100xAwesome

Yes, if by awesome you mean childish and petty.

>> ^Xax:
Yes, if by awesome you mean childish and petty.


Why is this childish and petty pray tell? It says 'probably', it gives a positive message, it doesn't promise an afterlife in eternal hell like the others. It doesn't espouse it's views to be THE right views... it just presents a thought and says be happy.

That's it. If religious people get annoyed by this then why can't us atheists get really annoyed at ALL the religious signs and bumper stickers and the like that say the 'lord is our saviour' or the like? Hmmm? Why can religion have those but us not have some light hearted ads like this? They're non combative, non aggressive, non threatening (unless you're super insecure in your faith)... so really, what is your problem?

Did Dawkins start to use the argument "survival of the stiffest" in his speeches? With such a bold (slightly underaged?) move on the image of atheism, we should wonder.

Atheists depend on religion for their identity. Public worship of NoGOD is even lamer than the regular grade.

OMG if they keep this up Azlan is never letting them back to Narnia!

thers going to be catle everywhere with all these people taking a fence

>> ^westy:
thers going to be catle everywhere with all these people taking a fence


A FENCE????

Jeeeeeeeeezuz...even by his own high standards Westy outdoes himself in the creative spelling department

>> ^Xax:
Yes, if by awesome you mean childish and petty.


You mean childish like the literal belief of the fairy tales in the bible and petty like the belief that your religion is the only one true religion and everybody else is wrong and will burn in hell?

oh come on give westy some credit, id say it was fairly creative! but then my dad is a pun freak and i have to suffer through that with him quite often so i may be more receptive than most.

Jesus said, ""Do not do unto others what you would not want them do unto you."

He must not have had religious or non-religious propaganda in mind when he said that... Or maybe it just applies as long as you agree with what others are doing onto you. Even though others don't agree with what you are doing onto them.

Yet another point that reinforces my belief that most religious people are hypocrites and don't follow their own rules for life and living set forth by their own "God".

>> ^quantumushroom:
Atheists depend on religion for their identity. Public worship of NoGOD is even lamer than the regular grade.


Bwaaaahahahaha!

"Atheist identity"

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

I don't get it? Isn't the UK now almost completely atheist - and has been for some time? What the fuck? I mean, the Anglican Church has been a joke for a long time.

I may be wrong but isn't this campaign like calling for more bible studies in the bible belt?

>> ^bluecliff:
I don't get it? Isn't the UK now almost completely atheist - and has been for some time? What the fuck? I mean, the Anglican Church has been a joke for a long time.
I may be wrong but isn't this campaign like calling for more bible studies in the bible belt?


The non-religious make up not quite 46% (23% as of 2001, that's a big jump in just 5 years) of the UK's population. A lot more in some other countries in Europe. In the US non-religious are around 15%.

I was actually surprised with Dawkins and Toynbee talking about how the faithful react to denial of their beliefs. The UK seems as if it's a more secular society than the US, and I think I associated that with more tolerance from their religious people.

So there was a religous ad campaign before this, and now the atheists have their ad campaign, and what exactly is the problem with that?

Everyone seems too upset to comment that the campaign creator is cute

^ I'm not.

Her body has re-affirmed my understanding of how evolution works. It must have taken eons to perfect that ass.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7818980.stm :-

An atheist campaign claiming "There's probably no God" has been reported to the advertising regulator.

Posters with the slogan appear on 800 buses in England, Scotland and Wales, as well as on the London Underground.

But organisation Christian Voice has complained to the Advertising Standards Authority saying they break rules on substantiation and truthfulness.

The British Humanist Association, which backed the campaign, said it was not taking the complaint seriously.


There is plenty of evidence for God, from people's personal experience, to the complexity, interdependence, beauty and design of the natural world
Stephen Green
Christian Voice

The ASA's code states "marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove all claims". The regulator said it would assess the complaint and decide whether to contact the advertiser.

Religion is hate, for more info visit slayer.net

"There is plenty of evidence for God, from people's personal experience, to the complexity, interdependence, beauty and design of the natural world"
Um... none of that is evidence. Man they are full of crap. Sure you can believe there is a god, but don't try to suggest there is any evidence of one.

People's personal experience? Sorry... just because someone feels that because they asked for Aunt Mary to get better and she did is some proof of the existence of god, don't make that evidence.

The natural world? Sorry again, science shows how it all works. The complexity comes from the billions of years of evolution of it, as does the interdependence (things are interdependent because they developed in a world where the other things existed... nothing magical or god like there)...

And beauty and design? Man I hate that defeatist attitude... a shell
Both parties: 'Wow, that sure is amazingly beautiful, the intricate spiral design of the shell is stunning'...
Party One: 'Must be the work of a divine being... no other explanation for that, it's just too pretty'
Party Two: 'Really? You don't think that it's even more amazing to think that nature, and living things created this design, and that by its very nature it's quite simple as it is, at its core, a radially repeating simple shape?'
Party One: 'Nope, it was god... I do not wish to think about it any deeper'
Party Two: 'But, come on, the more you look into these things, the more amazed and thrilled you can be by the beauty of nature and how it works'
Party One: 'I don't care, it's god that did that... let me get back to my simple life where I don't have to think too deeply'.

Just ARRRGH... if these people spent any time reading and learning about what science has discovered about this planet they could have, rather than having a stupidly superficial and trite understanding of things, be amazed and humbled by the way that nature works WITHOUT some bloody divine being who just 'made it all'.

Grrrr.

I would have liked it in much stronger tones, but it's better than nothing.

Atheists are negatively defined, as in their identity is by not being theists. Like A is not B, C, D etc.

I'm saddened that we atheists have to tip-toe around the fact that religion is a fairy-tale and be careful not to insult religious people too much, when religious people immediately condemn us to hell for all eternity. They can go fuck themselves.

hurrah!

whoa, i was gonna leave it at hurra! before i saw the other comments. Im not in the right frame of mind to argue rationally with irrational people (thankfully spoco2 is here)

but let me say that i believe very strongly that there are no coincidences (in the mystical sense of the word), only the appearance of them. (and while im borrowing the phrase from V, i thought of it long before i heard it there)

luck is a good example of things that appear to be coincidence. if i flip a quarter 400 times and i get heads every time (and im honestly flipping with no trickery) I would call that lucky, and in that sense, the sense that you beat the odds, people do get lucky, quite frequently too.

now to say that i have a lucky quarter, that is another story. sorry to disillusion anyone but, there is no god, there is no luck, and when you die you'll rot in the ground like the rest of us.

but

since there is no all controlling anything in the universe, think of the tremendous amount of power that provides you with.
YOU are in charge of your own life, even in the most dire situations, uit's always our choice who we are and what we do. So stop spending ur time in church trying to prove something mystical exists. the world is fantastic enough without it. (planet earth dvds for example) :-D

“Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?” - Douglas Adams

>> ^gwiz665:
I would have liked it in much stronger tones, but it's better than nothing.
Atheists are negatively defined, as in their identity is by not being theists. Like A is not B, C, D etc.
I'm saddened that we atheists have to tip-toe around the fact that religion is a fairy-tale and be careful not to insult religious people too much, when religious people immediately condemn us to hell for all eternity. They can go fuck themselves.


Have you considered joining the ranks of the Militant Atheist? Are you up for the challenge of telling off every overtly religious person you come across? It might make family gatherings a little awkward at first but soon you'll stop receiving invites, and you'll be much happier.

>> ^gwiz665:
atheists have to tip-toe around the fact that religion is a fairy-tale


It seems fair to say everyone agrees that most religions are fairy tales, but people disagree when it comes to the religion in which they were raised or to which they converted.

JiggaJonson, the power you speak of seems oh so ilimited, but for some not even the right to death is free of society's sick moral issues (mainly caused by obtuse religious bull'). For most of us, there's always a moral and ethical value obliterating the quality (and in a sense, the value) of our own life.

Be it overworking to pay college to our children, be it castrating our urges to not cheat on our (faithful?) partner, be it paying for something instead of stealing (although it's a ordinary thought to consider ourselves as robbed by the government), be it whatever impulse or pondered craving we come across, we're always members of a moral network, never are we free solitary individuals. And morality comes in many forms, many concepts, since it's simply the thing around which our choices concerning society revolve.

To be truly "in charge of our own life" as you said seems to imply amorality. Now you certainly are not amoral, and you'll understand how I know this if you're familiar with a notion as amorality.

To exist, morality has to be justified by an entity that transcends the immediate and belongs to the untimely. The concept of god and its inevitable judgement fit perfectly, to those who accept such concept. For the rest of us, there's the Law (in its turn, based on God's existence), and what it dictates happens to be out of our personal control.

Those who don't have faith in an entity that can't be rationalized are left with one question: "can anyone refuse the overwhelming power of Morality and still be rational?"

But those who do have faith in an entity are left with a more disturbing question: "after erasing all your doubts and concerns with the acceptance of a power that can't be proven nor rationalized, are you still rational and do you still seek Reason as the human that you are (and whose definition lies on Reason itself)?"

Ya there's no God. The angry/naive/atheist/liberal Videosift intelligentsia came about by itself.

>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
Ya there's no God. The angry/naive/atheist/liberal Videosift intelligentsia came about by itself.


Wah? I mean... WAH? I don't even know what you're talking about.

Firstly, this says there PROBABLY is no god, we can't say for certain, but there's a distinct lack of evidence for one.

And if we don't believe in a god, then how is a comment like 'X just appeared by itself' does diddly... we don't believe it just appeared, that's the creationists viewpoint 'God just made things, they just 'appeared''. We think that things slowly occurred and you can trace everything back to very simple origins if you look hard enough.

Man what a stupid comment.

>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
Ya there's no God. The angry/naive/atheist/liberal Videosift intelligentsia came about by itself.


Rottenseed and I were created by a magic unicorn, but I believe the rest of the sifters evolved from apes.

>> ^spoco2:
>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
Ya there's no God. The angry/naive/atheist/liberal Videosift intelligentsia came about by itself.

Wah? I mean... WAH? I don't even know what you're talking about.
Firstly, this says there PROBABLY is no god, we can't say for certain, but there's a distinct lack of evidence for one.
And if we don't believe in a god, then how is a comment like 'X just appeared by itself' does diddly... we don't believe it just appeared, that's the creationists viewpoint 'God just made things, they just 'appeared''. We think that things slowly occurred and you can trace everything back to very simple origins if you look hard enough.
Man what a stupid comment.


You read my mind.

>> ^spoco2:
>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
Ya there's no God. The angry/naive/atheist/liberal Videosift intelligentsia came about by itself.

Wah? I mean... WAH? I don't even know what you're talking about.
Firstly, this says there PROBABLY is no god, we can't say for certain, but there's a distinct lack of evidence for one.
And if we don't believe in a god, then how is a comment like 'X just appeared by itself' does diddly... we don't believe it just appeared, that's the creationists viewpoint 'God just made things, they just 'appeared''. We think that things slowly occurred and you can trace everything back to very simple origins if you look hard enough.
Man what a stupid comment.


Can't say for sure - that would be agnostic.

Atheist = there is no god (a = no, theist = belief in deity). Atheism is a positive assertion of the non-existence of god. Some people think it is the simple denial of theism - without qualifying how one denies it. If you reject belief in god then you must believe some alternative - either that there is no god, or that the existence of god cannot be known (agnostic). Take your pick.

As for those who have never been acquainted with theism, then they are neither theists or atheists. They neither believe in god, nor do they not believe in god (yes, George H. Smith got this wrong). If you were to ask them "do you believe in god?" they could neither affirm nor deny - they have as much belief as they have non-belief (i.e. zero), but, after asking the question they soon have the notion of theism/atheism in their head since you then need to define theism/atheism for them to be able to understand the question.

In other words, if you were to call them atheist (as George H. Smith and others do), you can equally call them aatheist (a-atheist) since they have no concept of the non-existence of god either. Oh scary - all children are born "aatheist" since they have no concept of the non-existence of theism or god.

At the end of the day this ad is a waste of time because shameless self promotion of atheism is doing what atheists don't like - advertising ones views with only the thought of changing others views and not just leaving them alone. The minority bites back. When atheists are a majority the tolerance for religion will ebb and they will persecute religious people for any pain that religion may have caused them. Such is the way of man. It is starting right now. Listen to Dawkins talking about religious people as if they are all the same - I can't believe they knighted a guy who stereotypes religious people into one group of behaviour. (sarcasm) Oh yes those religious people - all the same - no brains any of them - all of them believe in a literal bible - all of them are Christians (because that is the only religion right?) - none of them are scientists - all of religion is useless shit (sarcasm).

(I also can't believe he said that if something were to create a flat fish it would be with two eyes on top of its head by design and that if it happened by chance it would evolve two eyes on top of its head by distorting one eye around - wtf? if he were to create fish wouldn't he create a dynamic system (evolution)? of course he would - so why would whoever he is referring to in this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bldN-lbyqsE video create it statically? - you wouldn't of course - you'd create a dynamic world - but he wants to shovel shit on religion - and no I don't believe in biblical creation and yes I do believe in provable evolution - only the aspects we can prove - if we can't prove it is just hypothesis thank you very much).

PS. I have not said whether I am atheist or theist so do not assume either way.

>> ^BisH0p69:
>> ^westy:

A FENCE????
Jeeeeeeeeezuz...even by his own high standards Westy outdoes himself in the creative spelling department

>> ^RadHazG:
oh come on give westy some credit, id say it was fairly creative! but then my dad is a pun freak and i have to suffer through that with him quite often so i may be more receptive than most.


Wait, so you really never heard of dyslexia? Morons.

"PS. I have not said whether I am atheist or theist so do not assume either way."


As if any sentient being capable of reading your dross can't tell, Mr. Mysterio. What makes you think anybody gives a flying fuck what you are? Choggie's basement monkey slaves could bang out more comprehensible blather on 60 year-old Underwoods for bananas. BANANAS. THAT'S evolution.

Have a banana.

And God said, let there be fight.

Westy is still one of my favorite things about VS.

The last quote is so true: being offended is the only recourse they have.

I agree with Xax. It seems childish and petty to me as well. Two wrongs don't make a right here. The people in the video complain that they don't think it's appropriate to put up religious propaganda signs, then turn around and do just that.. These people just want to cause controversy and piss people off. The woman even said that it was the WEBSITE that said the offensive stuff, not the sign.

Their smug argument that it isn't offensive because it says "probably" is absurd too... You can't hang a sign that says "Women might belong in the kitchen, making their husbands dinners" then make a case for it by saying "Hey, it says "might!" not should!"

Oh, and by the way, I'm not saying that I think it's appropriate for either side to be throwing their turds in each others faces. If one side throws a turd, I don't think that justifies a turd return. If side B is really irritated by being on the receiving end of the turd throwing, they should take seek the counsel of the turd throwing commission to see if they can get an end to the tossing.

The soviet union was atheist for almost a century. You couldn't ask for a better experiment in how ridding a society of religion drastically improves it.

Whatever happened to those guys, anyway?

"Listen to Dawkins talking about religious people as if they are all the same - I can't believe they knighted a guy who stereotypes religious people into one group of behaviour."

Harlequinn, it seems fair to group supernaturalists all into the same category in the senses of e.g. (1) they all reject empiricism and rationalism, and (2) their brains look the same in brain scans, whether the content of their mystical experiences is in a Hindu, Muslim, hallucinogenic drug, or whatever context (see neurotheology).

That's of course not the only way to group supernaturalists, but it's a useful way when the topic of discussion is e.g. rationalism and the brain.

>> ^quantumushroom:
The soviet union was atheist for almost a century. You couldn't ask for a better experiment in how ridding a society of religion drastically improves it.
Whatever happened to those guys, anyway?


Or you could also look at Scandinavia's sky-high atheism rate...

>> ^quantumushroom:
The soviet union was atheist for almost a century. You couldn't ask for a better experiment in how ridding a society of religion drastically improves it.
Whatever happened to those guys, anyway?


The soviet union was not atheist. All religion was abolished because only one man must be worshiped, Lenin and Stalin and the rest of the communist party.

Fucking idiot.

If a banner like that was used on buses in the USA (besides all the political nukes that would explode), would be only to increase fuel-eating cars (read: gas-guzzling SUVs), and lessen bus fare. Cus there are less atheists then Christians that use public transportation.

Maybe those atheists are in league with the gas companies....

England has fallen even lower than I thought possible.

What a pathetic country. I denounce my English heritage.

^Oh no, what will we do without you?

I know a lot of people might not read down this far, but I am in full support of the ad campaign. I believe it is very important to to start being more public about the option to not believe. There are a lot of people in this country and others who are completely surrounded by groupthinking drones, and if we want to pull out of this dark age resurgence of faith pushers, we need to let people who feel trapped know that there are alternatives. There are a lot of us who lead good lives without believing in myths and giving significant portions of our incomes to people who just feed the mythology back to you.

>> ^harlequinn:
Atheist = there is no god (a = no, theist = belief in deity). Atheism is a positive assertion of the non-existence of god. Some people think it is the simple denial of theism - without qualifying how one denies it. If you reject belief in god then you must believe some alternative - either that there is no god, or that the existence of god cannot be known (agnostic). Take your pick.


It's pretty clear you are a religious person by your ability to contradict yourself and make false conclusions.

"a = no, theist = belief in deity" Correct. No belief in a deity.

That is NOT the same as "belief in no deity".

Atheist is a term which covers many types of non-religious people. Yes, there are people who believe there is no god, but they are a tiny minority, because most of us understand there is simply no proof either way. You can call that agnostic, but that's not entirely accurate. But because of the fear of being labeled as an atheist, the term agnostic is being used more frequently.

Babies are born atheist. They have no knowledge of a deity, and therefor no belief in a deity. See above, no belief in a deity. There is no such word as "aatheist" because it is a double negative, to "not not believe in a deity" would mean that you believe in a deity.

PS. I'm an atheist. What are you afraid of?

>> ^quantumushroom:
The soviet union was atheist for almost a century. You couldn't ask for a better experiment in how ridding a society of religion drastically improves it.
Whatever happened to those guys, anyway?


To give some feedback on your comment,

The effect of reading this was like walking through a doorway and being hit in the face by a tuna.

>> ^residue:
I agree with Xax. It seems childish and petty to me as well. Two wrongs don't make a right here. The people in the video complain that they don't think it's appropriate to put up religious propaganda signs, then turn around and do just that.. "


The atheist banner was not religious propoganda - it was a simple, scientifically verifiable fact.

You moron.

Evangelical christians and islamic fundamentalists have more in common with eachother than I, a non-theist, have in common with either of those groups.

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^harlequinn:
Atheist = there is no god (a = no, theist = belief in deity). Atheism is a positive assertion of the non-existence of god. Some people think it is the simple denial of theism - without qualifying how one denies it. If you reject belief in god then you must believe some alternative - either that there is no god, or that the existence of god cannot be known (agnostic). Take your pick.

It's pretty clear you are a religious person by your ability to contradict yourself and make false conclusions.
"a = no, theist = belief in deity" Correct. No belief in a deity.
That is NOT the same as "belief in no deity".
Atheist is a term which covers many types of non-religious people. Yes, there are people who believe there is no god, but they are a tiny minority, because most of us understand there is simply no proof either way. You can call that agnostic, but that's not entirely accurate. But because of the fear of being labeled as an atheist, the term agnostic is being used more frequently.
Babies are born atheist. They have no knowledge of a deity, and therefor no belief in a deity. See above, no belief in a deity. There is no such word as "aatheist" because it is a double negative, to "not not believe in a deity" would mean that you believe in a deity.
PS. I'm an atheist. What are you afraid of?


It is pretty clear I'm not anything. Your making an assumption based on a small amount of reasoning presented by me. I warned people against making assumptions - but there had to be one person dumb enough to do it. It is like me saying your obviously Republican (with no grounds to say it).

I disagree with you - I made my position quite clear and gave an explanation why. You make a statement "this is NOT the same..." and give nothing to qualify it. I will state that it is the same - and for the reasons I gave - saying "I just don't believe - it's not that I'm saying he doesn't exist" makes no sense. If you don't believe in a god then you must believe that he either doesn't exist or that you can't know if he exists. There is no sitting on the fence.

Let me say it another way - if you were to say "I don't believe in god" you would be required to also say "I also don't not believe in god - since I can't determine if he exists to not believe in" does that make it clearer for you?

Babies are not born atheist. I gave my reason why. I'm sorry to see you didn't understand it. Aatheist is a word - I just made it up - and you repeated it - meaning that at least two people have used it. It is not a double negative - aatheism = no atheism = no non-belief in a deity - you neither believe in nor not believe in him since you do not know the concept yet to believe or not believe in.

Just to be sure - yes "no belief in a deity" is not the same semantically as "belief in no deity". As I've explained though one cannot deny belief without asserting what one therefore does or doesn't believe in (there is no dead end where you simply have no-belief and don't take it further - unless you are able to freeze your train of thought where no one else can).

Your an atheist - good for you - I actually don't care. Why do you ask what I'm afraid of? Did I imply I have fear of something? I'll throw a dog a bone and answer your question (I'm not obliged to answer - especially when it was a question designed as an implication that I'm afraid of something).

I'm not afraid of anything.

This does not preclude me not wanting certain things to happen - and I will manipulate people and events to make sure that those things do not come to fruition. Just as most people do -e.g. most people are not afraid of water but will use an umbrella to avoid getting wet - they do not want water on themselves regardless of a lack of fear.

Right back at you - what are you afraid of?

- babies are not born as theists. they lack the abilities to be recognizable as having belief let alone in a concept of 'god'

- this "no belief" versus "belief in nothing" is stupid.
You don't speak German or you speak but not German. Does it really matter which?

- You have to similarly believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or at least belief there is no proof he does not exist. There is no way to believe in a deity with lack of any observable evidence, and then say you know your deity is more valid or even different from a flying ball of spaghetti.

I'm not afraid of anything.

This does not preclude me not wanting certain things to happen - and I will manipulate people and events to make sure that those things do not come to fruition. Just as most people do -e.g. most people are not afraid of water but will use an umbrella to avoid getting wet - they do not want water on themselves regardless of a lack of fear.

>> ^joedirt:
- babies are not born as theists. they lack the abilities to be recognizable as having belief let alone in a concept of 'god'
- this "no belief" versus "belief in nothing" is stupid.
You don't speak German or you speak but not German. Does it really matter which?
- You have to similarly believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or at least belief there is no proof he does not exist. There is no way to believe in a deity with lack of any observable evidence, and then say you know your deity is more valid or even different from a flying ball of spaghetti.

I'm not afraid of anything.
This does not preclude me not wanting certain things to happen - and I will manipulate people and events to make sure that those things do not come to fruition. Just as most people do -e.g. most people are not afraid of water but will use an umbrella to avoid getting wet - they do not want water on themselves regardless of a lack of fear.

And here we are again, reduced to quibbling over semantics in bloated posts than no one with any common sense is going to read. The Videosift Intelligentsia, keepin it ril yall. Work for your CTS, now!

>> ^Raaagh:
>> ^residue:
I agree with Xax. It seems childish and petty to me as well. Two wrongs don't make a right here. The people in the video complain that they don't think it's appropriate to put up religious propaganda signs, then turn around and do just that.. "

The atheist banner was not religious propoganda - it was a simple, scientifically verifiable fact.
You moron.


If by fact, you mean opinion, then yes.

Also, a banner that reads "there is no God" is a banner about religion, even if it's designed by a non-religious group.

Maybe you need help with word definitions.

PropAganda: information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause, or, information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

Think things through next time, you can do it!

>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
And here we are again, reduced to quibbling over semantics in bloated posts than no one with any common sense is going to read. The Videosift Intelligentsia, keepin it ril yall. Work for your CTS, now!


True. Very astute. You have added to it rather than ignore it though.

That's quite the can of worms they've opened if they do have any success with their verifiability claim. I'm pretty sure it's doable to show God is statistically improbable ("probably" doesn't exist), but good luck proving "Jesus died for your sins."

>> ^Thylan:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7818980.stm :-
An atheist campaign claiming "There's probably no God" has been reported to the advertising regulator.
Posters with the slogan appear on 800 buses in England, Scotland and Wales, as well as on the London Underground.
But organisation Christian Voice has complained to the Advertising Standards Authority saying they break rules on substantiation and truthfulness.
The British Humanist Association, which backed the campaign, said it was not taking the complaint seriously.

There is plenty of evidence for God, from people's personal experience, to the complexity, interdependence, beauty and design of the natural world
Stephen Green
Christian Voice
The ASA's code states "marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove all claims". The regulator said it would assess the complaint and decide whether to contact the advertiser.

>> ^quantumushroom:
The soviet union was atheist for almost a century. You couldn't ask for a better experiment in how ridding a society of religion drastically improves it.
Whatever happened to those guys, anyway?


You're committing the "hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarianism is bad" fallacy.

MaxWilder and harlequinn, I think you two are agreement at the conceptual level while your disagreements are occurring at the semantic level.

I tend to lean towards liking MaxWilder's definitions of agnostic and atheist though. I don't think there is any evidence for or against the existence of a deity; I simply don't know if God exists. By definition that makes me agnostic. I choose not to believe (i.e. have faith) that a god exists, and since I can't say I believe in God, that seems to imply that by definition I'm also an atheist. In other words, I think being agnostic makes one an atheist as well.

However, I recognize that the meanings of the words atheist and agnostic are used in ways that tend to imply slightly different definitions.

For example, many times people use agnostic when they mean to imply that they don't care or that it doesn't matter. I've even met people who were spiritual and religious (in a personal way) who called themselves agnostic as a way to describe the level at which they were religious. They may pray, but it doesn't bother them if the truth is that no god is listening.

I've also met people who think that the word atheist implies that the person believes there is no god.

If I had to give myself a label, I'd probably use "agnostic atheist" since I think it helps clear up the misunderstandings that sometimes come up.

I get what you are trying to say Harlequinn about there really being three states, so here's another analogy that may help.

(This analogy inspired from the classic Schrodinger's cat quantum mechanics thought experiment)

Suppose there is a box, in which a cat is placed. From your point of view, you can not see, hear, or sense the cat in any way. There is a button. When the button is pressed, the cat is either killed, or not killed. The button is pressed. Before the box is opened, someone turns to you and asks, "Is the cat alive?"

You could respond, "(I believe) the cat is alive." (Response A)
or you could respond, "(I believe) the cat is dead." (Response B)
or you could respond, "(I believe) I don't know." (Response C)

These responses are analogous to:
"(I believe) there is a god." (Response A)
"(I believe) there is not a god." (Response B)
"(I believe) I don't know if there is a god." (Response C)

The problem is, the terms theist, atheist, and agnostic, do not map one to one with these different responses, because an atheist doesn't have to be agnostic, but an agnostic has to be atheist. (per dictionary not necessarily common usage definitions). It seems to me that the best way to describe these three positions is as follows:

"(I believe) there is a god." (Response A) - Theist
"(I believe) there is not a god." (Response B) - Atheist, but not Agnostic
"(I believe) I don't know." (Response C) - Agnostic and Atheist

Perhaps your right Flood, well said - either way I'm dropping out at this point - it may get too prickly if I continue...

Worst analogy ever. Quantum experiments?

Of course everyone knows that the truth and science and math of the thought experiment is not:
(A) there is god
(B) there is no god
(C) i don't know

The correct answer is the cat is both alive and dead at the same time and the act of observing which state makes it so. Therefore, now god both exists and does not exist and the mere act of trying to observe god makes him not exist. What is you believe in quantum god?

God is neither a particle nor a wave, he is both.

Hahaha, thanks joedirt. I knew someone would respond with that

The analogy was simply inspired by it, that is all.

>> ^Raaagh:
>> ^residue:
I agree with Xax. It seems childish and petty to me as well. Two wrongs don't make a right here. The people in the video complain that they don't think it's appropriate to put up religious propaganda signs, then turn around and do just that.. "

The atheist banner was not religious propoganda - it was a simple, scientifically verifiable fact.
You moron.


Really? Since when does science have verifiable proof of true/false data to tell with 99.9% accuracy, that it is fact?

The moment you bring science, in to a religious debate, is the same moment, the other guy can use the 'Flying Saucers' and 'Aliens made me do it' arguements. Since the intrusion of space aliens is always possible, one should be wary of using science as well.

That said, it *is* atheist propaganda at work. Its meant to strike at those of the Christian faith. A duel, that can only lead to more, harsh attacks from the other side, and then the athiests, strike back. Sooner or later, it'll be Gaza II: The England Backlash.

To bad, many atheists chide Christians for not being tolerant of other, religious views, when they go out and do exactly the same thing.

Its the pot calling the kettle black.

So long as there are religious people trying to push their religion on me through the government, they will receive no tolerance from me. Period.

The words on the bus may technically be propaganda, since there is an agenda behind it, but today that term implies the spread of lies and half-truths, which this is not. If you can't prove something is true, that means it is either false or irrelevant. Probably false.

Science and religion are directly opposing ideas. In those areas you deny the use of science, you deny logic, evidence, and therefor truth. If you want to live your life with your head up your ass, fine. If you want to teach your children to live the same way, I pity them. But I will have none of your circular arguments and "feel-good" lies. I will demand evidence and sound reasoning, otherwise it just doesn't affect me and I don't care. I'm perfectly comfortable not knowing for sure. I don't know how the universe started, and that's ok; I'm here and I'm going to make the best of it. I'm not afraid of the afterlife, because I know anything that we think might happen is just imagination and has nothing to do with reality.

However I'm quite sure that nothing written in your book is true because it doesn't make sense. That's what being an atheist means to me.

>> ^MaxWilder:

The words on the bus may technically be propaganda, since there is an agenda behind it, but today that term implies the spread of lies and half-truths, which this is not. If you can't prove something is true, that means it is either false or irrelevant. Probably false.


I think saying that if you can't prove something then it's false or irrelevant is taking things a bit far.

There are plenty of topics worth discussing that people can't PROVE, and what's wrong with them being discussed, maybe one day they can be proved. There are all sorts of discussions you can have about human behavior and cause and effect that may be neigh on impossible to prove in any scientific form, but are wonderful to ponder on as they may lead to some deeper understanding.

The ISSUE is that religion can't prove what they preach, and yet SAY that it is true, they say it's true because a book says so, and when you ask them how they know that what is written in the book is true they say, well, because it is.

It's the insistence that what they are saying is true, with nothing to back it up that is the problem, not the discussing it in the first place.

I wrote something really pissy here but on Edit I think I'll just say: Atheist, Agnostic, Theist. It's not that complicated.

related: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7832647.stm

I'm sorry to necro this, but this is just not right. Morality does not have to be justified by any external entity that "transcends the immediate". That is false.

The Law is not based on God's existence either. You are fabricating those connections, where there neither need to be or is any.

The law may be out of our personal control, but it is inside our own personal control to follow it or not. It is also important to note that the law and our society's morality is not a fixed thing, it changes and morphs as our environment change. Laws spring up to cover things that were never thought of 100 years ago, and old laws are deleted and forgotten.

Morality is like a trend (zeitgeist, "spirit of the time") that emerges from a society that develops norms and standards for behavior. Nothing more.

>> ^filantropo:
JiggaJonson, the power you speak of seems oh so ilimited, but for some not even the right to death is free of society's sick moral issues (mainly caused by obtuse religious bull'). For most of us, there's always a moral and ethical value obliterating the quality (and in a sense, the value) of our own life.
Be it overworking to pay college to our children, be it castrating our urges to not cheat on our (faithful?) partner, be it paying for something instead of stealing (although it's a ordinary thought to consider ourselves as robbed by the government), be it whatever impulse or pondered craving we come across, we're always members of a moral network, never are we free solitary individuals. And morality comes in many forms, many concepts, since it's simply the thing around which our choices concerning society revolve.
To be truly "in charge of our own life" as you said seems to imply amorality. Now you certainly are not amoral, and you'll understand how I know this if you're familiar with a notion as amorality.
To exist, morality has to be justified by an entity that transcends the immediate and belongs to the untimely. The concept of god and its inevitable judgement fit perfectly, to those who accept such concept. For the rest of us, there's the Law (in its turn, based on God's existence), and what it dictates happens to be out of our personal control.
Those who don't have faith in an entity that can't be rationalized are left with one question: "can anyone refuse the overwhelming power of Morality and still be rational?"
But those who do have faith in an entity are left with a more disturbing question: "after erasing all your doubts and concerns with the acceptance of a power that can't be proven nor rationalized, are you still rational and do you still seek Reason as the human that you are (and whose definition lies on Reason itself)?"

[redacted]