisy. On the one hand its supposed to be written by those inspired by God to do so, “the Word of God”, yet in the other hand everywhere you look its pick and choose, lukewarm, and “oh we don’t actually believe that part anymore”. Isn’t that the point though? That this is God’s word, the only so called proof that there even was a Jesus or whoever else? Shouldn’t they be following it letter by letter, and if not then wouldn’t God work in its mysterious ways to inspire the necessary changes without revealing itself? It can read your thoughts, knows all about you, manages a place called heaven, oversees the universe, but can’t find the time to update his book through.
I’m getting off topic. I just really wanted to tell Jack Skellington to stop being a poseur. He isn’t helping anything but his own internet ego while he flips through his pocket Descartes and ponders skepticism, sipping his latte with his scarf wrapped around his neck at Star Bucks, not even Fair Trade coffee, and encouraging others to remain divided since in his mind thats the true atheist way… and we’re all out here killing it so shame on us since we don’t feel like answering to his obfuscations, to get him to get off his butt and do something for a change.
Meanwhile, the rest of us who choose to put our money where our mouths are are actually Doing Something. If not on the front lines like the good people driving this campaign or the Richard Dawkins / Christopher Hitchens of the world, we are producing ammunition in the back, donating and buying a thing or two.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Dear Devin Watson.
Good for you.
Keep sending us your hard earned money. Ha ha ha…
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Devin, I like your comments in #98. I understand your frustration with Jack Skellington. He is among the very few who upon considering their own brilliance are blinded and unable to see beyond the backs of their own eye balls. Never mind them, they are few and far between and the rest of the world has far less difficulty dealing with reality in practical terms. There is no use in trying to engage such folk in debate. They are unable to focus on anything other than finding definitions for words that have already been clearly defined in common useful dictionaries.
It is indeed very fortunate for human kind that there are scientists and truly brilliant thinkers on the planet who see through his type of sophistry.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:48 pm
“Better than a thousand hollow words, is one word that brings peace.”
Buddha
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Unfortunately true peace is rarely achieved by well intentioned people with good sound bites or quotes on their side. Sometimes you need to get out there and stake out a position, go out on a limb, take some chances, instead of just playing the clever most neutral game.
If thats your strategy you should stick to the Civilization line of video games and avoid touchy issues like religion here in the real world. When it comes to the issues you will probably never achieve any progress accept to gain for yourself the reputation of being Mr. Completely Neutral Armed With Clever Quotes to Fit Circumstance, which is respectable in some ways since it may easy other people’s tensions, but ultimately leads to only facile accomplishments on your own part.
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:12 am
Amen to that !
February 28th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Again, if a transit commission does not accept religious ads, then that includes us as well… the ads are “religiously themed” and fall under the spirit of that rule.
I’ve seen the Humanist Canada ads: “You *can* be good without God”, and I have to say, that is a much better ad than ours.