Quick Update About Ottawa + Video
Campaign Updates, Discussion, Media March 17th, 2009We are working closely with the advertising agency that manages OC Transpo’s ad space. Within the next couple of days our contract should be finalized. If all goes well, Ottawa will be seeing our pretty pink, red, and orange banners next week.
Below is a video that discusses the dispute with Ottawa City Council, OC Transpo, and our advertisement disapproval and then approval. The interview is with David Burton, the Director of Humanist Association of Ottawa.
The song below is at the end of the video above. It is by Paul LeClair and was created as part of the protest against the OC Transpo’s attempt to censor our ad. To listen to the full version please visit his website.
March 17th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Hurray.
We are getting the message out there. Matt 6:34
March 17th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Hurray! Freedom of speech lives in Ottawa. Freedom of thought also lives in Ottawa. The atheist bus sign will encourage people to question whether it is smart to believe in something that has never been seen.
March 17th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Astounding how two councillors used their “freedom of speech” to attempt to censor the ad. Clearly they don’t even understand the concept of free speech. (Of course, this is a significant problem in Canada where many types of speech are illegal)
March 21st, 2009 at 8:11 pm
I thought the Mayor made a good,well reasoned argument. The woman councillor admitted she was biased- therefore she should not have voted in a democratic system. The third man was just an uneducated moron. How did he get elected?
I love the fact that the Ottawa Humanists had the guts to wear the Tee-shirts. W
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:36 pm
All you atheists are only unfaithful in religion because you guys wanted something from god and you didn’t get what you want from him and for that only reason you guys are saying “there might not be a God” because you didn’t see any action from him. A good example would be that lets say you have a friend you haven’t seen in more then 10 years does that mean he isn’t alive any more or doesn’t exist??
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:54 am
.
Hello Farid —
.
Are you aware that many people grow up from birth free from religion? Therefore, they have had no reason to ask for anything ( I assume you mean “pray” ).
Farid, your example is not a “good” one. It makes no sense. At least I would have actually seen my friend in the flesh – and therefore, I know absolutely that he does exist.
However, no one in the history of mankind has come forth with compelling evidence that any gods exist.
.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Harvard says,
“However, no one in the history of mankind has come forth with compelling evidence that any gods exist.”
Which planet do you come from, again? Even “the Quotable Atheist” is careful enough to point out that “nature” has been equated to the word “god”.
“Pray” is just a confirmation bias thing in its simplest form (an unscientific form of it).
How about actually reading a book and quoting it here instead of posting meaningless opinions.
“The Quotable Atheist” is a recent publication, and it suffers from precisely the problems I have pointed out for 3 months on this site, it must open with a definition of “atheism”, it must address ignosticism (which it does, simply by including it (!)) and it must address existing evidence of its claims or disproof … which I feel an authority to say, it fails miserably at — a complete waste of trees.
March 24th, 2009 at 1:20 am
Dear Jeff K:
May I quote you, please?
You say, ” …it must address ignosticism (sic)…”
Hmm. Interesting diction from “an authority.”
.
Also, speaking of quoting a book: Would you please quote a book that brings forth evidence that any gods exist?”
.
March 24th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Sure, “The Quotable Atheist”. It established fairly succinctly that Thomas Aquinas defined a particular “god” as one responsible for the prime mover, and that some scientists and others (I don’t have the book in front of me right now) defined a god as “nature”.
That’s 2 right there.
Also why the (sic) on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
, by the way? Quote me all you want, I’m a scientist, I could prove and demonstrate you into a corner.
March 24th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Also, the “gods” that created and run the Universe are boring, how about one with real power, something a war was fought over? Shall we discuss one of those?
March 24th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Harvard, it occurs to me you want to do something to prove something surprising to yourself. Here’s an experiment. It requires an open mind, so I know I’m taking my chances. Go park at a large book store or take a bus with one of these bullseyes on it there.
Then think of something like Lord of the Rings or maybe the Beatles or whatever turns your fancy that affected a generation of people. Then find the map to the book store, find an appropriate section to make “finds” in, then haul out some books that catch your eye. Then open them to the table of contents and skim it or open them to the index, for the really bold.
If you learn something, do yourself a favor and give up atheism.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:53 am
First off Jeff, Aquinas “proofs” are well known and refuted, for instance on the front page Chris is responding to a simplified version from the listen up t.v. show.
“Unfortunately for Aquinas and other Christians that follow this school of thought, no one could ever prove how the first mover related to Christian theology or any theology. In other words, ’so what’ if there was a first mover because there is nothing to imply that the first mover was the Christian god or a god of any other religion. For all we know the first mover could have been a bunch of fairies moving things, or the first mover could have moved the universe and then dropped dead. There is no evidence at all to support a first mover as the Christian god, and if there was a first movement, there’s no evidence to support it was any god of any type.”
I don’t really see how a god would even solve that supposed problem, wouldn’t it need a first mover of its own? If it doesn’t then why couldn’t the universe do without one? I assume your response would be something like only material things need first movers…I don’t buy that, and plus If I do recall it there is a good Thomas Jefferson quotation about Immaterial things somewhere…
Here it is
“To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart.” Thomas Jefferson
By the way, to clarify, I don’t quote people for evidence but because they have said it better than I can.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Jeff I don’t understand what you mean in 11…
For number 7,
Ignostiscism essentially is admitting that you have no idea even what you are talking about when you say god, you might as well say “kunfuzzel” or “meglurp”, essentially ignostics say they don’t believe a god exists because they don’t even understand the basic concept. If not knowing what you are saying makes things exist….I don’t even know what to say after that, its just impossible. It is not up to atheists to clarify what theists believe in, thats their job. It is also their job to back up their “theories” with evidence (“the bible says it” doesn’t count).
Religion is not a scientific construct, belief in the Judeo-christian god started with superstitious, dumb goat herders who believed there was a sky god, mountain god (El Shaddai), lightning god, god of the swamp over there etc. Then Abraham made a deal with just the mountain god, starting the jewish faith. They did not apply scientific thinking to it, they didn’t have evidence, they just didn’t know why it rained, why mountains were there, how lightning happens etc. So they superstitiously crewated imaginary god creatures to answer questions they didn’t know.
There are still many answers we don’t know but I don’t think it is a good Idea to let superstitious BS fill the gaps, all that does it hinder the advancement of learning, and create false representations of the world which lead to incorrect actions not based on any observable reality.
March 24th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Devon, you can write me at myob10 … hotmail.com if you want some clarification of something.
I actually thought of the hole you point out in my response while I was driving to lunch. 2 things about the prime mover of the article’s topic: At least one theist, namely McGrath in his “Dawkin’s Delusion” book states that it is not necessary for such a thing to be complex.
My own view is further that the ignostic’s angle would be that the power of the prime mover to create time or inertia or any of these other things our current science (and Edward Current) cannot yet explain is not that you need associate the word “god” with this property. It is nice that you choose kunfuzzel for the “nothing” god. I prefer “0″ (zero). Its round, shaped like a ring and the circumference is 2 pi r. There 0 is your god.
..and he has one attribute, the ability to animate the 0 symbol.
March 24th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Devon, you brought up religion and the bible. I am a scientist, I can skip these two items in a refutation of atheism, and certainly in any prime-mover discussion, I would think. I have noticed that a lot of self-identifying atheists are anarchists and proponents of non-christian moral codes. I don’t see a need for them to identify as atheist if they are non-christian, but I’m beginning to suspect it is part of “their” culture (?)
March 24th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Clarification from wikipedia on ignosticism:
“The consistent ignostic, therefore, awaits a coherent definition of the word God (or of any other metaphysical utterance purported to be discussable) before being able to engage in arguments for or against God’s existence.”
March 24th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Anyway, Ottawa was one of the first cities the CSE illegally used its powers on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Security_Establishment_Canada
Why shouldn’t Ottawa gleefully be part of a honey-pot witch-hunt? …Oh because I filed a complaint in Ontario citing the law and they ignored it. Almost forgot.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:08 am
.
Dear Jeff K
You seem to be really enjoying yourself here.
It’s fun, isn’t it?
Wow, it’s great that a real scientist is here, an authority, an intellectual !!
You are probably so busy with your scientific work and writing level-headed coherent comments for this page that you glossed over my question from before.
“Would you please quote a book that brings forth evidence that any gods exist?”
.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:21 am
“Would you please quote a book that brings forth evidence that any gods exist?”.
That was the reference to “The Quotable Atheist”.
1. That nature itself is seen as a god.
2. That the prime mover and its single quality of generating time is seen as a god.
This is also a common thing you can find on wikipedia on the “Existence of God” page.
Anyway, you didn’t seem to try my bookstore experiment, but I did yesterday. I was reading about he Japanese AEGIS BMD system yesterday and wandered into my personal library and picked up a book on psychology and science and a completely unrelated topic. As the gods would have it, I opened the page to one that said something about “the aegis of fate” (with regards to Churchill’s Boer war and Hitler’s First World war chance survivals). Nothing really exciting that a lottery ticket couldn’t fix, I know, but I moved on.
Later in the book, Justin & Chris’s view that atheism permits a view without religion to lead to truth struck me “out of the blue” as I was reading how the discovery and spread of the use of the mechanistic sciences in the 16th century encouraged members of society to view matter, objects and themselves as independent bodies with little interaction.
It further went on to describe how sympathy (and in my view empathy, and to some extent courtesy) were upended by these more commonly held views of independence.
This is why Justin & Chris, ignoring religion and by extension their loss of empathizing for those who use the tools it created many centuries ago to understand and care for their fellow human beings is apparently lost on them.
Not exactly a religious experience, but who else here states an experiment, performs it seemingly at random, and defeats his detractors with it the very next day?
March 25th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Jeffk – the idea of God/nature can be read in Spinoza’s Ethics.
The atheists will “probably” never ever find God because he/she/it exists in every single particle and they continue to look for “Him” in the heavens.
There is nothing but “God”.
Yes even Justin and Chris are completely made of “God” but cannot find him/she/it.
So their banner is perfectly reasonable.
The atheist will “probably” never ever “know” God.
So as Jesus says in Matt 6:34 “stop worrying” and enjoy your life.
March 26th, 2009 at 2:01 am
If everything is God does that mean every baby is Jesus?
March 26th, 2009 at 2:54 am
Dear Jeff K
Being an authority and a scientist, you know that evidence involves facts, documentation, and testimony by eye witnesses. In addition, evidence is the result of experimental data from scientific observation that supports a theory based on a reputable journal or paper that has undergone a process of peer review and has been accepted by the scientific community.
.
“Nature itself is seen as god” is a claim that has no evidence to back it up. Also, the concept of the prime mover may be an interesting theory, but there is no evidence to back it up. Neither of the above claims has been accepted by the scientific community – of which you are a member. Every scientist and authority – as you are – knows that the mere mention of a statement in a book doesn’t make it true.
.
We all expect, everyone on earth – no matter what religion – that events and situations in our lives be rational. Irrationality and unreason are not acceptable to anyone, anywhere. Therefore, the only way to convince someone of the truth of your claim is by means of logic, reason, and evidence. However, the claims of religionists are not backed by any logic, reason, or evidence.
Evidence is a set of undeniable facts that convince everyone on earth that the claim they back up is true. Being an authority and a scientist yourself, Mr. K, you know this process must be rigorous and compelling. No religionist has yet come up with any compelling evidence to back up his claim that any type of god or gods exist.
March 26th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Harvard, prime mover and “nature” are defintions pertaining to someone’s firm belief and definition of their god (Spinoza, Aquinas, whomever). They have prosented sufficient evidence that these definitions match. This is an exercise above science in the philosophical area.
This is mostly because “time” has not been explained in our science, aside from its intricate relationship to the velocity of light and the permittivity and permeability of free-space (more simply, that which is “length”).
So again, the prime mover is a simple definition. As a scientist I like to think about it as the “time” aspect, but Aquinas wrote whatever he did. My favorite book on the topic is “An Introduction to Time”, a perfectly conventional accessible book.
Anyway, I have the largest pile of evidence this side of Mecca for the existence of strange powers in the universe. Alas, I own it. I’m such a materialist.
Anyway Harvard, your hung up on “Epistemology”. Access to evidence for you probably won’t penetrate your atheism until you pick up a intro on philosophy.
Try the bookstore experiment. It’s really just old-fashion detective work, but atheism works against it, you’ll see.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Harvard, one other thing, compelling evidence I have. I think the question for you is, what does my evidence do for you. This is a philosophical question.
Hypothetically, suppose I showed you a youtube video I made. It’s convincing to me, maybe I just wanted to prove I knew how to upload to youtube. You may have wanted the video to prove that a higher power did it.
Then you’re into the language. “Did it”, as in “Did what, exactly?”. Am I a movie producer? Do I use special effects? As an atheist, you will certainly think so, it is part of your philosophy.
So this leaves you with the experimental part of science. Why do you not carry out my suggested experiment? I have carried out my experiments day after day, I just did another one 10 minutes ago.
Why don’t you take a chance on one of my fascinating experiments to break the atheism spell? Afraid of something? Afraid of what you’ll find?
Afraid Daniel C. Dennet is a complete waste of selfish, atheist introversion and misplaced bravado? Go ahead, pick up one of his books, prove to me he is anything but just another anti-Christian, like many of the rest. Suggest an experiment. I will peer-review it for you.
March 26th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Harvard, I just thought of another experiment. Its a bit like self-hypnosis.
Suppose you learn that most Japanese self-identify as not-believing in God. Suppose you fall in love with Japanese society, and you are I dunno, maybe 20.
Now suppose you watch “Cape 7″, the #1 movie of all time hailing from Taiwan.
Now let’s paraphrase one of the main characters (a beautiful woman supposedly Japanese working near Taipei). She said “When you belittle the Japanese, remember that I am from Japan.” Anyway, let’s suppose you will do anything to be part of the Japanese self-identification of “not believing in God” a rather roundabout term I’m using to avoid “atheist” can I call it “kami ga inai”?
So anyway, the influence of the mesmerism of Japan on Taiwan is depicted in the movie.
…and it ends beautifully with the mesmerism intact and this town in Taiwan wonderfully portrayed.
The hypnotism of the movie is compelling. Its masterful. Mesmerizing. Astounding, and you don’t have to believe in God, *but* whoops!!
You’ve been mesmerized! You will claim atheism, buddhism, you will do anything to promote this movie.
Well, anyway, I would. Except that such mesmerism is a god-like power.
March 27th, 2009 at 7:12 am
Harvard, a 3rd experiment or proof if you will. I need only establish that an anonymous poster exists who is an atheist in name only for an ulterior motive, or through mesmerism, then I can treat the set of anonymous posters unwilling to go to book stores, watch popular movies or examine epistemology as a group containing (some) atheists in name only.
Maybe that was more of a mathematical proof. Then through process of reasoning (credibility), I establish that people unwilling to pick up introductions to philosophy, watch popular movies and go to book stores lack the credibility to be president of the center for inquiry and should resign immediately, if they should find themselves in such positions.
Its very scientific, mathematics is one of those sciences you can actually prove things in text on a website with.
March 29th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Dear Jeff K
All your words are just that: words.
There is no evidence in anything you have put forth.
You call me an atheist – but you dont know me. I am simply asking questions, which have not been answered.
Many of your comments about “me” make me smile – because you dont know me, my profession, my background, my education, etc.
However, you call yourself a scientist and an authority, yet we have found no authority or science yet from your meanderings.
Instead of attacking the questioner, attack the question. Submit some physical evidence.
If you can unearth evidence for the existence of any gods, then you will be the first in the history of the world to do so. Good luck, my friend.
Words alone are not evidence. Physical demonstrations can be evidence. Evidence is a set of undeniable facts that convince everyone on earth that the claim they back up is true. You – being an authority and a scientist – must know this.
I like the term “misplaced bravado.” Don’t you, Mr K?
March 29th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Harvard: Oooh aaahh.
Say, someone accused me of being a pantheist somewhere along the line. Here’s some censored ammunition to spot creationist books you might be interested in:
http://file.sunshinepress.org:54445/how-to-spot-a-hidden-religious-agenda-2009.html
Just words, but you might find them useful. I’m not here to embarrass you Harvard. Take away something you can use from my “meanderings”.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:18 am
That said, I really should defend myself, Harvard, I suppose;
My “words”, as you call them, are part of a conversation designed to engage you in a contract to perform an experiment, and you have not lived up to your side of the contract (or to meaningfully engage in it by taking up the contract [experiment]).
You can videotape the experiment, add a musical score and fireworks if you want, and then upload it to youtube, where we can all view it and then resort back to this ancient “word” system to see if my experiment under your guidance and execution is the first of its kind in the world, or if it is not.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:50 am
When someone tries to dominate the space by posting a number of silly messages per day, he becomes almost invisible, because readers recognize the name, and skip over it, knowing the message will contain more nonsense. Thus, by trolling and botheration, he destroys any credibility he may have started with. The best way to be ignored is to jump up and down screaming, “Look at me! Look at me!”