# Atheist bus ads in london



## WarriorOfMetal (Jan 10, 2009)

Atheist buses denying God's existence take to streets - Telegraph

awesome


----------



## Zepp88 (Jan 10, 2009)

That's awesome, and that chick is kinda cute, cute godless chicks are win.


----------



## stuh84 (Jan 10, 2009)

Richard Dawkins


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 10, 2009)

Not quite sure what I think of these. I sort of don't see them doing any harm, but then I can understand people being annoyed by them.

I'm agnostic so I don't care for any specific beliefs.



Zepp88 said:


> That's awesome, and that chick is kinda cute, cute godless chicks are win.



Agreed.


----------



## El Caco (Jan 10, 2009)

Zepp88 said:


> That's awesome, and that chick is kinda cute, cute godless chicks are win.


----------



## hufschmid (Jan 10, 2009)

awesome


----------



## Mr. S (Jan 10, 2009)

Zepp88 said:


> That's awesome, and that chick is kinda cute, cute godless chicks are win.



 that chick is smexy.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jan 10, 2009)

At least FlyingBanana is banned so he won't put up a stink about this thread


----------



## ohio_eric (Jan 10, 2009)

People really should kick around living your beliefs and stop putting them on buses and billboards. I think the world would be a lot peachier.


----------



## Mr. S (Jan 10, 2009)

ohio_eric said:


> People really should kick around living your beliefs and stop putting them on buses and billboards. I think the world would be a lot peachier.



I totally agree, if anything atheists are just as preachy as religious people sometimes, well the one's I've encountered


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jan 10, 2009)

Well, the idea was that they saw Christian ads on the buses preaching about how people are going to hell. Tit for tat. I don't generally believe that anyone should be preached to about anything, including atheism, but I think this is a cool idea. Maybe Christians in that area will get the idea that if they can preach on a bus, so can atheists. I hope there's a big stink put up by the church, so they can get their asses handed to them publicly.


----------



## ohio_eric (Jan 10, 2009)

Sadly, this will piss of the Christians and they will just piss and moan that much louder. Usually tit for tat gets you nowhere. Plus who wants to trade away tit?


----------



## Mr. S (Jan 10, 2009)

The C of E won't get that pissed, they'll just offer everyone cake 

/stupid post


----------



## Metal Ken (Jan 10, 2009)

I thought this was about the band.


----------



## Pauly (Jan 10, 2009)

I'd like to see this one as a poster:


----------



## CC323 (Jan 10, 2009)

ohio_eric said:


> Sadly, this will piss of the Christians and they will just piss and moan that much louder. Usually tit for tat gets you nowhere. Plus who wants to trade away tit?



Maybe not British Christians as Europe, Canada, and Oceania seem to be abandoning Christianity at a steady rate, whereas here in the US it'll likely be around for centuries more. Also, in order to preserve my faith in the human race, I'd hope that Christians everywhere aren't as indignant about their beliefs as the ones in the US....

Chris


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jan 10, 2009)

my beef with religion is that if the overall tone of all religions is to be good to eachother, how come none of them do?
ya know what i mean


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jan 10, 2009)

Pauly said:


> I'd like to see this one as a poster:



and thats hilerious by the way


----------



## chimp_spanner (Jan 10, 2009)

I totally ROFLHARRIS'd


----------



## El Caco (Jan 10, 2009)

I've seen her interviewed on TV and this isn't a tit for tat thing, it was her response to a religious campaign that in short said all non Christians are going to hell, this was more of a message to those that might worry as a result of claims presented as fact that lack evidence. It's her way of saying don't worry, be happy, there is no evidence that a God is going to punish you. It was supposed to be a light hearted message to get people to smile, not a message to push any particular message, just a message to say smile don't worry about the stuff you read on the side of buses.


----------



## TheHandOfStone (Jan 10, 2009)

"There's probably no god" has a lot more implications than just the ability to enjoy your life. It means a person has to constantly seek out right and wrong on their own, without ever being certain of it. I don't object to the ads, as I share their sentiment. But I do fear that they will be misinterpreted.

As an atheist, I worry more than ever about right and wrong because there's no one there to spell it out for me. To me, the _effort_ to figure out right and wrong is more important than any conclusions a person comes up with. Those conclusions can sometimes be overturned, yet the search for good is a true testament to a person's character.

A person who cares nothing for right or wrong except for the fear of punishment might see these ads and think that all atheists feel the same as he or she does. That is, that freedom from religion means freedom from all moral concerns whatsoever, which can but does not have to be the case.

Maybe I look too far into stuff like this, I dunno. I just can't help but feel the ads missed other major aspects of atheism. Though in all fairness, it took me forever to explain them in this post. I don't think I could condense my message enough to make it an advertisement. 



s7eve said:


> I've seen her interviewed on TV and this isn't a tit for tat thing, it was her response to a religious campaign that in short said all non Christians are going to hell, this was more of a message to those that might worry as a result of claims presented as fact that lack evidence. It's her way of saying don't worry, be happy, there is no evidence that a God is going to punish you. It was supposed to be a light hearted message to get people to smile, not a message to push any particular message, just a message to say smile don't worry about the stuff you read on the side of buses.



And I read it in a completely un-lighthearted way. Figures.


----------



## Trespass (Jan 11, 2009)

Meh, this is the same shit the Christian's do. I suppose, you guys will have a strong counterargument that they say "probably" in the quote, as opposed to the 'certainty' of the original Christian quote. 

Whatever, it's all expression of beliefs. The real quip about Christianity, is not the religion itself, but that they are required to spread it. And the more effort you put into spreading, the "better".


----------



## S-O (Jan 11, 2009)

I love this advert., it is kinda of smug and I love it.


----------



## TomAwesome (Jan 11, 2009)

Isn't the line, "There's *probably* no God," more of an agnostic statement than an atheist one? An atheist ad should say, "There *is* no God."


----------



## silentrage (Jan 11, 2009)

TomAwesome said:


> Isn't the line, "There's *probably* no God," more of an agnostic statement than an atheist one? An atheist ad should say, "There *is* no God."



"There is no god" is just too cocky, some of the smartest people EVER aren't even sure.


----------



## ILdÐÆMcº³ (Jan 11, 2009)

^That's why atheism is based on faith just as much as other religions.

He is right, if they really are atheist it should say "there is no god."


----------



## TomAwesome (Jan 11, 2009)

silentrage said:


> "There is no god" is just too cocky, some of the smartest people EVER aren't even sure.



That's why the _really_ smart ones don't pretend to know.  Besides, I think Christian ads saying that there is a God and that you're going to burn in eternal hellfire are probably a bit more cocky anyway.



ILd&#208;&#198;Mc&#186;&#179;;1338873 said:


> ^That's why atheism is based on faith just as much as other religions.
> 
> He is right, if they really are atheist it should say "there is no god."




Saying that there is _probably_ no God implies that there's at least a small chance that there may be a God. That's agnosticism.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jan 11, 2009)

Trespass said:


> Meh, this is the same shit the Christian's do. I suppose, you guys will have a strong counterargument that they say "probably" in the quote, as opposed to the 'certainty' of the original Christian quote.
> 
> Whatever, it's all expression of beliefs. The real quip about Christianity, is not the religion itself, but that they are required to spread it. And the more effort you put into spreading, the "better".



Agreed. This is equally annoying. Everyone should just STFU unless asked about it imo.


----------



## Bobo (Jan 11, 2009)

TomAwesome said:


> That's why the _really_ smart ones don't pretend to know.



^ That ^


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Jan 11, 2009)

i love the wording of it. "there's _probably_ no god" 
although i must say, i'm an atheist, but sadly i see this causeing more trouble. hopefully it may raise some awareness and questions, i'm juts glad to see it has not made more trouble.


----------



## Metal Ken (Jan 11, 2009)

ILdÐÆMcº³;1338873 said:


> ^That's why atheism is based on faith just as much as other religions.
> 
> He is right, if they really are atheist it should say "there is no god."



You cant prove a negative. Besides, you'll find most intellectuals wont state anything with 100% certainty. 

Dawkins says there's most likely no god based on the evidence available to him. He admits he could be wrong, cause like i said, you cant prove a negative.


----------



## wannabguitarist (Jan 12, 2009)

While this is kinda funny it does make the atheists look just as bad as the preachy Christians.



Zepp88 said:


> That's awesome, and that chick is kinda cute, cute godless chicks are win.



I'd make her scream for god


----------



## hairychris (Jan 12, 2009)

ILdÐÆMcº³;1338873 said:


> ^That's why atheism is based on faith just as much as other religions.
> 
> He is right, if they really are atheist it should say "there is no god."



Nope, it's based on lack of faith.

The agnosticism is based on lack of knowledge, the atheism is lack of belief - 2 completely different actions.

The bus ad can be read both ways... although as it's written it tends towards agnosticism. 

This is for essentially legal reasons. Our Advertising Standards Authority require adverts to be truthful (to a degree - you should see the small print that has to go on ads over here). The statement on the bus, with 'probably' added, gets round this problem!


----------



## shadowgenesis (Jan 12, 2009)

I think some of you are missing the point that these ads weren't designed to spread atheism or try and preach it to people. As s7eve mentioned, her intention was simply to counteract the effect of what she perceived as a very negative ad campaign in the same area.



hairychris said:


> Nope, it's based on lack of faith.
> 
> The agnosticism is based on lack of knowledge, the atheism is lack of belief - 2 completely different actions.
> 
> ...




what? In order to be an atheist you are putting your belief in something that cannot be proven. As such, you have faith that it is true despite the fact that you cannot know it is true. And I would probably argue that agnostics aren't inherently lacking in faith either, but that'd be getting into other territory.

and on the subject of ad requirements... wouldn't the same apply to the Christian ads that told you that you were going to hell?


----------



## hairychris (Jan 12, 2009)

Er, not quite.

I am, to a degree, agnostic, because I don't know for sure that there's any god(s). I am an atheist because I don't act on the assumption that there _are_.

However, I think that it is massively improbably that there is a personal god in the way that christianity/islam/etc claims. In fact, I'm pretty sure that there are very few christians, for example, who can actually define their god in a sensible fashion...

Religions get a free pass for outlandish claims - claims by bronze age tribesmen somehow get special treatment because it's ingrained in our culture and our (UK) legal system. I'd love to see a complaint to the ASA saying 'prove it'!

FWIW atheists, on the whole (but there are some that do), aren't positively claiming that there's no god. They just disagree with the positive claim that there *is* one through lack of evidence. As an atheist I'm not the one making a claim that something's going to happen after you die, and that there's someone watching us all the time - gimme evidence & I'll consider it!!


----------



## Anthony (Jan 12, 2009)

Atheism has nothing to do with faith. It's about evidence. You don't need to have faith to believe something doesn't exist, something that doesn't have any proof in the first place.

Faith-belief that is not based on proof I got that from dictionary.com

I don't believe that there are invisible gnomes on my desk. That's not faith.


----------



## hairychris (Jan 12, 2009)

^ Precisely. And they had to be careful with the wording of said advert to reflect this.

I'd really like to see a US version which instead of this message has quotes from people like Thomas Jefferson...


----------



## Anthony (Jan 12, 2009)

hairychris said:


> ^ Precisely. And they had to be careful with the wording of said advert to reflect this.
> 
> I'd really like to see a US version which instead of this message has quotes from people like Thomas Jefferson...




Around here I occasionally see poster saying "What If There Were No Religion" with the WTC in the middle. 

I don't see them to much though. More needs to be done here.


----------



## Groff (Jan 12, 2009)

"There's _probably_ no god."

Since when are Atheists indecisive? Isn't that more of an agnostic thing to not know one way or the other?


----------



## Anthony (Jan 12, 2009)

Trespass said:


> Meh, this is the same shit the Christian's do. I suppose, you guys will have a strong counterargument that they say "probably" in the quote, as opposed to the 'certainty' of the original Christian quote.
> 
> Whatever, it's all expression of beliefs. The real quip about Christianity, is not the religion itself, but that they are required to spread it. And the more effort you put into spreading, the "better".



This isn't the same shit, at all. If I read correctly, this was a retaliation to Christian bus ads that said "If you aren't a Christian, you're going to hell", or something along those lines.

That's just rude and intolerant. 

This ad on the other hand is simply saying you should enjoy your life, without worrying about stuff we can't prove.


I'm happy about these ads. Atheists need to expose their beliefs in the public more, in a respectful manner, like this ad did. If we all just keep to ourselves, nothing will ever change, and people will keep believing fables.


----------



## Carrion (Jan 12, 2009)

Groff said:


> "There's _probably_ no god."
> 
> Since when are Atheists indecisive? Isn't that more of an agnostic thing to not know one way or the other?



See: Weak atheism.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Jan 13, 2009)

Uh ,atheism is not a belief.
An Atheist does not believe in any god presented to mankind ,and can't find any use or need in creating one.
If someone mentions that there is no god ,it's as worse as claiming there is one. Both act like if it where a fact ,and both sides can't back their facts up.

So using the word "probably" makes it perfect. You clearly do not believe in any god ,but you would believe if someone can proove it! That's the right way to go ,since a sane mind yould accept if it's proven!


----------



## CC323 (Jan 13, 2009)

daemon barbeque said:


> Uh ,atheism is not a belief.
> An Atheist does not believe in any god presented to mankind ,and can't find any use or need in creating one.
> If someone mentions that there is no god ,it's as worse as claiming there is one. Both act like if it where a fact ,and both sides can't back their facts up.
> 
> So using the word "probably" makes it perfect. You clearly do not believe in any god ,but you would believe if someone can proove it! That's the right way to go ,since a sane mind yould accept if it's proven!



Wrong again... 

Actually, atheism DOES believe in NO god. Agnostics won't believe either way until there's proof, atheists are firm in their beliefs. It's as dogmatic as christianity, claiming that there IS/CAN'T BE a God.


----------



## Carrion (Jan 13, 2009)

daemon barbeque said:


> Uh ,atheism is not a belief.
> An Atheist does not believe in any god presented to mankind ,and can't find any use or need in creating one.
> If someone mentions that there is no god ,it's as worse as claiming there is one. Both act like if it where a fact ,and both sides can't back their facts up.
> 
> So using the word "probably" makes it perfect. You clearly do not believe in any god ,but you would believe if someone can proove it! That's the right way to go ,since a sane mind yould accept if it's proven!



Actually, Strong atheists promote the idea that god is a logical impossibility, therefore it does not exist.

The argument of omniscience vs omnipotence is the way of showing this.

Edit: To the above: I strongly disagree.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Jan 14, 2009)

CC323 said:


> Wrong again...
> 
> Actually, atheism DOES believe in NO god. Agnostics won't believe either way until there's proof, atheists are firm in their beliefs. It's as dogmatic as christianity, claiming that there IS/CAN'T BE a God.



I am an atheist so don't try to tell me what I am and how I have to be named... "Does believe in No god"...Man we believe in nothing. there is nothing we Do ,so it doesn't make any sense how you promote it to be. Believeing is not a normal part of life. We do not ,and that's the way it is!
Wrong again? Man come down from your high horses!



Carrion said:


> Actually, Strong atheists promote the idea that god is a logical impossibility, therefore it does not exist.
> 
> The argument of omniscience vs omnipotence is the way of showing this.
> 
> Edit: To the above: I strongly disagree.



No! An Atheist says clearly that the idea GOD ,how it presented and the belief systems around it are all wrong and impossible.

The Atheist himself is someone who don't believe in anything ,therefore it can't be a belief system at all! 

Now ,as a normal person ,an Atheist is normally intelligent enough to accept Facts ,if they are rock-solid proven.

Therefore ,the Atheist would accept a god ,if it where possible to prove it.

The agnostic is someone who is not agreeing with the common god systems ,but would accept if it where acceptable...They tend to have their own "big energy" or whatever .


----------



## Naren (Jan 14, 2009)

There is also such a thing as agnostic atheists and agnostic theists, who do or do not believe in God, but they state that they could be convinced that there is a God or isn't a God depending on the evidence presented (as opposed to, for example, theists who will believe that there is a God no matter what).

These bus signs seem to fit the agnostic atheist approach more than the strict atheist approach. But agnostic atheists are not members of religions because they fit the "There probably is no God" approach with the agnostic theists fitting the "There probably is a God" approach, and the strict theists and atheists fitting the "There definitely is a God" and "There definitely is no God" approaches.

As for myself, I'm somewhere inbetween agnostic atheist and strict atheist. I do not believe in the existence of God and nothing could convince me of the existence of a Judeo-Christian God, but given the right evidence, I could be convinced of the existence of a God ("higher being," whatever you want to call it). However, that possibility is very very very unlikely considering "logic" and science.

In general, I just say I'm an atheist.


----------



## El Caco (Jan 14, 2009)

I don't know why this debate is necessary but what is wrong with someone who believes there is no god saying "there probably is no god" to someone who is undecided? It isn't a reflection of their own beliefs, it is a communication tool. Telling people what to think is not very effective, stating what you believe with certainty requires an explanation and supporting evidence but if you suggest to someone who is uncertain that they don't need to worry about hell because there probably isn't a god, you have a good chance of them considering your opinion and you haven't contradicted yourself. You know that there is probably no god because you have studied it and believe based on the evidence that the gods presented by man do not exist. 

The statement is reasonable, it's not a statement of belief, it is an idea for consideration.

Having said that, I don't agree with the message, I think it's important for people to look into it and make up their own mind. A message like this wouldn't be directed at people who don't give a shit either way, it would be directed at people who might not know and might be worried about going to hell or whatever, I think telling these people not to worry about it isn't right, if they might be worried by it they need to look into it and decide for themselves, the most effective thing for these people is to educate them so they can make an informed decision before they are indoctrinated into whatever belief system.


----------



## Mattayus (Jan 14, 2009)

s7eve said:


> Having said that, I don't agree with the message, I think it's important for people to look into it and make up their own mind. A message like this wouldn't be directed at people who don't give a shit either way, it would be directed at people who might not know and might be worried about going to hell or whatever, I think telling these people not to worry about it isn't right, if they might be worried by it they need to look into it and decide for themselves, the most effective thing for these people is to educate them so they can make an informed decision before they are indoctrinated into whatever belief system.



I feel that the sign is a bit more political than religious, in that Christians have been able to spout their beliefs everywhere and anywhere for as long as the religion has existed, and i think the sign is showing people that it's ok to publicly go against for a change. For the first time in history, really. It's actually a bigger landmark than you all might think in that sense.

Dawkins, for one, is a man obsessed with rights where Atheism is concerned. He believes (and I for one couldn't agree more) that Christian people have gotten away with being overly offended for centuries (or any religion, for that matter).

It's a preference, like your favourite music, or your taste in art. No more, no less. No man has any right to be THAT offended when you go against his faith. No more than if you challenged his taste in music or art. We've never been able to challenge peoples belief systems without being labelled bigots, evil, offensive, and all the rest of it. This bus sign seems small, but it actually means a lot to me in the uphill battle against peoples religious "rights".



CC323 said:


> Wrong again...
> 
> Actually, atheism DOES believe in NO god. Agnostics won't believe either way until there's proof, atheists are firm in their beliefs. It's as dogmatic as christianity, claiming that there IS/CAN'T BE a God.



You'll actually find that about 90&#37; of Atheists aren't as Dogmatic about their beliefs as most religious people.

It doesn't claim that there CAN'T be, it just uses reasonable logic and lack of superstition to surmise that the chances of there being one are improbable. In Atheism there has to be a miniature sense of agnosticism, but no more than I'm agnostic that aliens/ghosts/zombies/big foot exists. It's folklore, superstition, hearsay. But that doesn't make it false, it just makes it highly improbable, given the history in which these fables were created.

Anyone can just make up anything (see: the flying teapot theory) and that then has to enter the realm of reasonable debate. And in those circumstances you have to retain a certain sense of agnosticism about the subject, because you just don't know. But that doesn't mean you can't be firm in the belief that it doesn't exist.


----------



## El Caco (Jan 14, 2009)

No doubt many will see it that way but from what the girl said it is not what she intended.


----------



## RenegadeDave (Jan 14, 2009)




----------



## hairychris (Jan 14, 2009)

This is entertaining for the last paragraph of the article:

Atheist bus leads to first non-religious version of Thought for the Day on BBC - Telegraph


----------



## Nick (Jan 14, 2009)

''However at least 101 people have complained to the Advertising Standards Authority about the posters this week &#8211; both on the grounds that they are offensive and that their claim cannot be substantiated.

If the industry regulator decides to investigate, it could end up effectively ruling on the likelihood of God's existence.''

Fucks sake!

i dont have words to describe how stupid i want to imply that these people are.


----------



## Wisdom (Jan 15, 2009)

It says probably, so it's leaning towards agnostic. Atheists seem just as dumb as theists are at times. Bunch of hypocrites. And "don't worry" is silly. Ok, lets just allow our culture to corrode because there is nothing to be accountable for. Religion has been a good tool. It keeps the morons who corrupt our culture/society to be afraid to do so.


----------



## TomAwesome (Jan 15, 2009)

Wisdom said:


> It says probably, so it's leaning towards agnostic. Atheists seem just as dumb as theists are at times. Bunch of hypocrites. And "don't worry" is silly. Ok, lets just allow our culture to corrode because there is nothing to be accountable for. Religion has been a good tool. It keeps the morons who corrupt our culture/society to be afraid to do so.



While some of what you're trying to say there probably has some degree of truth, the way you're putting it across isn't going to win you many friends.


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Jan 15, 2009)

Wisdom said:


> It says probably, so it's leaning towards agnostic. Atheists seem just as dumb as theists are at times. Bunch of hypocrites. And "don't worry" is silly. Ok, lets just allow our culture to corrode because there is nothing to be accountable for. Religion has been a good tool. It keeps the morons who corrupt our culture/society to be afraid to do so.



i comepletely disagree, but to each his own


----------



## hairychris (Jan 15, 2009)

Wisdom said:


> It says probably, so it's leaning towards agnostic. Atheists seem just as dumb as theists are at times. Bunch of hypocrites. And "don't worry" is silly.



'Probably' is to get round our laws on truth in advertising. Dumb? Please. The ad's a specific response to Christian ads that basically say believe or you're off to hell. Maybe I would have worded the ad differently but it's a talking point.

You also seem to have agnosticism and atheism confused. The first is about knowledge, the second is about belief. You can _believe_ with or without knowledge.

Can't see why it's hypocritical myself.



Wisdom said:


> Ok, lets just allow our culture to corrode because there is nothing to be accountable for. Religion has been a good tool. It keeps the morons who corrupt our culture/society to be afraid to do so.



So you see religion as a tool to keep the masses in line. Nice. You obviously don't care whether religion is empirically true then? Oh, and religion is obviously doing a great job of keeping the proles in Saudi Arabia under control so that's fine, isn't it?

Anyway, religion (especially monotheistic) promotes a tribal us or them view. Fuck that. We need to work out a way of giving everyone the same rights and freedoms without reference to a supernatural stick.


----------



## Nick (Jan 15, 2009)

Wisdom said:


> It says probably, so it's leaning towards agnostic. Atheists seem just as dumb as theists are at times. Bunch of hypocrites. And "don't worry" is silly. Ok, lets just allow our culture to corrode because there is nothing to be accountable for. Religion has been a good tool. It keeps the morons who corrupt our culture/society to be afraid to do so.



fail

you think our culture is going to corrode because people are not worrying about whether what they do is right or wrong in the eyes of made up character?


----------



## Wisdom (Jan 15, 2009)

hairychris said:


> 'Probably' is to get round our laws on truth in advertising. Dumb? Please. The ad's a specific response to Christian ads that basically say believe or you're off to hell. Maybe I would have worded the ad differently but it's a talking point.


They're both silly. It's even sadder for the atheists because they claim to be intelligent, yet sink to immature foolishness.


hairychris said:


> You also seem to have agnosticism and atheism confused. The first is about knowledge, the second is about belief. You can _believe_ with or without knowledge.


Agnosticism is the declairation of someone who doesn't know. In reality, everyone is agnostic. An agnostic, however, admits this. An atheist is like a theist, except he has the same strong conviction that there is no god(s). 
Can't see why it's hypocritical myself.




hairychris said:


> So you see religion as a tool to keep the masses in line. Nice. You obviously don't care whether religion is empirically true then? Oh, and religion is obviously doing a great job of keeping the proles in Saudi Arabia under control so that's fine, isn't it?


 No, I do not believe that religion should be empirically true. The masses will believe what someone tells them, and what they want to hear. Right now we say a big bang created the universe. While this is just as bad as how theists claim everything to be. Point being, most people do not think for themselves. They believe what they are told. Show them misleading data, and they will believe it. It might as well be a belief that keeps society in order, rather than causing self-destructive chaos.


hairychris said:


> Anyway, religion (especially monotheistic) promotes a tribal us or them view. Fuck that. We need to work out a way of giving everyone the same rights and freedoms without reference to a supernatural stick.


I don't see how religion promotes inequality like you speak of? Eventually atheism leads to inequality. I have found that liberals like to dodge this, but with atheism which leads to nihilism, all that is left is nature. Equality does not exist in nature.


Nick said:


> fail
> 
> you think our culture is going to corrode because people are not worrying about whether what they do is right or wrong in the eyes of made up character?



Society is corroding because people now do things without worry of a consequence. The idea of an omnipotent god polices people at all times, holding them accountable. The Torah actually has quite a few good laws to live by. Unfortunately no one follows them anymore. Not even Christians or Jews.


----------



## Pauly (Jan 15, 2009)

Liberal (Trans)Humanist checking in, reason people astronomers and theoretical physicists favour the big bang model is because all the empirical evidence points towards it. Suggest reading 'The First 3 Minutes', 'Just 6 Numbers', 'The Elegant Universe' and 'The Fabric of the Cosmos'.


----------



## Nick (Jan 15, 2009)

Wisdom said:


> They're both silly. It's even sadder for the atheists because they claim to be intelligent, yet sink to immature foolishness. Agnosticism is the declairation of someone who doesn't know. In reality, everyone is agnostic. An agnostic, however, admits this. An atheist is like a theist, except he has the same strong conviction that there is no god(s).
> Can't see why it's hypocritical myself.
> 
> 
> ...



it has no laws that are better than 'treat others as you expect to be treated yourself' dont cover. I dont need threats of a magical beings eternal wrath to know how not to live like a dick.


----------



## Wisdom (Jan 15, 2009)

Nick said:


> it has no laws that are better than 'treat others as you expect to be treated yourself' dont cover. I dont need threats of a magical beings eternal wrath to know how not to live like a dick.



I am talking about laws on how to live your life. "Live life as a dick"? Maybe you misunderstand what I am referring to when I say decadent morals.


----------



## Nick (Jan 15, 2009)

badum tsh.......

there are no rules in any religious writing that people couldnt replace by treating other people as they would like others to treat them.


----------



## Pauly (Jan 15, 2009)

To quote Russell:



> The Character of Christ
> I now want to say a few words upon a topic which I often think is not quite sufficiently dealt with by Rationalists, and that is the question whether Christ was the best and the wisest of men. It is generally taken for granted that we should all agree that that was so. I do not myself. I think that there are a good many points upon which I agree with Christ a great deal more than the professing Christians do. I do not know that I could go with Him all the way, but I could go with Him much further than most professing Christians can. You will remember that He said, "Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." That is not a new precept or a new principle. It was used by Lao-tse and Buddha some 500 or 600 years before Christ, but it is not a principle which as a matter of fact Christians accept. I have no doubt that the present prime minister [Stanley Baldwin], for instance, is a most sincere Christian, but I should not advise any of you to go and smite him on one cheek. I think you might find that he thought this text was intended in a figurative sense.
> 
> Then there is another point which I consider excellent. You will remember that Christ said, "Judge not lest ye be judged." That principle I do not think you would find was popular in the law courts of Christian countries. I have known in my time quite a number of judges who were very earnest Christians, and none of them felt that they were acting contrary to Christian principles in what they did. Then Christ says, "Give to him that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." That is a very good principle. Your Chairman has reminded you that we are not here to talk politics, but I cannot help observing that the last general election was fought on the question of how desirable it was to turn away from him that would borrow of thee, so that one must assume that the Liberals and Conservatives of this country are composed of people who do not agree with the teaching of Christ, because they certainly did very emphatically turn away on that occasion.
> ...



...and lets not get started with the Old Testament.


----------



## hairychris (Jan 15, 2009)

Wisdom said:


> They're both silly. It's even sadder for the atheists because they claim to be intelligent, yet sink to immature foolishness. Agnosticism is the declairation of someone who doesn't know. In reality, everyone is agnostic. An agnostic, however, admits this. An atheist is like a theist, except he has the same strong conviction that there is no god(s).



To a point, most people are agnostic. However, they either _believe_ in the supernatural or they don't. As I said, (a)gnosticism & (a)theism are 2 different issues - one knowledge, the other belief.

I happen to find 'agnostic' as misleading when putting beliefs. The question isn't what you KNOW, it's what you BELIEVE.

And, by the way, many atheists have a strong belief in evidence and reasoning. If this pointed towards god then they would rationally accept it as true. Claim to be intelligent? No, just claim to have thought about the question of god using the same method that we think about everything else in life. God gets no free pass.



Wisdom said:


> Can't see why it's hypocritical myself.



Er, you called atheists hypocritical, I was wondering why.



Wisdom said:


> No, I do not believe that religion should be empirically true. The masses will believe what someone tells them, and what they want to hear. Right now we say a big bang created the universe. While this is just as bad as how theists claim everything to be. Point being, most people do not think for themselves. They believe what they are told. Show them misleading data, and they will believe it. It might as well be a belief that keeps society in order, rather than causing self-destructive chaos. I don't see how religion promotes inequality like you speak of? Eventually atheism leads to inequality. I have found that liberals like to dodge this, but with atheism which leads to nihilism, all that is left is nature. Equality does not exist in nature.



Hahahahahahahahaha. You really are a cynical bastard, aren't you? Order before truth... Or are you a catholic theologist or something? Maybe channelling Varg??

Atheism leads to nihilism? No it doesn't. I've seen very nihilistic behaviour come from religious people too. And, fwiw, at least atheists can't use the excuse 'god told us to' when discriminating, murdering or otherwise fucking other people up - you screw people over, you're a bastard whether god told you to or not.



Wisdom said:


> Society is corroding because people now do things without worry of a consequence. The idea of an omnipotent god polices people at all times, holding them accountable. The Torah actually has quite a few good laws to live by. Unfortunately no one follows them anymore. Not even Christians or Jews.



Pffft. Social control over empirical 'truth' again. The torah may have good ideas in some respects, but going on the first 5 books fo the Old Testament which are also in the Torah there's a lot of bloodthirsty nonsense in there too.


----------



## El Caco (Jan 15, 2009)

Wisdom said:


> They're both silly. It's even sadder for the atheists because they claim to be intelligent, yet sink to immature foolishness. Agnosticism is the declairation of someone who doesn't know. In reality, everyone is agnostic. An agnostic, however, admits this. An atheist is like a theist, except he has the same strong conviction that there is no god(s).



We'll not exactly although some dictionaries might describe it that way. Traditionally atheism has been the absence of belief, to describe an atheist as believing in no gods would be incorrect because an atheist believes in nothing. An agnostic is different in that they accept the possibility of god but believe that nothing is known nor can be known about god.

It is a subtle difference but the Atheist says there is no evidence for me to believe so I do not, the agnostic says we don't know but I accept the possibility based on the fact we don't know. That is why people have an issue with the word "probably", to them it suggest uncertainty. However there is no contradiction the word probably can be used by someone that believes in nothing because there is no evidence that they should believe in something.




> No, I do not believe that religion should be empirically true. The masses will believe what someone tells them, and what they want to hear. Right now we say a big bang created the universe. While this is just as bad as how theists claim everything to be. Point being, most people do not think for themselves. They believe what they are told. Show them misleading data, and they will believe it. It might as well be a belief that keeps society in order, rather than causing self-destructive chaos. I don't see how religion promotes inequality like you speak of? Eventually atheism leads to inequality. I have found that liberals like to dodge this, but with atheism which leads to nihilism, all that is left is nature. Equality does not exist in nature.
> 
> Society is corroding because people now do things without worry of a consequence. The idea of an omnipotent god polices people at all times, holding them accountable. The Torah actually has quite a few good laws to live by. Unfortunately no one follows them anymore. Not even Christians or Jews.



What is wrong with humanism? While some may claim that fear is a useful tool to control people and that if people had no god they would have no reference point for morality and therefore may question why things like killing are bad, in practice this is not normally the case. Education is a far better tool, understanding the importance of humanist morality is just as useful if not a more useful tool for the promotion of good morals. It is superior to a false method of control because humanist morality is the result of a person deciding to do good based on the logical, preferable outcome not because they are scared of being punished.


----------



## Carrion (Jan 15, 2009)

"Agnosticism is the declairation of someone who doesn't know. In reality, everyone is agnostic. An agnostic, however, admits this. An atheist is like a theist, except he has the same strong conviction that there is no god(s).
Can't see why it's hypocritical myself."

Agnosticism is the position in which the knowledge of God is proposed to be impossible, therefor you can't say you know god exists or not. However, you can believe that God does or does not. As stated earlier, this is agnostic theism/atheism. I know there is no God because it is a logical impossibility. This is demonstrated by the omniscience vs omnipotence contradiction. 

Because you claim to be an agnostic, answer me this please: If you know that god is unknowable, how do you know?


----------



## Wisdom (Jan 15, 2009)

hairychris said:


> To a point, most people are agnostic. However, they either _believe_ in the supernatural or they don't. As I said, (a)gnosticism & (a)theism are 2 different issues - one knowledge, the other belief.





> Agnosticism: 2. an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.
> Atheism: 1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.


 Agnosticism is based on knowledge. No one _knows_ if there is a god or not.


hairychris said:


> I happen to find 'agnostic' as misleading when putting beliefs. The question isn't what you KNOW, it's what you BELIEVE.


I view agnosticism as someone willing to deal with uncertainty. An atheist has really no knowledge of his beliefs, just like a theist. 


hairychris said:


> And, by the way, many atheists have a strong belief in evidence and reasoning. If this pointed towards god then they would rationally accept it as true. Claim to be intelligent? No, just claim to have thought about the question of god using the same method that we think about everything else in life. God gets no free pass.


 There is no evidence either way. If atheists like to base their beliefs around reasoning, maybe they should remember that science always changes it's views and results.


hairychris said:


> Er, you called atheists hypocritical, I was wondering why.


 For that particular case, because they act foolishly without certainty, just like the theists they wish to fight. 




hairychris said:


> Hahahahahahahahaha. You really are a cynical bastard, aren't you? Order before truth... Or are you a catholic theologist or something? Maybe channelling Varg??


No, I think (western) society needs help accountable or it will completely fall apart. 


hairychris said:


> Atheism leads to nihilism? No it doesn't. I've seen very nihilistic behaviour come from religious people too. And, fwiw, at least atheists can't use the excuse 'god told us to' when discriminating, murdering or otherwise fucking other people up - you screw people over, you're a bastard whether god told you to or not.


Most religions respect human life. Those murderers are just nut jobs. The Catholics killed because or religion, and the Nazis killed because of science. You can find bad examples of both. Nihilism is the logical conclusion of atheism. You can however, be a nihilist and not an atheist. If god doesn't exist, you are accountable to no one, and this is all you have. You can and should basically do whatever you want, since this is your one shot. 




hairychris said:


> Pffft. Social control over empirical 'truth' again. The torah may have good ideas in some respects, but going on the first 5 books fo the Old Testament which are also in the Torah there's a lot of bloodthirsty nonsense in there too.



Humans are violent. There isn't anything that can be changed. The have nots want what the haves have. 





s7eve said:


> We'll not exactly although some dictionaries might describe it that way. Traditionally atheism has been the absence of belief, to describe an atheist as believing in no gods would be incorrect because an atheist believes in nothing. An agnostic is different in that they accept the possibility of god but believe that nothing is known nor can be known about god.


Your definition of agnosticism is basically that of absurdism. Atheism is the rejection in a belief of god or gods. Nihilism is the belief in nothing, 


s7eve said:


> It is a subtle difference but the Atheist says there is no evidence for me to believe so I do not, the agnostic says we don't know but I accept the possibility based on the fact we don't know. That is why people have an issue with the word "probably", to them it suggest uncertainty. However there is no contradiction the word probably can be used by someone that believes in nothing because there is no evidence that they should believe in something.


Maybe they have not found the evidence? Again, the problem of atheism is that it takes a leap of faith. An Agnostic says "I have no evidence, it is a possibility, and it might not be possible for me to ever know." 






s7eve said:


> What is wrong with humanism? While some may claim that fear is a useful tool to control people and that if people had no god they would have no reference point for morality and therefore may question why things like killing are bad, in practice this is not normally the case. Education is a far better tool, understanding the importance of humanist morality is just as useful if not a more useful tool for the promotion of good morals. It is superior to a false method of control because humanist morality is the result of a person deciding to do good based on the logical, preferable outcome not because they are scared of being punished.



Humanism is silly because it glorifies man. Humanity is not better than any other animal. What we see today is humanism at work. Society is crumbling. They need something much stronger then themselves to keep them in line. 
Can't you tell that education has failed? Look where we are at now.



Carrion said:


> Because you claim to be an agnostic, answer me this please: If you know that god is unknowable, how do you know?



You worded this in the hypothetical terms. In reality, you answered it yourself. I know god is unknowable because the standards fit for god are unknowable at our current state of humanity.


----------



## Carrion (Jan 15, 2009)

You are giving God the attribute of unknowability when this is a logical contradiction. It's like saying it's impossible to know about unicorns, but they have a horn. You can't state that something is unknowable, then give it attributes.

Also, what standards are you speaking of?

"There is no evidence either way. If atheists like to base their beliefs around reasoning, maybe they should remember that science always changes it's views and results."

Yes, however 1+1 has never equaled 3.

"An Agnostic says "I have no evidence, it is a possibility, and it might not be possible for me to ever know." "

Why is it possible?


----------



## Wisdom (Jan 15, 2009)

Carrion said:


> You are giving God the attribute of unknowability when this is a logical contradiction. It's like saying it's impossible to know about unicorns, but they have a horn. You can't state that something is unknowable, then give it attributes.


This is a fallacy. Unicorns based on the definition have horns. Even if it doesn't exist, it still has attributes because it is what it is. Superman is superman because of the attributes he has, not that he actually exists.


Carrion said:


> Yes, however 1+1 has never equaled 3.


Math is a fact because it is provable right here and now. You can test that 1+1 equals one. 


Carrion said:


> Why is it possible?



Things are possible or impossible. We haven't proven that it is impossible, therefor it is possible.


----------



## El Caco (Jan 15, 2009)

You don't get it, the idea that Atheists believe there is no god is a modern corruption, Atheists do not believe in god because there is no evidence to believe in god. To say that you do not believe in the fairy tales of men and to say that you believe that nothing exists are two different things.

Atheists are people who believe in reason and facts, they believe in things which can be proven and nothing else. To say that an Atheist believes that no god exists is a contradiction, of course some people would claim to be Atheist and believe this but this is what religious people would want to define Atheism as because then it paints Atheism as being as unreasonable as religion, it's not though, this is a modern corruption that attempts to invalidate Atheism.

A true Atheist will say they do not believe in god, they will not say there is no god, they will not say this as they can not back it up with evidence. Some may say that a specific god does not exist as they may believe that they can prove this.

This would be similar to me saying that I don't believe you, by saying this I am not denying that the things that you say may possibly be true but that I will not believe them without evidence.


----------



## Carrion (Jan 15, 2009)

I wasn't talking about existence. My example showed that by giving an unknowable thing attributes, it is no longer unknown. Yes, superman is superman and he has attributes, but to assert that one of his attributes is that he is unknowable is fallacious. 

"Things are possible or impossible. We haven't proven that it is impossible, therefor it is possible."

I disagree. The common definition of God contains attributes of omniscience and omnipotence. If God is omniscient, then does he have the power to change what he already knows? If not, then he is not omnipotent, and if so, he is not omniscient. Therefore, God has contradicting attributes. A square circle does not exist, an omniscient and omnipotent God does not exist.

^Like stated earlier, weak atheism = the position in which God is not believed to exist because there is no evidence to suggest it does. Strong atheism = the position in which God does not exist because it is a logical impossibility. I've outlined the argument for strong atheism in the above.


----------



## El Caco (Jan 15, 2009)

Carrion said:


> I wasn't talking about existence. My example showed that by giving an unknowable thing attributes, it is no longer unknown. Yes, superman is superman and he has attributes, but to assert that one of his attributes is that he is unknowable is fallacious.
> 
> "Things are possible or impossible. We haven't proven that it is impossible, therefor it is possible."
> 
> ...



You have ruled out one god which I mentioned in my post, but having evidence to deny one god does not rule out all gods and only a fool would assume that because there is evidence that one god is false all gods must be false.


----------



## Carrion (Jan 15, 2009)

What is the very definition of God and what are its attributes? The definition that the argument attempts to refute applies to a good deal of Gods.


----------



## TomAwesome (Jan 15, 2009)

I think some of you may be generalizing and confusing between strong atheism and weak atheism. A weak atheist doesn't believe in any gods in a way not too far off from most agnostics. They don't disbelieve, they just don't believe either. There is no belief involved on way or the other. A strong atheist believes that there are no gods. There's some belief there, but it's still generally a bit more logic based than most religions. I _think_ the general term atheist usually refers to the latter.



Wisdom said:


> They're both silly. It's even sadder for the atheists because they claim to be intelligent, yet sink to immature foolishness



I see it as more of a statement about the Christian ads than about the religion itself, and in that respect, I think it's effective.



Wisdom said:


> I don't see how religion promotes inequality like you speak of? Eventually atheism leads to inequality. I have found that liberals like to dodge this, but with atheism which leads to nihilism, all that is left is nature. Equality does not exist in nature.



Atheism doesn't necessarily lead to nihilism. Atheism just means that you don't believe in any kind of higher power. Nihilism means you don't believe in _anything_. That's a big difference, and I don't see how atheism would necessarily lead to nihilism.



Carrion said:


> Agnosticism is the position in which the knowledge of God is proposed to be impossible, therefor you can't say you know god exists or not. However, you can believe that God does or does not. As stated earlier, this is agnostic theism/atheism. I know there is no God because it is a logical impossibility. This is demonstrated by the omniscience vs omnipotence contradiction.
> 
> Because you claim to be an agnostic, answer me this please: If you know that god is unknowable, how do you know?



FWIW, I find that the definition of agnosticism to varies slightly from agnostic to agnostic. For example, I don't think it's impossible to know anything about a god, should one exist. I just think that, at least at this point, we really don't. I also think that it's arrogant and egotistical of people in general to think that they're so enlightened and know so much that they can presume whether or not there is a god of some kind.

Also, who says that if there is a god, that god has to be omniscient and omnipotent? Christians? The Christian God isn't the only possibility for a higher power, so arguing against a god that necessarily fits their description doesn't really mean anything to someone who ponders a possible higher power as "_a_ god" rather than "_the_ God."



Carrion said:


> Like stated earlier, weak atheism = the position in which God is not believed to exist because there is no evidence to suggest it does. Strong atheism = the position in which God does not exist because it is a logical impossibility. I've outlined the argument for strong atheism in the above.





s7eve said:


> You have ruled out one god which I mentioned in my post, but having evidence to deny one god does not rule out all gods and only a fool would assume that because there is evidence that one god is false all gods must be false.



Beat me to some of my points. I'm typing slow today!


----------



## Carrion (Jan 15, 2009)

I agreed that it rules out one particular type of God: "A square circle does not exist, an omniscient and omnipotent God does not exist."

To give God attributes is complete guess work.


----------



## MFB (Jan 15, 2009)

s7eve said:


> You don't get it, the idea that Atheists believe there is no god is a modern corruption, Atheists do not believe in god because there is no evidence to believe in god.
> 
> Atheists are people who believe in reason and facts, they believe in things which can be proven and nothing else. A true Atheist will say they do not believe in god, they will not say there is no god, they will not say this as they can not back it up with evidence.



This sums up why I became an atheist. As a kid I was supposed to go to Church and believe in God, but once I started questioning and eventually found out the term for someone who doesn't believe in God; I considered myself converted.


----------



## CC323 (Jan 15, 2009)

daemon barbeque said:


> No! An Atheist says clearly that the idea GOD ,how it presented and the belief systems around it are all wrong and impossible.
> 
> .



So what's the difference between SAYING and BELIEVING? It's NOT knowledge. It's a BELIEF IN ABSENCE OF A SOMETHING! Not a lack of belief. 

For the third time, wrong again...


----------



## Wisdom (Jan 15, 2009)

s7eve said:


> You don't get it, the idea that Atheists believe there is no god is a modern corruption, Atheists do not believe in god because there is no evidence to believe in god. To say that you do not believe in the fairy tales of men and to say that you believe that nothing exists are two different things.
> 
> Atheists are people who believe in reason and facts, they believe in things which can be proven and nothing else. To say that an Atheist believes that no god exists is a contradiction, of course some people would claim to be Atheist and believe this but this is what religious people would want to define Atheism as because then it paints Atheism as being as unreasonable as religion, it's not though, this is a modern corruption that attempts to invalidate Atheism.
> 
> ...



Of course they cannot say with certainty that there is no god, because they have no clue. An Atheist is someone who believes that there is no god, much like a theist believes that there is a god. Also, your idea of an atheist and reason are absurd. Reason has nothing to do with no believing in a god. Atheism simply means that you do not believe that a god exists. 
I am tired of people trying to turn atheism into some religion based on science. Nothing is certain.


Carrion said:


> I wasn't talking about existence. My example showed that by giving an unknowable thing attributes, it is no longer unknown. Yes, superman is superman and he has attributes, but to assert that one of his attributes is that he is unknowable is fallacious.


 We are assuming tributes because we cannot test to see if these attributes are correct. 



Carrion said:


> I disagree. The common definition of God contains attributes of omniscience and omnipotence. If God is omniscient, then does he have the power to change what he already knows? If not, then he is not omnipotent, and if so, he is not omniscient. Therefore, God has contradicting attributes. A square circle does not exist, an omniscient and omnipotent God does not exist.


It also states that this logic is beyond human understanding. An unknown science maybe. You can't throw something out because a theory has yet to be built for it. 


Carrion said:


> ^Like stated earlier, weak atheism = the position in which God is not believed to exist because there is no evidence to suggest it does. Strong atheism = the position in which God does not exist because it is a logical impossibility. I've outlined the argument for strong atheism in the above.


A strong atheist says 'I know there is no god&quot;, like Dawkins. This is just as ignorant as saying &quot;I know there is a god&quot;. A weak atheist states that there is no evidence suggesting that there is a god, so there probably isn't. an Agnostic says it is unknown, and he will not bother to try to prove something that doesn't seems outside of our ability. 


TomAwesome said:


> I see it as more of a statement about the Christian ads than about the religion itself, and in that respect, I think it's effective.


 It's sill immature and childish. They have sunken to the theist level, showing that they both are hypocrites. 




TomAwesome said:


> Atheism doesn't necessarily lead to nihilism. Atheism just means that you don't believe in any kind of higher power. Nihilism means you don't believe in _anything_. That's a big difference, and I don't see how atheism would necessarily lead to nihilism.


Atheism leads to nihilism because without a god, there is no set meaning of anything. Nihilism is the philosophy that there is no inherent value, purpose or morality. It's really the logical conclusion to atheism, but since most atheists are liberals, they want to reject this notion.


----------



## El Caco (Jan 15, 2009)

Read my signature because you are coming across as an idiot, you have constantly changed your definition and then you do it in the space of one post in your last post.

First off you obviously don't understand what I have written, everyone here understands that I do not think Atheism is a religion and that I am arguing against it yet you have accused me of being one of these people who try to turn Atheism into a religion based on science.

You are the one who compares an Atheist to a religious person, I have argued that Atheist can not be religious as they do not believe in god. You keep using the terms do not believe in god and believe that god doesn't exist interchangeably as you please. These are not the same terms. You are one of these people who speak about things they do not understand and then try to corrupt them to their own means. It is obvious you are not an Atheist and yet you try to speak on their behalf and define them, your definition is wrong just as the definitions of many Christians before you who have defined Atheism.

Of course religious people would want to define Atheists this way because then Atheists look absurd, because by that definition Atheists are not reasonable people, but this is just another aberration created by religion, it is a lie to deny reason. The truth is Atheists are people of reason, they accept facts, they are not people who base belief on faith in the unknown. Of course there are exceptions to the rule but these do not define the whole.

Your other arguments are just as ridiculous, you have made sensational statements with no supporting argument and you have spoken about things that you obviously do not understand. You have presented assumptions as fact without any supporting evidence, how is a reasonable person supposed to respond to you without calling you out and stating that they think you are full of shit why don't you back up the things you are saying.

I suggest you stay out of serious debate until you learn to read what people say, are able to understand what they have said and able to respond in a mature way without the sensational and absurd statements and with supporting argument. 

If you like this place, I suggest you go back and review the posts you have made in various threads and stop making posts like these. Look at the rep you have received, you are almost all red, read the one that says "you have made an artform out of being stupid". You will not be around much longer if you continue with the flame bait and trolling.


----------



## Naren (Jan 16, 2009)

s7eve said:


> Read my signature because you are coming across as an idiot, you have constantly changed your definition and then you do it in the space of one post in your last post.
> 
> First off you obviously don't understand what I have written, everyone here understands that I do not think Atheism is a religion and that I am arguing against it yet you have accused me of being one of these people who try to turn Atheism into a religion based on science.
> 
> ...



 +1 I couldn't have put it any better.


----------



## Daemoniac (Jan 16, 2009)

Naren said:


> +1 I couldn't have put it any better.



+2

I've just stayed right out of this one ...


----------



## Wisdom (Jan 16, 2009)

s7eve said:


> Read my signature because you are coming across as an idiot, you have constantly changed your definition and then you do it in the space of one post in your last post.
> 
> First off you obviously don't understand what I have written, everyone here understands that I do not think Atheism is a religion and that I am arguing against it yet you have accused me of being one of these people who try to turn Atheism into a religion based on science.


 I said "I am tired of people trying to turn atheism into some religion based on science." I was not implying that that was you, rather that everyone believes that an atheist always make a scientific decision that there is no god. Show me where I have changed my definition repeatedly. Look it up, my definations are correct. 


s7eve said:


> You are the one who compares an Atheist to a religious person, I have argued that Atheist can not be religious as they do not believe in god. You keep using the terms do not believe in god and believe that god doesn't exist interchangeably as you please. These are not the same terms. You are one of these people who speak about things they do not understand and then try to corrupt them to their own means. It is obvious you are not an Atheist and yet you try to speak on their behalf and define them, your definition is wrong just as the definitions of many Christians before you who have defined Atheism.


 Again, you failed to comprehend what I have said. Obviously Atheism is different from religion in the faith aspect. I was saying in terms of blind ignorance and dogma. "I know there is a god" "I know there is not a god". 


s7eve said:


> Of course religious people would want to define Atheists this way because then Atheists look absurd, because by that definition Atheists are not reasonable people, but this is just another aberration created by religion, it is a lie to deny reason. The truth is Atheists are people of reason, they accept facts, they are not people who base belief on faith in the unknown. Of course there are exceptions to the rule but these do not define the whole.


A strong atheist has the same level of faith as a highly devoted theist. 


s7eve said:


> Your other arguments are just as ridiculous, you have made sensational statements with no supporting argument and you have spoken about things that you obviously do not understand. You have presented assumptions as fact without any supporting evidence, how is a reasonable person supposed to respond to you without calling you out and stating that they think you are full of shit why don't you back up the things you are saying.


You apparently cannot comprehend what I am trying to tell you. My other arguments are ridiculous because they go aainst this little notion in your head that Atheism is the way to go because you try to link it to science somehow? 


s7eve said:


> I suggest you stay out of serious debate until you learn to read what people say, are able to understand what they have said and able to respond in a mature way without the sensational and absurd statements and with supporting argument.
> 
> If you like this place, I suggest you go back and review the posts you have made in various threads and stop making posts like these. Look at the rep you have received, you are almost all red, read the one that says &quot;you have made an artform out of being stupid&quot;. You will not be around much longer if you continue with the flame bait and trolling.



I'm sorry, I thought this was mostly common knowledge. I used logic. You just don't have an argument. Just as an example: 



s7eve said:


> Atheists are people who believe in reason and facts, they believe in things which can be proven and nothing else.


This is not the definition of an atheist. An *A*theist does not believe in a god. A Theist does. There were Atheists long before science and "reason". THe two have nothing to do with one another, except reason in the future might be a driving force for atheism. You're little flareups impress your buddies on here, but anyone serious enough is going to think you look like an idiot. Before even responding to this post and wasting another 5 minutes of mine, please spend 7 days actively on some sort of philosophical website/forum.


----------



## arktan (Jan 16, 2009)

*Atheism*, as an explicit position, can be *either* the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2] 

Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Dear Wisdom, please change your username.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-britannica-1


----------



## Daemoniac (Jan 16, 2009)

Wisdom said:


> I said "I am tired of people trying to turn atheism into some religion based on science." I was not implying that that was you, rather that everyone believes that an atheist always make a scientific decision that there is no god. Show me where I have changed my definition repeatedly. Look it up, my definations are correct.
> Again, you failed to comprehend what I have said. Obviously Atheism is different from religion in the faith aspect. I was saying in terms of blind ignorance and dogma. "I know there is a god" "I know there is not a god".
> A strong atheist has the same level of faith as a highly devoted theist.
> You apparently cannot comprehend what I am trying to tell you. My other arguments are ridiculous because they go aainst this little notion in your head that Atheism is the way to go because you try to link it to science somehow?
> ...



I just cant put my thoughts into words right now, all i have is this voice in my head wanting to beat you with a fucking crowbar...

You've thus far contributed precisely _fuck all_ to this forum. Get your head out of your ass, or go back to your precious philosophy forum.

Philosophy and intellect are not created on the internet, they are the workings of minds putting _their_ (and _only_ their) beliefs into words, and giving them form. Any place touting that its a 'philosophy forum' is just another conglomeration of BB.org douchebags trying to think they're special.


----------



## Wisdom (Jan 16, 2009)

arktan said:


> *Atheism*, as an explicit position, can be *either* the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2]
> 
> Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...



And does this say that the decision has to do with logic and reason? 

And why are you guys so whiny? It's like if someone argues with you they must be banned. It's like "conform to our ideas or leave". Kiddies need to grow up, think for yourselves.


----------



## Daemoniac (Jan 16, 2009)

Yeah man, all those murderers should stop living by rules too, "dont let the man get you down, think for yourself.."

This is a community. There are rules. Get over it.


----------



## Wisdom (Jan 16, 2009)

Demoniac said:


> Yeah man, all those murderers should stop living by rules too, &quot;dont let the man get you down, think for yourself..&quot;
> 
> This is a community. There are rules. Get over it.



Ideas and arguments are not murders. I know your a communist so you must be against free speech, but please, this is a forum on the internet.


----------



## Daemoniac (Jan 16, 2009)

Alright. Lets go.



Wisdom said:


> I said "I am tired of people trying to turn atheism into some religion based on science." I was not implying that that was you, rather that everyone believes that an atheist always make a scientific decision that there is no god.



Generally they do. Most atheists will deny the existance of any deity based on what they see to be hypocrisy, or sheer stupidity, because for one reason or another, God cannot be proven _scientifically_.

Whilst it is not 'the definition' of Atheism, i think that you will find that a great majority of them deny religion because _of_ science. 




> Look it up, my definations are correct.



No theyre not. Its been said already why not.



> Again, you failed to comprehend what I have said. Obviously Atheism is different from religion in the faith aspect. I was saying in terms of blind ignorance and dogma. "I know there is a god" "I know there is not a god".



Atheism does not promote black and white judgement of religion, and it is not just 'i know there is a god' and 'i know there is not a god'. There is "i _believe in_ a god' and "i dont _believe_ in a god'. Whether there is or not doesnt even matter.



> A strong atheist has the same level of faith as a highly devoted theist.



No. Faith and belief are very different also.

Faith is used with a religious or hopeful context, and its actual meaning is far from an atheists point of view. He does not have 'faith', he 'believes'.
*faith*

&#8194; 

 &#8194;/fe&#618;&#952;/ Show Spelled Pronunciation 

 [feyth] Show IPA Pronunciation 

 
noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. 5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith. 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles. 8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
Belief on the other hand, has no such connotations. It is a word that is not just associated with religion.

*be&#8901;lief*

&#8194; 

 &#8194;/b&#618;&#712;lif/ Show Spelled Pronunciation 

 [bi-leef] Show IPA Pronunciation 

 
noun 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat. 2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief. 3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents. 4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief. 



> You apparently cannot comprehend what I am trying to tell you. My other arguments are ridiculous because they go aainst this little notion in your head that Atheism is the way to go because you try to link it to science somehow?



We cannot comprehend your other arguments because you are a condescending jerkwad with no consistency and a fucking god complex.




> I'm sorry, I thought this was mostly common knowledge. I used logic. You just don't have an argument. Just as an example:
> 
> This is not the definition of an atheist. An *A*theist does not believe in a god. A Theist does. There were Atheists long before science and "reason". THe two have nothing to do with one another, except reason in the future might be a driving force for atheism. You're little flareups impress your buddies on here, but anyone serious enough is going to think you look like an idiot. Before even responding to this post and wasting another 5 minutes of mine, please spend 7 days actively on some sort of philosophical website/forum.



There werent atheists before logic and reason. Reason in the paleolithic era: hunt, kill, feed, stay alive. Basic human survival instinct is 'reason' at its most basic level. Atheism _is_ directly linked with 'reason' because humans like to _know_ things are there, to see and touch them because it makes it easier to believe in if you know it. 


Nice of you to try though.


----------



## El Caco (Jan 16, 2009)

This is now ridiculous


----------

