Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
The Littlest Homo

Prof Richard Dawkins drives support for London's first . . .

. . .atheist bus advert

Source

Quote:
Buses emblazoned with adverts declaring "there's probably no God" will soon be travelling through the streets of London after the prominent atheist Professor Richard Dawkins agreed to help pay for them.

Campaigners believe the messages will provide a "reassuring" antidote to religious adverts that "threaten eternal damnation" to passengers.

The routes on which the atheist buses could be placed have not yet been fixed, but they would travel through the central London borough of Westminster and so could pass close to Westminster Abbey, a Christian place of worship for more than 1,000 years.

Prof Dawkins, Oxford University's Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, said: "Religion is accustomed to getting a free ride – automatic tax breaks, unearned 'respect' and the right not to be 'offended', the right to brainwash children. Even on the buses, nobody thinks twice when they see a religious slogan plastered across the side.

"This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think – and thinking is anathema to religion."

The campaign, which could be plastered across as many as 60 buses for a month if just £11,000 is raised, was triggered by a blog posting. It floundered over the summer because of a shortage of donations but has been boosted by the financial support of Prof Dawkins, the author of The God Delusion and a vocal critic of the power of religion over public life.

The renowned evolutionary biologist has agreed to match all donations up to a maximum of £5,500 – the amount needed for adverts on one set of buses. This means the campaigners will only need to gain £2,750 from supporters for the project to succeed.

Those behind the project are now confident they will raise enough money to pay for two sets of 30 bendy buses to travel through the capital in January bearing the atheist slogan: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

When the adverts were first proposed in June, 877 people pledged that they would give £5 to the cause.

The British Humanist Association has also agreed to handle the donations and pay the money to CBS Outdoor, the advertising company that puts adverts on buses.

Hanne Stinson, the organisation's chief executive, said: "We see so many posters advertising salvation through Jesus or threatening us with eternal damnation, that I feel sure that a bus advert like this will be welcomed as a breath of fresh air. If it raises a smile as well as making people think, so much the better."

Ariane Sherine, a comedy writer, began the campaign after writing a blog article about Christian adverts on buses. She suggested that atheists should pay for a "reassuring counter-advert" after discovering that the religious adverts promoted a website which warns non-Christians that they will burn in Hell for eternity.

She said: "I'm very pleased so many people are behind the atheist bus."

Supporters of the campaign can donate to it at the website http://www.justgiving.com/atheistbus
Andy

I should imagine that a copycat campaign will soon be launched......


.....being as you wait ages for one atheist bus to come and then .............

:roll:


I don't think that these people are aware of the amount of faith and prayer that is required to sustain London's transport system.  :oops:
Shaker

Quote:
The campaign, which could be plastered across as many as 60 buses for a month if just £11,000 is raised

As of 1.30pm today, £14,402.50 has been raised.
david_geoffrey

Quote:
thinking is anathema to religion
:lol:  PD does make me laugh the way he shows how little he knows about his new chosen subject...

I would be interested to know what group put up "damnation" messages though - does anyone know??
The Littlest Homo

david_geoffrey wrote:
Quote:
thinking is anathema to religion
:lol:  PD does make me laugh the way he shows how little he knows about his new chosen subject...

Really? From all the discussions I have seen (and heard), he knows far more than any believers he has had to encounter.

Quote:
I would be interested to know what group put up "damnation" messages though - does anyone know??


"When the son of man comes, will he find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8 )  found on a london bus.

Then if you visit the web address on the advert ( http://www.jesussaid.org/ ), hoping for a straight answer to their rather pressing question, you receive the following warning for anyone who doesn't "accept the word of Jesus on the cross": "You will be condemned to everlasting separation from God and then you spend all eternity in torment in hell. Jesus spoke about this as a lake of fire which was prepared for the devil and all his angels (demonic spirits)" (Matthew 25:41)

By the way, £ 18,537.81 has now been recieved, as of 1430
The Littlest Homo

Guess which bankrupt (financially and morally) moron has decided to take his head out of his own bottom to comment on the Athiest Bus Campaign?

None other than the Christian Voice weirdo, Stephen Green, who said the following on his appalling website :

Quote:
Richard Dawkins is so concerned that the atheist message is dying on its feet that he is to fund a humanist evangelistic campaign, Christian Voice has learned.

But in a twist which will have Christians in gales of laughter, the advertising campaign, which will be based on the catchy slogan 'There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and get on with your life,' is to be stuck on bendy-buses.

Apparently, an atheist blogger named Jon Worth came up with the idea, but his fellow humanists, not known for their generosity, wouldn't stump up the cash. Now Richard Dawkins, whose anti-Christian zeal knows little bounds, is to finance the doomed venture.

Should the ads be placed on London 's Bendy-Buses, it would be a highly-appropriate move since these have proved to be a danger to the pubic and are due for the chop under new Mayor Boris Johnson.

Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said today:

'How funny that Richard Dawkins is so scared of the threat which evangelical Christianity poses to atheism and his beloved Darwinism that he has to fund a campaign to attack God. He really is the nearest thing atheists have to an evangelist while his belief in non-belief is held with a fervour which many religious people would do well to emulate, so long as they don't make themselves look as inept as he so often does, poor man.

'I should be surprised if a quasi-religious advertising campaign like this did not attract graffiti. People don't like being preached at. Sometimes it does them good, but they still don't like it. The advertising space on a bendy-bus is just the right height as well. But the graffiti artists, and indeed the atheist advertisers will have to be quick or the bendy-buses will be off the road in Boris's purge, taking the anti-God message with them. Bendy-buses, like atheism, are a danger to the public at large.

'It occurs to me that the addition of just a few words from Psalm 14 would make the entire message Biblical: "The fool hath said in his heart ..." '


He is hardly one to be calling people fools with his record!
david_geoffrey

The Littlest Homo wrote:
david_geoffrey wrote:
Quote:
thinking is anathema to religion
:lol:  PD does make me laugh the way he shows how little he knows about his new chosen subject...

Really? From all the discussions I have seen (and heard), he knows far more than any believers he has had to encounter.
Hardly surprising that you agree with what he says, whether or not he is right is another matter...as shown by his incorrect statement about thinking...

Quote:
Quote:
I would be interested to know what group put up "damnation" messages though - does anyone know??


"When the son of man comes, will he find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8 )  found on a london bus.

Then if you visit the web address on the advert ( http://www.jesussaid.org/ ), hoping for a straight answer to their rather pressing question, you receive the following warning for anyone who doesn't "accept the word of Jesus on the cross": "You will be condemned to everlasting separation from God and then you spend all eternity in torment in hell. Jesus spoke about this as a lake of fire which was prepared for the devil and all his angels (demonic spirits)" (Matthew 25:41)

By the way, £ 18,537.81 has now been recieved, as of 1430


So there is nothing on the bus itself that talks about damnation??
The Littlest Homo

david_geoffrey wrote:
Hardly surprising that you agree with what he says, whether or not he is right is another matter...as shown by his incorrect statement about thinking...


Just because you don't agree with him, doesn't make him incorrect. I think he hit the nail in the head with that statement and it is often shown on forums such as this!

Quote:
So there is nothing on the bus itself that talks about damnation??

There are other examples, which I have yet to find, especially about homosexuals going to hell, but I couldn't look at the examples of hateful scripture for too long without going out and burning more bibles! When I find some, I will post them.

Of course, you will say that it shouldn't be taking literally or whatever. I know how you believers like to pick and choose what you believe and how you want people to interpret it, depending on what your current prejudice is!

P.S. £25,442.00 has now been donated as of 1620. Looks like it will be advertised in more cities than London at this rate! Hoorah
david_geoffrey

The Littlest Homo wrote:
david_geoffrey wrote:
Hardly surprising that you agree with what he says, whether or not he is right is another matter...as shown by his incorrect statement about thinking...


Just because you don't agree with him, doesn't make him incorrect. I think he hit the nail in the head with that statement and it is often shown on forums such as this!
But he is incorrect as I have plenty of evidence that many many Christians spend an awful lot of time thinking about their faith.  Simple really. He is a great polemicist though, I'll give him that, I wish we had more people on our side with his faith.

Quote:
Quote:
So there is nothing on the bus itself that talks about damnation??

There are other examples, which I have yet to find, especially about homosexuals going to hell, but I couldn't look at the examples of hateful scripture for too long without going out and burning more bibles! When I find some, I will post them.

Of course, you will say that it shouldn't be taking literally or whatever. I know how you believers like to pick and choose what you believe and how you want people to interpret it, depending on what your current prejudice is!

P.S. £25,442.00 has now been donated as of 1620. Looks like it will be advertised in more cities than London at this rate! Hoorah
Well if there were then that was wrong.
The Littlest Homo

david_geoffrey wrote:
But he is incorrect as I have plenty of evidence that many many Christians spend an awful lot of time thinking about their faith.  Simple really. He is a great polemicist though, I'll give him that, I wish we had more people on our side with his faith.
You have evidence of peoples thoughts now? Wow, do they join the evidence of your invisible sky fairy friend? :roll:

Quote:
Well if there were then that was wrong.
Quite, well there is evidence of those, hence why people are countering them with adverts like these, (also on billboards in the US which are doing the same thing!)
Shaft2101

Quote:
Really? From all the discussions I have seen (and heard), he knows far more than any believers he has had to encounter


I'd be wary and stick to saying "many" rather than "any" - it can be clearly demonstrated that he has spoken with many well-read and well-educated theists e.g. his friend Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford, as the first example off the top of my head.

I found this hilarious:

Quote:
but his fellow humanists, not known for their generosity


On what basis he manages to say this, goodness only knows, but it's amusing to see that they've hit almost quadruple their target in less than half a day. "Not known for their generosity" my ass.
Andy

I think there is nothing wrong with atheists having advertising hoardings promoting their cause.

It does raise the curious subject of atheist evangelism and if there is a requirement for those of no faith to proselytise. Perhaps it is simply as a counter measure towards those independent Christian ones. Which is curious given that it is a reactive move governed by Christian attitudes.

Mind you it is always embarrassing for Christians to hear Stephen Green claim he is speaking on their behalf, he certainly doesn't represent me.

I do think that if athists wanted to challenge faith systems they could come up with more cogent posters than those proposed though.
david_geoffrey

The Littlest Homo wrote:
david_geoffrey wrote:
But he is incorrect as I have plenty of evidence that many many Christians spend an awful lot of time thinking about their faith.  Simple really. He is a great polemicist though, I'll give him that, I wish we had more people on our side with his faith.
You have evidence of peoples thoughts now? Wow, do they join the evidence of your invisible sky fairy friend? :roll:
Well as one tiny example I have just finished reading Paul Tillich's Shaking The Foundations, I reckon quite a bit of thinking went into this. Or would you deny that.
Shaft2101

By the sounds of it, it's really a bit of an amusing counter-measure which wasn't intended particularly seriously. It arose as an off-hand idea on a blog, someone thought it might be a good craic (and for a few quid, it'd go some way to sticking two fingers up at the Christian proselytising on bus adverts) and organised a simple collection method to get it done. Dawkins, as ever, looks for a way to raise consciousness about non-religious thinking, and decided to chip in and match any private donations.

I don't think anyone genuinely thinks this is going to change the world, or even have an impact of any importance. It's just a bit of an amusing gimmick which a few single-minded people have helped come to be. That said, I don't think the guys driving it are taking it particularly seriously either. Best just to think of it as an amusing reactionary move rather than something with deep philosophical or political ramifications :)

Plus, anything which stirs up Steve Green and gets him foaming at the mouth is worth every penny. He's a complete fruitloop.
The Littlest Homo

david_geoffrey wrote:
Well as one tiny example I have just finished reading Paul Tillich's Shaking The Foundations, I reckon quite a bit of thinking went into this. Or would you deny that.


Thinking goes into many books, that doesn't disprove RDs point!
david_geoffrey

The Littlest Homo wrote:
david_geoffrey wrote:
Well as one tiny example I have just finished reading Paul Tillich's Shaking The Foundations, I reckon quite a bit of thinking went into this. Or would you deny that.


Thinking goes into many books, that doesn't disprove RDs point!
Huh? He said that thinking was an anathema to Christians; I have given evidence of a thinking Christian. I could give more, from personal experience within my church there is a great deal of thinking in the preparation of sermons, in the discussions at homegroups, in our reading etc etc. Where does that leave his original statement?
The Littlest Homo

david_geoffrey wrote:
Where does that leave his original statement?
In the same place! You haven't proved anything with your statements!
david_geoffrey

The Littlest Homo wrote:
david_geoffrey wrote:
Where does that leave his original statement?
In the same place! You haven't proved anything with your statements!
So lets get this right, you are saying that Paul Tillich, Christian theologian of some note, did not put any thought into his book?
Andy

I think the problem with RD, and the sweeping statements he makes like the one quoted, is that he defines all religion by his own uninvolved understanding, dismisses any view which falls outside that understanding however more informed, and then uses this self defined basis as a yardstick against which to apply his own condemnations.

Similar to on his TV shows where he is far more in his comfort zone with extremists, yet when confronted by something reasonable he appears dismissive and uninterested. I recall an episode with an Orthodox Jewish school, whereby he ranted to a bemused Jewish fella about how inappropriate it was that the children be educated in such a manner, despite outstanding academic achievements, a secure and happy environment and the exposure to and support of the community from which the pupils originate.

So statements like 'religion being anathema to thinking' appear crass when held against the philosophical contributions from Augustine to Aquinas, or the work of the Salvation Army with the homeless, or even the academic standing of some of his fellow dons.
The Littlest Homo

david_geoffrey wrote:
So lets get this right, you are saying that Paul Tillich, Christian theologian of some note, did not put any thought into his book?
I haven't said that. Perhaps you want to read it again.

I am sure JK Rowling thought lots about writing Harry Potter, does it make the characters included in the book any more real? No it doesn't!
david_geoffrey

The Littlest Homo wrote:
david_geoffrey wrote:
So lets get this right, you are saying that Paul Tillich, Christian theologian of some note, did not put any thought into his book?
I haven't said that. Perhaps you want to read it again.

I am sure JK Rowling thought lots about writing Harry Potter, does it make the characters included in the book any more real? No it doesn't!
Oh, I see where you are coming from. Who said anything about yours or PD's opinion on the veracity of what the person is thinking about?
david_geoffrey

Andy wrote:
I think the problem with RD, and the sweeping statements he makes like the one quoted, is that he defines all religion by his own uninvolved understanding, dismisses any view which falls outside that understanding however more informed, and then uses this self defined basis as a yardstick against which to apply his own condemnations.

Similar to on his TV shows where he is far more in his comfort zone with extremists, yet when confronted by something reasonable he appears dismissive and uninterested. I recall an episode with an Orthodox Jewish school, whereby he ranted to a bemused Jewish fella about how inappropriate it was that the children be educated in such a manner, despite outstanding academic achievements, a secure and happy environment and the exposure to and support of the community from which the pupils originate.

So statements like 'religion being anathema to thinking' appear crass when held against the philosophical contributions from Augustine to Aquinas, or the work of the Salvation Army with the homeless, or even the academic standing of some of his fellow dons.
I wish I had your equanimity sometimes Andy...its like a red rag to a bull sometimes when I see statements like this; actually when he is on his own subject he is a great teacher and communicator, I really liked his early books.
The Littlest Homo

david_geoffrey wrote:
Oh, I see where you are coming from.
At last!

Quote:
Who said anything about yours or PD's opinion on the veracity of what the person is thinking about?
What are you going on about now?
Andy

Quote:
"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."


Would we say that this is more of an agnostic sentiment than a strictly atheist one?

That 'probably' leaves some wiggle room for the unsure IMV.
The Littlest Homo

Andy wrote:

Would we say that this is more of an agnostic sentiment than a strictly atheist one?

That 'probably' leaves some wiggle room for the unsure IMV.


It's recognising the fact that no-one can factually state that god doesn't exist, anymore than it can be factually stated that it does, or that Russel's flying teapot does/doesn't.

Or would you rather it showed the arrogance of religion that states "jesus" and "god" DID exist (despite no evidence!)?
Shaker

Quote:
Similar to on his TV shows where he is far more in his comfort zone with extremists, yet when confronted by something reasonable he appears dismissive and uninterested. I recall an episode with an Orthodox Jewish school, whereby he ranted to a bemused Jewish fella about how inappropriate it was that the children be educated in such a manner


He "ranted," did he? I see. I still have that on video somwhere - I'll watch it again to see if it matches up to any reasonable definition of "ranting."

Quote:
despite outstanding academic achievements, a secure and happy environment and the exposure to and support of the community from which the pupils originate.

All of which count for diddly when children are being taught that the world was created by magic sky man around the same time as the invention of the working of bronze and the origin of writing. Which, in fact, they were.

Quote:
So statements like 'religion being anathema to thinking' appear crass when held against the philosophical contributions from Augustine to Aquinas


Courtier's Reply
Andy

Well most of the Christian posters I have seen are biblical quotes, so clearly the assumption that God and Jesus do exist is implicit.

I was just curious that there is no absolute denial of God, just a statement of doubt. And we all have doubts believers and non-believers alike.

Plus, why the assumption that religion is driven by worry? Mine isn't.
LornaDoone40

Andy wrote:
Quote:
"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."


Would we say that this is more of an agnostic sentiment than a strictly atheist one?

That 'probably' leaves some wiggle room for the unsure IMV.



Link





Andy

Quote:
He "ranted," did he? I see. I still have that on video somwhere - I'll watch it again to see if it matches up to any reasonable definition of "ranting."


Fair enough, I don't remember either, perhaps my choice of word was mistaken. Perhaps objected would have been kinder.

Quote:
All of which count for diddly when children are being taught that the world was created by magic sky man around the same time as the invention of the working of bronze and the origin of writing. Which, in fact, they were.


This is not what Judaism teaches, which is what we are talking about in this context. In fact it is a marginal view within modern Christianity....OIC, I get it, you are doing what RD does. Parody - excellent fun.  Smilie_PDT

Quote:
Courtier's Reply


Well this is just as cute as you like.

There can be no real response which cannot be blithely dismissed by this piece of riddlery. However it does rather condemn history. Condemn the development of academe as a discipline and condemn the anthropological developments which lead us as a species to where we are now.
Andy

Very funny Lorna  
Shaker

Quote:
This is not what Judaism teaches, which is what we are talking about in this context.

Really?

Quote:
Dawkins discusses what he considers as the divisive influence of sectarian education, with children segregated and labelled by their religion. He describes the Hasidic Jewish community of North London as cloistered away from external influences such as television, with children attending exclusive religious schools. He questions Rabbi Herschel Gluck to find if their culture allows children to access scientific ideas.

Gluck believes that it is important for a minority group to have a space in which to learn and express their culture and beliefs. Dawkins states that he would prefer traditions taught without imposing demonstrable falsehoods. Gluck emphasises that although the students believe that God created the world in six literal days and have studied evolution in school, the majority will not believe in it when they leave the school. Gluck contrasts the tradition of Judaism with scientists who "have their tradition". Dawkins's facial expression at this point seems to suggest he is taken aback[citation needed] at the assertion that science is based solely on “tradition”. Gluck then goes on to contend that it's called the "theory of evolution" rather than the "law of evolution".[5] When Dawkins points out that the term is used in a technical sense and describes evolution as a fact, Gluck suggests he's a “fundamentalist believer”. However, when Dawkins asks Gluck how many children from his school have grown up believing in evolution, Gluck is lost for words, and eventually admits that most of them probably don't.
Farmer Geddon

The Littlest Homo wrote:
Guess which bankrupt (financially and morally) moron has decided to take his head out of his own bottom to comment on the Athiest Bus Campaign?

None other than weirdo, Stephen Green, who said the following on his appalling website :

Quote:
Richard Dawkins is so concerned that the atheist message is dying on its feet that he is to fund a humanist evangelistic campaign, Christian Voice has learned.

But in a twist which will have Christians in gales of laughter, the advertising campaign, which will be based on the catchy slogan 'There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and get on with your life,' is to be stuck on bendy-buses.

Apparently, an atheist blogger named Jon Worth came up with the idea, but his fellow humanists, not known for their generosity, wouldn't stump up the cash. Now Richard Dawkins, whose anti-Christian zeal knows little bounds, is to finance the doomed venture.

Should the ads be placed on London 's Bendy-Buses, it would be a highly-appropriate move since these have proved to be a danger to the pubic and are due for the chop under new Mayor Boris Johnson.

Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said today:

'How funny that Richard Dawkins is so scared of the threat which evangelical Christianity poses to atheism and his beloved Darwinism that he has to fund a campaign to attack God. He really is the nearest thing atheists have to an evangelist while his belief in non-belief is held with a fervour which many religious people would do well to emulate, so long as they don't make themselves look as inept as he so often does, poor man.

'I should be surprised if a quasi-religious advertising campaign like this did not attract graffiti. People don't like being preached at. Sometimes it does them good, but they still don't like it. The advertising space on a bendy-bus is just the right height as well. But the graffiti artists, and indeed the atheist advertisers will have to be quick or the bendy-buses will be off the road in Boris's purge, taking the anti-God message with them. Bendy-buses, like atheism, are a danger to the public at large.

'It occurs to me that the addition of just a few words from Psalm 14 would make the entire message Biblical: "The fool hath said in his heart ..." '


He is hardly one to be calling people fools with his record!


Ohh... then SG is a moron - RD just supports the idea of a bus going around with the slogan saying there is probably no god, so stop pissing about and enjoy life (paraphrase).

He didn't start it.

I support the idea, does that mean I started it?

If you support "The Christian Voice" then I hope you are not offended if I point out to you that you are a bigoted wank-stain on the fabric of humanity...
Andy

This illustrates my point exactly.

Hassidic Judaism is a modern departure from mainstream Judaism, which does not believe in creationism in the same way that mainstream Christianity disagrees with more modern evangelical departures.

Yet this is then presented as representative of the very thing from which it diverged. It is taking a modern and extreme offshoot and then applying that as the norm, and using it to historically condemn.

Although it was me that claimed that the Jewish fella was reasonable, which my memory recalls him to be, so maybe it is me portraying him as being representative of Judaism, which as a Hassidic he kind of isn't.
The Littlest Homo

Lucifers Duck wrote:


Ohh... then SG is a moron - RD just supports the idea of a bus going around with the slogan saying there is probably no god, so stop pissing about and enjoy life (paraphrase).

He didn't start it.

I support the idea, does that mean I started it?

If you support "The Christian Voice" then I hope you are not offended if I point out to you that you are a bigoted wank-stain on the fabric of humanity...


Nicely put, as always, Duck!
The Littlest Homo

It is now just shy of £45,000 at 2320. What a day!
david_geoffrey

The Littlest Homo wrote:
david_geoffrey wrote:
Oh, I see where you are coming from.
At last!
Sorry I should have said "I can see the wrong end of the stick that you are coming from"

Quote:
Quote:
Who said anything about yours or PD's opinion on the veracity of what the person is thinking about?
What are you going on about now?
Oh dear how can I put this so you can grasp it. You are supporting the view that thinking is an anathema to Christians. I point out, using the example of Paul Tillich, that there are plenty of thinking Christians. You seem to be implying that because you believe that their beliefs are based on a false premise, that they are not thinking.

Am I right?
The Littlest Homo

Quote:
Oh dear how can I put this so you can grasp it. You are supporting the view that thinking is an anathema to Christians. I point out, using the example of Paul Tillich, that there are plenty of thinking Christians. You seem to be implying that because you believe that their beliefs are based on a false premise, that they are not thinking.

Am I right?


No. Again you have changed what I am saying to you. I have agreed with the view that thinking is an anathema (as in set apart) from religion. That is any of the religions. Christianity hasn't been singled out by myself or Richard Dawkins.

You give an example of Paul Tillich who has written a book and used as an example of a thinking Chrisitan. Good for you. But that doesn't disprove RDs point that thinking is often set apart from religion.

So thats it. We can leave it at that, as you have no more to bring to the discussion.
david_geoffrey

The Littlest Homo wrote:
Quote:
Oh dear how can I put this so you can grasp it. You are supporting the view that thinking is an anathema to Christians. I point out, using the example of Paul Tillich, that there are plenty of thinking Christians. You seem to be implying that because you believe that their beliefs are based on a false premise, that they are not thinking.

Am I right?


No. Again you have changed what I am saying to you. I have agreed with the view that thinking is an anathema (as in set apart) from religion. That is any of the religions. Christianity hasn't been singled out by myself or Richard Dawkins.
No but as this board is mainly a discussion about Christianity it is hardly surprising that I am focussing on Christianity.

Quote:
You give an example of Paul Tillich who has written a book and used as an example of a thinking Chrisitan. Good for you. But that doesn't disprove RDs point that thinking is often set apart from religion.
Er, well yes I think it does! There is deep and profound thinking that is not "set apart" from Christianity - just in that one book. I'm sure the good scientist that PD most definitely is would take that as evidence and would need to refine his theory.

Although I see that you are giving yourself some wriggle room here by putting in the word "often". Are you now saying that there are some thinking Christians and some non-thinking Christians?

Quote:
So thats it. We can leave it at that, as you have no more to bring to the discussion.
There is always room for a little bit more.
The Littlest Homo

:smt116

Anyhow, it now stands at £ 75,920.49
david_geoffrey

The Littlest Homo wrote:
:smt116
i'm not sure what you meant by this smiley but shall I take it to mean that you have nothing to contribute except an insult?
The Littlest Homo

david_geoffrey wrote:
The Littlest Homo wrote:
:smt116
i'm not sure what you meant by this smiley but shall I take it to mean that you have nothing to contribute except an insult?


Do you find that smiley insulting? Bit of an over-reaction, do you not think?!
david_geoffrey

The Littlest Homo wrote:
david_geoffrey wrote:
The Littlest Homo wrote:
:smt116
i'm not sure what you meant by this smiley but shall I take it to mean that you have nothing to contribute except an insult?


Do you find that smiley insulting? Bit of an over-reaction, do you not think?!
No I meant that you meant it to be. Didn't you?
The Littlest Homo

david_geoffrey wrote:
No I meant that you meant it to be. Didn't you?
Not particularly. If I wanted to be insulting, I would do it with words, not smileys. (I leave that to others, without naming names!)
david_geoffrey

The Littlest Homo wrote:
david_geoffrey wrote:
No I meant that you meant it to be. Didn't you?
Not particularly. If I wanted to be insulting, I would do it with words, not smileys. (I leave that to others, without naming names!)
Ah OK.
So what did you mean by it? Or wasn't it in response to my last post at all?
The Littlest Homo

david_geoffrey wrote:
Ah OK.
So what did you mean by it? Or wasn't it in response to my last post at all?


It was just a response to the previous posts, not specifically the last one. Simple as that!
david_geoffrey

The Littlest Homo wrote:
david_geoffrey wrote:
Ah OK.
So what did you mean by it? Or wasn't it in response to my last post at all?


It was just a response to the previous posts, not specifically the last one. Simple as that!
Still not sure what you meant by it if it was not meant to be insulting, but never mind. Anything specific in response to the post above it though?
The Littlest Homo

david_geoffrey wrote:
Still not sure what you meant by it if it was not meant to be insulting, but never mind. Anything specific in response to the post above it though?


Not today, no.
The Littlest Homo

The scores so far :

Alpha Posters Fundraising Campaign
Fundraising target:   £100,000.00
Donations so far:   £ 321.00

Atheist Bus Advert Campaign
Fundraising target:   £5,500.00
Donations so far:   £100,364.27

That says it all really!
Shaker

I love it!
david_geoffrey

The Littlest Homo wrote:
The scores so far :

Alpha Posters Fundraising Campaign
Fundraising target:   £100,000.00
Donations so far:   £ 321.00

Atheist Bus Advert Campaign
Fundraising target:   £5,500.00
Donations so far:   £100,364.27

That says it all really!

Well not really, this seems to be a private individual who wants to pick a fight..the Alpha advertising campaign is well funded and has been putting up posters and running cinema campaigns for a while now and will do for the forseeable future.
Shaker

Quote:
the Alpha advertising campaign is well funded

Looks like it  :smt042
david_geoffrey

admin wrote:
Quote:
the Alpha advertising campaign is well funded

Looks like it  :smt042
Huh?
david_geoffrey

I go "huh?" because the Alpha course advertising campaign has been running annually for about 11 years now - TV, cinema, buses, billboards etc. So it cannot be badly funded...
Shaker

The poster campaign, according to the figures quoted by TLH, would suggest otherwise.
The Littlest Homo

admin wrote:
The poster campaign, according to the figures quoted by TLH, would suggest otherwise.


Just so you can compare,

Alpha Posters - http://www.justgiving.com/alphaposters/

Atheist Bus Adverts - http://www.justgiving.com/atheistbus
Shaker

Quote:
The Alpha poster campaign is a national initiative to raise the profile of the Alpha course – an opportunity to explore the meaning of life

"...as filtered through the narrow brand of Christianity that it espouses ..."
Pukon_the_Treen

I might check out the Alpha Course next year actually. I'll take one in an Anglican church rather than one hosted by the evangelicals in the hope of some decent discussion, but I've not heard particularity good things about it.
Shaker

Based on the experiences of those I know who've tried it, hard questions are definitely not encouraged.  
Pukon_the_Treen

Yes, the Americans have got the “Don't believe in God ... You are not alone” billboard and of course the “Imagine No Religion” billboard with the World Trade Centre picture in the background.

In some places over there it's going down like a French kiss on your grandmother of course, but it is still an interesting development.  I wonder how many of them are closet atheists?
Shaker

Quote:
Yes, the Americans have got the “Don't believe in God ... You are not alone” billboard and of course the “Imagine No Religion” billboard with the World Trade Centre picture in the background.

In some places over there it's going down like a French kiss on your grandmother of course, but it is still an interesting development.

And a growing one  :smt023
david_geoffrey

The Littlest Homo wrote:
admin wrote:
The poster campaign, according to the figures quoted by TLH, would suggest otherwise.


Just so you can compare,

Alpha Posters - http://www.justgiving.com/alphaposters/

Atheist Bus Adverts - http://www.justgiving.com/atheistbus
Err, you are not comparing like with like I am afraid, not very scientific of you.

Like I said they have been running very widespread campaigns for at least 10 years now.

DG
Pukon_the_Treen

Hmmm, maybe.  American Atheism is certainly dominant online (have you seen some of those Christian websites?  They are shambolic, and that's before you start reading the content), but then a much lower percentage of Americans are Internet users compared with Europe.  Book sales of Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris also seem to indicate a growing interest, but similarly a hell of a lot of Americans don't buy books, let alone read them, so that's not necessarily a particularly good indication of anything.

It's still a very polarised country, and the divisions seem to be getting deeper as voices on both sides get louder.  The current slightly hysterical religiosity that we are seeing in America is already being described as the Fourth Great Awakening, but I daresay it will pass just like all the other Awakenings did.

Interesting times as they say.
The Littlest Homo

david_geoffrey wrote:
Err, you are not comparing like with like I am afraid, not very scientific of you.
I didn't realise it had to be scientific. Just so you know both campaigns were roughly started at the same time, with the atheist campaign wiping the floor with the alpha course.

Quote:
Like I said they have been running very widespread campaigns for at least 10 years now.


Well they're obviously now struggling or they wouldn't feel the need to fundraise in this way (and not very successfully, I'd like to add!)
LornaDoone40

Small point - just a small one.

Is this a contest?
The Littlest Homo

LornaDoone39 wrote:
Small point - just a small one.

Is this a contest?


Well, no. It appears that the Alpha Course used the same website to start their fundraising campaign, at the same time as they knew the Atheist one would run. Maybe they wanted it to be a contest. Whether they were looking to undermine it, I don't know. But that certainly isn't what they have done.
The Littlest Homo

Just out of interest, there is also another campaign by the BHA (British Humanist Association) which is in favour of the phasing out of state funded 'faith' schools and campaigns nationally and locally for this cause.

This can be found here - http://www.justgiving.com/faithschools

Fundraising target:   £30,000.00
Donations so far:   £ 1,721.70

Thats still about £1,400 more than the Alpha course campaign, which I still think says it all and this one has only been running today!
Shaker

Another worthy cause, although I can't see how it'll be as successful as the buses one or how the money will be used. Lobbying the government, I suppose, in which case it'll be a complete waste.
david_geoffrey

The Littlest Homo wrote:
LornaDoone39 wrote:
Small point - just a small one.

Is this a contest?


Well, no. It appears that the Alpha Course used the same website to start their fundraising campaign, at the same time as they knew the Atheist one would run. Maybe they wanted it to be a contest. Whether they were looking to undermine it, I don't know. But that certainly isn't what they have done.
Durrr, this is not the official Alpha campaign - as I pointed out at the beginning this looks like a someone spoiling for a fight, but I am pretty certain that they are not part of the Alpha organisation. The reason that I have an idea about this is that the head of publicity for Alpha attends our church.

Tell you want, you can come back and gloat in 12 years time when your adverts have been running that long. Until then I think your triumphalism looks rather hollow...
david_geoffrey

OK, just been on the Charity Commission website and Alpha's income in 2006 was £4,141,842 - hardly stuggling
The Littlest Homo

david_geoffrey wrote:
Durrr, this is not the official Alpha campaign - as I pointed out at the beginning this looks like a someone spoiling for a fight, but I am pretty certain that they are not part of the Alpha organisation. The reason that I have an idea about this is that the head of publicity for Alpha attends our church.


Oh really. Sorry to piss on your parade, but that link comes directly from the UK Alpha Course website. If you don't wish to believe it, thats up to you (of course!). You may want to write to them, not sure they are literate enough to respond, but thats your choice!

Quote:
Tell you want, you can come back and gloat in 12 years time when your adverts have been running that long. Until then I think your triumphalism looks rather hollow...


I will come back then, don't worry. I think there will be less churches at this time and the Alpha Course will be near non-existent - hoorah!
Shaker

Quote:
OK, just been on the Charity Commission website and Alpha's income in 2006 was £4,141,842 - hardly stuggling


Their spending, however, was £4,285,821. So they're in debt. Tut.

I had a poke around on that site and saw that the Brooke, the rescue sanctuary/hospital for sick/elderly donkeys pulls in nearly three times as much. Nice. I like donkeys  
The Littlest Homo

david_geoffrey wrote:
The reason that I have an idea about this is that the head of publicity for Alpha attends our church.


You assume that he/she is telling you the whole story, do you? How very naive!
The Littlest Homo

admin wrote:
Their spending, however, was £4,285,821. So they're in debt. Tut.


"Jesus" wouldn't be impressed with debt, would he?

Quote:
I had a poke around on that site and saw that the Brooke, the rescue sanctuary/hospital for sick/elderly donkeys pulls in nearly three times as much. Nice  


That shows how much respect society has for religion!
david_geoffrey

admin wrote:
Quote:
OK, just been on the Charity Commission website and Alpha's income in 2006 was £4,141,842 - hardly stuggling


Their spending, however, was £4,285,821. So they're in debt. Tut.

I had a poke around on that site and saw that the Brooke, the rescue sanctuary/hospital for sick/elderly donkeys pulls in nearly three times as much. Nice. I like donkeys  
I'm not sure that you can say they are in debt without knowing their reserves - and like any organisation their expenditure and income has fluctuated. The previous year they were over £200k in the black. But which ever way you look at it, it makes the BHA campaign look rather amateur and small fry.

And what on earth has donkeys got anything to do with it? But Christian Aid's income was £93million last return...
david_geoffrey

The Littlest Homo wrote:
admin wrote:
Their spending, however, was £4,285,821. So they're in debt. Tut.


"Jesus" wouldn't be impressed with debt, would he?

What makes you think that TLH?
The Littlest Homo

david_geoffrey wrote:

What makes you think that TLH?[/quote]

Do you suggest otherwise? Does "jesus" not care about owing money to others? Doubt it!  :roll:
Shaker

Quote:
I'm not sure that you can say they are in debt without knowing their reserves - and like any organisation their expenditure and income has fluctuated. The previous year they were over £200k in the black. But which ever way you look at it, it makes the BHA campaign look rather amateur and small fry.

£106,000 for the BHA campaign in four days ... half of what the Alpha lot had left over (once) for a whole year. Amateur. Small fry. Right :roll:
Quote:
And what on earth has donkeys got anything to do with it? But Christian Aid's income was £93million last return...

Loose change compared to the RSPCA's £114,110,000  
david_geoffrey

The Littlest Homo wrote:
david_geoffrey wrote:

What makes you think that TLH?


Do you suggest otherwise? Does "jesus" not care about owing money to others? Doubt it!  :roll:[/quote]I don't think he said anything much about debt - the translation of debt in the lord's prayer in the KJV is more usually translated as sins these days, and the rendering unto Caeser bit was more about taxation and one's relationship with God and worldly dominions and the respective weight one gives to each other.

So again I ask you what makes you think this?
The Littlest Homo

david_geoffrey wrote:
So again I ask you what makes you think this?
What does it matter? However, I am sure that "jesus" chap you think exists wouldn't be keen on people owing money! I have no evidence fo this, but you have no evidence to prove otherwise, so it doesn't matter!
david_geoffrey

The Littlest Homo wrote:
david_geoffrey wrote:
So again I ask you what makes you think this?
What does it matter? However, I am sure that "jesus" chap you think exists wouldn't be keen on people owing money! I have no evidence fo this, but you have no evidence to prove otherwise, so it doesn't matter!

Well thinking, (ah yes, thinking is an anathema to religion isn't it? still awaiting sensible replies to that one too), thinking about it a bit further as it was late last night, you could make a case that Jesus does not condemn debt per se. In fact an argument could be made from the parable of the talents that borrowing money and using it wisely in God's service is to be encouraged.

But I'm sure in that time, borrowing and lending money was part and parcel of everyday life - what Jesus is more interested in is your attitude to money - you cannot serve both God and Mammon. So you could argue that getting into debt, if it was crippling your life, if you had no intention of repaying it, if it was not put to good use was condemned. On the flip side to that you have though the whole jubilee tradition and is it actually the person to whom the money is owed that needs to be careful and they should forgive those debts - the parable of the kings overseer comes to mind. One major plank of Jesus' ministry was to usher back the Kingdom of God, which if you look in the old testament was around mercy and justice.

So on balance I think that debt in itself is not condemned.

But it is an interesting subject which is why I asked you why you thought the way you did - but you are not interested in thinking are you? ("The irony, the irony" said Mr Kurtz)  - for you the polemic cheap jibe is all. Oh well, never mind, all good fun eh!

DG
The Littlest Homo

david_geoffrey wrote:
Well thinking, (ah yes, thinking is an anathema to religion isn't it? still awaiting sensible replies to that one too),
You are not happy with the answers, so we stopped as we were going around in circles!

Quote:
But it is an interesting subject which is why I asked you why you thought the way you did - but you are not interested in thinking are you? ("The irony, the irony" said Mr Kurtz)  - for you the polemic cheap jibe is all. Oh well, never mind, all good fun eh!


I am very interested in thinking, discussing and how others do it. Polemical arguments are good. You think they are cheap jibes for Why not come up with evidence to counter my arguments then I wouldn't have to come up with "cheap jibes!"  :roll:
david_geoffrey

The Littlest Homo wrote:
david_geoffrey wrote:
Well thinking, (ah yes, thinking is an anathema to religion isn't it? still awaiting sensible replies to that one too),
You are not happy with the answers, so we stopped as we were going around in circles!
True, because your replies did not answer the question.

Quote:
Quote:
But it is an interesting subject which is why I asked you why you thought the way you did - but you are not interested in thinking are you? ("The irony, the irony" said Mr Kurtz)  - for you the polemic cheap jibe is all. Oh well, never mind, all good fun eh!


I am very interested in thinking, discussing and how others do it. Polemical arguments are good. You think they are cheap jibes for Why not come up with evidence to counter my arguments then I wouldn't have to come up with "cheap jibes!"  :roll:
But I have brought up some evidence. The parable of the talents (Matt 25:14-30) and the parable of the kings overseer (Luke 16:1-15) - both of which perhaps have a bearing on the matter of Jesus' view on debt, and that he does not condemn it implicitly. You may disagree that they do, but if you were to say why then that would be a basis of a thoughtful discussion. Would you like to try?
The Littlest Homo

david_geoffrey wrote:
True, because your replies did not answer the question.
Yeah, that must be it! :roll:

Quote:
But I have brought up some evidence. The parable of the talents (Matt 25:14-30) and the parable of the kings overseer (Luke 16:1-15) - both of which perhaps have a bearing on the matter of Jesus' view on debt, and that he does not condemn it implicitly. You may disagree that they do, but if you were to say why then that would be a basis of a thoughtful discussion. Would you like to try?
 

I will repeat myself once again, bible passages can't be used as credible, historical evidence (however much you protest otherwise). They may happen to say what the character of "jesus" said or did, according to 5th hand information. It makes it no more true. I shall now leave it at that!
david_geoffrey

[quote="The Littlest Homo"]
david_geoffrey wrote:

Quote:
But I have brought up some evidence. The parable of the talents (Matt 25:14-30) and the parable of the kings overseer (Luke 16:1-15) - both of which perhaps have a bearing on the matter of Jesus' view on debt, and that he does not condemn it implicitly. You may disagree that they do, but if you were to say why then that would be a basis of a thoughtful discussion. Would you like to try?
 

I will repeat myself once again, bible passages can't be used as credible, historical evidence (however much you protest otherwise). They may happen to say what the character of "jesus" said or did, according to 5th hand information. It makes it no more true. I shall now leave it at that!
How on earth can I make you see what I am getting at. Tell you what, for the sake of argument; I will agree to agree with you. The bible is not evidence, nor is it in the slightest bit useful in establishing the historical person of Jesus, it's a complete fiction. There, that do?

OK, so within that paradigm, what does this totally fictional character of Jesus say about debt in that masterpiece of fiction called the bible?

I mean you brought it up in the first place - so you must have some basis on which you made your statement
Quote:
"Jesus" wouldn't be impressed with debt, would he?
I have given you a couple of starters, but perhaps you have something else
Guest

Quote:
"david_geoffrey"  
Quote:

"The Littlest Homo]"Jesus" wouldn't be impressed with debt, would he?
 I have given you a couple of starters, but perhaps you have something else

Hi David,

Jesus would not be interested in debt because it is a worldly matter.
Debt is something most believers avoid. However it isn't the end of the world.   Would you like a helmet to protect your head from the brick wall?

Love is... Smilie_PDT
gone

Love is... wrote:
Quote:
"david_geoffrey"  
Quote:

"The Littlest Homo]"Jesus" wouldn't be impressed with debt, would he?
 I have given you a couple of starters, but perhaps you have something else

Hi David,

Jesus would not be interested in debt because it is a worldly matter.Debt is something most believers avoid. However it isn't the end of the world.   Would you like a helmet to protect your head from the brick wall?

Love is... Smilie_PDT


And you know that for a fact do you, Lynne? :roll:
The Littlest Homo

david_geoffrey wrote:
How on earth can I make you see what I am getting at. Tell you what, for the sake of argument; I will agree to agree with you. The bible is not evidence, nor is it in the slightest bit useful in establishing the historical person of Jesus, it's a complete fiction. There, that do?
So far, so good!

Quote:
OK, so within that paradigm, what does this totally fictional character of Jesus say about debt in that masterpiece of fiction called the bible?


I have found this passage

Quote:
Romans 13:8 "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.


Is that not relevant?

Quote:
I mean you brought it up in the first place - so you must have some basis on which you made your statement
What about personal opinion? Why are you so defensive?

Quote:
I have given you a couple of starters, but perhaps you have something else
See above

By the way, my original post about "jesus" and debt said this :

Quote:
"Jesus" wouldn't be impressed with debt, would he?


That is different from condemning debt. I am not sure where you picked that from!
david_geoffrey

The Littlest Homo wrote:
david_geoffrey wrote:
How on earth can I make you see what I am getting at. Tell you what, for the sake of argument; I will agree to agree with you. The bible is not evidence, nor is it in the slightest bit useful in establishing the historical person of Jesus, it's a complete fiction. There, that do?
So far, so good!
I'm only saying this for arguments sake - devil's advocate and all that  

Quote:
Quote:
OK, so within that paradigm, what does this totally fictional character of Jesus say about debt in that masterpiece of fiction called the bible?


I have found this passage

Quote:
Romans 13:8 "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.


Is that not relevant?
It worked! You are right, I had forgotten that verse. To be honest, I was thinking of the Gospels as we were thinking of what Jesus himself said (in the fictional work mind) and not thinking about Paul. Of course some people would say that Paul took more on himself than was warrented, but I am not of that school.

Looking at the verse in context though, it follows on from the injunction to submit to earthly rulers. So pay your taxes and revenue etc ; owe to men what is owed to them. So I'm not sure that you can make this out to be a command not to get into debt in the first place, but to make sure that you simply pay what you owe? Outstanding taxes are not neccessarily debts are they?

I think it all comes down to attitude to money in the end. If you love money more than each other (and that mythical person in the sky) then you don't have the right perspective. Leaving out the bit in parenthesis, I am sure that this is something that we can all agree on.

Quote:
Quote:
I mean you brought it up in the first place - so you must have some basis on which you made your statement
What about personal opinion? Why are you so defensive?
Didn't mean to come across defensive - personal opinion is great, but it is usually based on something isn't it - I was trying to find out what that was.

Quote:
Quote:
I have given you a couple of starters, but perhaps you have something else
See above

By the way, my original post about "jesus" and debt said this :

Quote:
"Jesus" wouldn't be impressed with debt, would he?


That is different from condemning debt. I am not sure where you picked that from!
Quite right, I apologise for over ephasising what you said. And in fact Jesus was into forgiveness, so he might not be impressed (still open to debate) but he would still forgive.

DG
Paul

Mr. Dawkins, who's worrying?

Don't worry! Be happy!
The Littlest Homo

Paul wrote:
Mr. Dawkins, who's worrying?

Don't worry! Be happy!


What a feeble blog this is. Especially when it comes up with things like this :

Quote:
The atheist bus adverts promise people a worry-free existence if they will only accept that there is "probably" no God. This is not very reassuring in itself - to be free of worry, you would really need to be certain that there is no God - but let that pass.


Of course the advert says nothing of the sort. It simply says "Theres probably no god. Now stop worrying and live your life". The author of the blog seems to be putting their own inaccurate slant on it!

Quote:
At this time of the year, we reflect on the Four Last Things: death, judgement, hell and heaven


What miserable sods you are, if thats all you are thinking about! So "Don't worry, be happy" is probably just as apt no doubt.
Paul

Reflection on death etc. is a necessary part of life, even if you don't believe in God, because we are all affected by it.

Quote:
St Thomas More marvelled at how the Carthusian martyrs went to their gruesome deaths at Tyburn singing the psalms as though they were on their way to a wedding.


Yes, they really sound like 'miserable sods', don't they. LOL!

Pretiosa in conspectu Domini mors sanctorum eius, as the Psalmist says.
ByFaith

Re: Prof Richard Dawkins drives support for London's first .

Richard Dawkins wrote:
"This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think – and thinking is anathema to religion."

In otherwords, if one thinks about the question of whether God exists or not, you should come to the conclusion that He probably doesn't? Not much thinking required then is there, if the outcome is already assumed.

Hanne Stinson wrote:
"We see so many posters advertising salvation through Jesus or threatening us with eternal damnation, that I feel sure that a bus advert like this will be welcomed as a breath of fresh air. If it raises a smile as well as making people think, so much the better."

Again, I find it strange that thinking is being encouraged, but reaching certain conclusions as a result of that thinking is discouraged. Again the implication is that if one (as a result of thinking) concludes that God does exist, then you haven't thought about it properly.
The Littlest Homo

Paul wrote:


Yes, they really sound like 'miserable sods', don't they. LOL!


Yes they do. Thanks for agreeing. Maybe you ought to find a happier blog next time. Anything thats not catholic should do it!
Lexilogio

Re: Prof Richard Dawkins drives support for London's first .

ByFaith wrote:
Richard Dawkins wrote:
"This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think – and thinking is anathema to religion."

In otherwords, if one thinks about the question of whether God exists or not, you should come to the conclusion that He probably doesn't? Not much thinking required then is there, if the outcome is already assumed.

Hanne Stinson wrote:
"We see so many posters advertising salvation through Jesus or threatening us with eternal damnation, that I feel sure that a bus advert like this will be welcomed as a breath of fresh air. If it raises a smile as well as making people think, so much the better."

Again, I find it strange that thinking is being encouraged, but reaching certain conclusions as a result of that thinking is discouraged. Again the implication is that if one (as a result of thinking) concludes that God does exist, then you haven't thought about it properly.


Nice Post!
chadivarus

Quote:
Pretiosa in conspectu Domini mors sanctorum eius, as the Psalmist says.


I guess he didn't speak latin so it was probably in Hebrew.
Paul

It says: Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints. (Psalm 115 according to the Septuagint numbering)
ByFaith

Lexilogio wrote:
Nice Post!

Thanks Lexilogio  :)

The Littlest Homo wrote:
Andy wrote:
Would we say that this is more of an agnostic sentiment than a strictly atheist one?

That 'probably' leaves some wiggle room for the unsure IMV.

It's recognising the fact that no-one can factually state that god doesn't exist, anymore than it can be factually stated that it does, or that Russel's flying teapot does/doesn't.

In Bertrand Russell's parable of the celestial teapot, if there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, but the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes, then where does the evidence come from that
  • It is a teapot?
  • It is made of china?
  • It orbits the sun
  • Its orbit is elliptical?
The existence (or otherwise) of the teapot is irrelevant as the assertion has been made up.

The problem with comparing the existence of the celestial teapot to the existence of God is that the scenario with the teapot has been made up. There is no evidence for the teapot and by making the comparison, it is assumed that there is no evidence for the existence of God. I would say that while the existence of God cannot be proved (if it could, faith would not be necessary), it is wrong to say that there is no evidence for the existence of God. Individuals may have different opinions on what constitutes evidence, but that is not the same as saying that there is no evidence.
The Littlest Homo

Just to let you know that this total has now reached £140,000 in a week and may be spread to other major city/towns around Britain.

There is also a campaign by the BHA against faith schools, which is also raising money at a great rate also - http://www.justgiving.com/faithschools
Shaker

Quote:
The existence (or otherwise) of the teapot is irrelevant as the assertion has been made up.

The problem with comparing the existence of the celestial teapot to the existence of God is that the scenario with the teapot has been made up.

Right ... and how does that differ from the various tales of gods?
Quote:
There is no evidence for the teapot and by making the comparison, it is assumed that there is no evidence for the existence of God. I would say that while the existence of God cannot be proved (if it could, faith would not be necessary), it is wrong to say that there is no evidence for the existence of God. Individuals may have different opinions on what constitutes evidence, but that is not the same as saying that there is no evidence.

That's like saying the answer to the question "What is the capital of Canada?" is "cheeseburgers." It's an answer, technically speaking (that is, it's a response to a question): it's just a wrong and therefore bad answer.
ByFaith

adminforObama wrote:
I wrote:
There is no evidence for the teapot and by making the comparison, it is assumed that there is no evidence for the existence of God. I would say that while the existence of God cannot be proved (if it could, faith would not be necessary), it is wrong to say that there is no evidence for the existence of God. Individuals may have different opinions on what constitutes evidence, but that is not the same as saying that there is no evidence.

That's like saying the answer to the question "What is the capital of Canada?" is "cheeseburgers." It's an answer, technically speaking (that is, it's a response to a question): it's just a wrong and therefore bad answer.

You are not comparing like with like.
  • The statement, The capital of Canada is cheeseburgers can be shown to be a false one.
  • If I said, What is the capital of Canada?, the answer can be found out.
  • If I said, The capital of Canada is not London, you can prove the negative is true by showing that the capital of Canada is Ottawa.
The comparison between the existence of Bertrand’s celestial teapot and the existence of God has the premise that both are inventions. The former clearly is an invention as there is no evidence to support it. In order to make the comparison, it is first necessary to support your hypothesis that the God Christians believe in has been invented and that there is no evidence for Him.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat Page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum