probably maybe, tho what for, i dont know

bobpzero

anyone seen these, i think they are for london buses only. dont really know what to think being a christian. just wonder why they cant be absolutely sure there is no God. any comments welcome.

boybiker

Erm I think I heard another can of worms being opened.
Although all I will say is being a commited atheist who has read al the bible and heard all the wonderful stories of how Jesus has made many people happy, there is NOTHING more annoying than Christians who assume that the reason that you are an atheist is because you have somehow not heard of Jesus or you haven't considered the options and come to your own conclusions and think that if they stand around telling you about Jesus then you will be converted and be saved.
I don't want to be saved thank you. :roll:

Mister W

It's interesting that they assume those people who don't know if there is a God (or who know there is one) are worriers who don't enjoy life. I think that's an invalid assumption.

I know there is a God but I don't worry and I enjoy life.

mats

no one has proved the whether god exists or not so given the evidence I choose not to believe

'Nuff said.

il_principe

bobpzero wrote:

anyone seen these, i think they are for london buses only. dont really know what to think being a christian. just wonder why they cant be absolutely sure there is no God. any comments welcome.

We can be pretty sure there isn't, but of course we can't prove it (yet). There's no arguing with the faithful anyway, they don't have to provide evidence to back up their ridiculous claims and don't seem to understand "burden of proof."

I gave up arguing with religious folk a long time ago. If they want to enjoy their own little delusion then that's fine with me as long as they don't ram it down my throat.

Although when you sit down and think about Christianity it is a bit mental - virgin birth, reincarnation, transubstantiation - it's like a bad episode of the X Files.
:shock:

boybiker

My next door neighbor is a born again Christian fundamentalist fruitcake so I have learn to never argue with them and let them get on with it, its far easier.

meagain

With the best will in the world I cannot accept that anyone of sound mind can KNOW that there is a "god". Believe, possibly, KNOW, absolutely not. Even to "believe" demonstrates a denial of any rational thought process. Simply, there is no evidence.

boybiker

Well any form of religious belief Christain or not does require the suspension of all critical thought and a willingness to accept any old nonsense without the slightest scrap of evidence.
I prefer to believe in The Invisible Pink Unicorn ( blessed be her hooves)

ride_whenever

I hate the idea that you can know there is a god, you have belief and that is the point. But I generally hate members of both sides who try to ram it down you throat. I think everyone takes religion a bit seriously tbh.

That said, I'm perfectly happy to sit down and discuss it in a rational, forum style debate. I even had a pet creationist who i would enjoy going for coffee with and discussing intelligent design as opposed to evolution.

At the end of the day, I believe in evolution and atheism, merely because I can see evolution in action and I find atheism more comforting than any other belief system. But all the ideals are equally sensible, entirely un-provable either way, and that's the beauty of it all.

mr_hippo

There is a God and I can prove it. I can also give you his name.

nasahapley

I think those ads are really good, so much so that I donated a bit of cash to the atheist bus campaign. The idea was thought up by a Guardian columnist called Ariane Sherine as a tongue-in-cheek response to some fire n' brimstone ads that a Christian group had put on buses. It wasn't originally intended that the ad campaign would actually happen, but someone set up a justgiving.com page with the intention of raising £5,500; it must have struck a bit of a chord because they ended up getting over £120,000. Hopefully we'll see a few in Leeds too as a result!

Best to see it as a bit of fun, and not get all offended on God's behalf.

redddraggon

meagain wrote:

Believe, possibly, KNOW, absolutely not. Even to "believe" demonstrates a denial of any rational thought process. Simply, there is no evidence.

Why? Being a scientist, I don't see why proof or evidence is needed for religion - If a God existed it/he/she would be outside the "laws of science".

Garry H

redddraggon wrote:

meagain wrote:

Believe, possibly, KNOW, absolutely not. Even to "believe" demonstrates a denial of any rational thought process. Simply, there is no evidence.

Why? Being a scientist, I don't see why proof or evidence is needed for religion - If a God existed it/he/she would be outside the "laws of science".

Just like fairies then.

redddraggon

Garry H wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

meagain wrote:

Believe, possibly, KNOW, absolutely not. Even to "believe" demonstrates a denial of any rational thought process. Simply, there is no evidence.

Why? Being a scientist, I don't see why proof or evidence is needed for religion - If a God existed it/he/she would be outside the "laws of science".

Just like fairies then.

Everytime you say you don't believe in fairies, a fairy will die.

SteveR_100Milers

I just like that clasic joke - heard about about the insomniac, dyslexic atheist who lay awake at night wondering if there was a dog.....

ride_whenever

I DEMAND PROOF


thereby denying belief and making the whole thing pointless anyway tehehehe

boybiker

redddraggon wrote:

meagain wrote:

Believe, possibly, KNOW, absolutely not. Even to "believe" demonstrates a denial of any rational thought process. Simply, there is no evidence.

Why? Being a scientist, I don't see why proof or evidence is needed for religion - If a God existed it/he/she would be outside the "laws of science".

Absolutely and Ive got this wonderful investment opportunity you would like as well

redddraggon

boybiker wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

meagain wrote:

Believe, possibly, KNOW, absolutely not. Even to "believe" demonstrates a denial of any rational thought process. Simply, there is no evidence.

Why? Being a scientist, I don't see why proof or evidence is needed for religion - If a God existed it/he/she would be outside the "laws of science".

Absolutely and Ive got this wonderful investment opportunity you would like as well

Did I say I believed?

markos1963

I haven't got a problem if there is or there isn't a God, my problem with religion is religion itself. So many people have and are dying because religion has told them to do it is what puts me off. All churches/mosques/synagogs/temples should have a government health warning posted above their doors saying 'Religion has killed more people than the Black Death beware before entering"

Stewie Griffin

markos1963 wrote:

I haven't got a problem if there is or there isn't a God, my problem with religion is religion itself. So many people have and are dying because religion has told them to do it is what puts me off. All churches/mosques/synagogs/temples should have a government health warning posted above their doors saying 'Religion has killed more people than the Black Death beware before entering"

Absoflippinglutly +1

millar time

I believe that deep theological questions such as these are best left to Douglas Adams..

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid from making a fortune with his book Well That About Wraps It Up For God.

I don't believe there is a god, I rather like the scientific and rational explanations for things. We know from the fossil record and geology the age of the earth and the species that have gone before us, we can observe the process of evolution. There was not a 7 day window in which everything happened!

mr_hippo

ride_whenever wrote:

I DEMAND PROOF


thereby denying belief and making the whole thing pointless anyway tehehehe

Proof? Look at the exclusion clauses on insurance policies - it says 'Acts of God'; not 'Acts of Santa, the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny' so therefore God exists!
His name? Harold Wishart and it's mentioned in the Lord's Prayer:-
Our Father Wishart, in heaven,
Harold be thy name,,,,

nasahapley

Cheers Millar Time, you've just solved my problem of what to get my dad for Christmas, I'm getting him the original Hitch Hikers tv series on dvd.

I wish Douglas Adams was still about today, his ability to highlight the absurdity of religion through comedy would serve as a good counterweight to Richard Dawkin's more acerbic style, kind of a good cop/bad cop partnership (nb. I have a lot of time for Richard Dawkins, but I do understand that he can get people's backs up!)

Another +1 for Markos1963's post too, but I fear it's now only a matter of time before someone brings up the 'Hitler/Stalin was an atheist and they were bad too' line.

ride_whenever

millar time, why such a closed minded attitude?

Just because there is supporting evidence does not mean that it is correct, that's the beauty of the scientific theory. You could have all the evidence in the world, but one exception will debunk that theory, and a new one needs to be proposed and tested.

Just because the evidence suggests that the world is very old and evolution has been occurring for many aeons does not prove that there is not an intelligent designer who made it yesterday.

TBH this is not really a debate for science to find an answer to, it is for philosophers, as any theory cannot be rigorously and repeatably tested. I'm coming to the opinion that either way it is irrelevant and merely the debate itself that is important.

Just for thought (ironically ignoring the punchline!)

markos1963

nasahapley wrote:

Cheers Millar Time, you've just solved my problem of what to get my dad for Christmas, I'm getting him the original Hitch Hikers tv series on dvd.

I wish Douglas Adams was still about today, his ability to highlight the absurdity of religion through comedy would serve as a good counterweight to Richard Dawkin's more acerbic style, kind of a good cop/bad cop partnership (nb. I have a lot of time for Richard Dawkins, but I do understand that he can get people's backs up!)

Another +1 for Markos1963's post too, but I fear it's now only a matter of time before someone brings up the 'Hitler/Stalin was an atheist and they were bad too' line.

I'm not an atheist, meerly a hedge sitting agnostic

redddraggon

millar time wrote:

I don't believe there is a god, I rather like the scientific and rational explanations for things. We know from the fossil record and geology the age of the earth and the species that have gone before us, we can observe the process of evolution. There was not a 7 day window in which everything happened!

It's a bit naive to believe that all Christians think the earth was created in 7 days - because the majority definitely don't.

ride_whenever

markos1963 wrote:

I'm not an atheist, meerly a hedge sitting agnostic

Man up, whatever happens you lose. I'd rather be damned for my belief or incredibly smug!

nasahapley

redddraggon wrote:

millar time wrote:

I don't believe there is a god, I rather like the scientific and rational explanations for things. We know from the fossil record and geology the age of the earth and the species that have gone before us, we can observe the process of evolution. There was not a 7 day window in which everything happened!

It's a bit naive to believe that all Christians think the earth was created in 7 days - because the majority definitely don't.

I'm afraid Red's right, anyone who has read the bible will tell you it was created in six days, with God taking a much-deserved breather on the seventh. Do keep up Millar time. And I do hope any cycling Christians are mindful that God really doesn't dig garments of more than one cloth; it says so in the bible, so best steer clear of lycra/polyester mixes and the like.

millar time

millar time, why such a closed minded attitude?

Surely my opinion is no more closed minded than those who would suggest that there is a God? Anyway I'd argue its difficult not to appear closed minded in a short forum missive.

Just because there is supporting evidence does not mean that it is correct, that's the beauty of the scientific theory. You could have all the evidence in the world, but one exception will debunk that theory, and a new one needs to be proposed and tested.

I accept that theory can be disproved. My belief is that science does have the answer (or was it smarties?) and the more iterated and complex theories we have the more convincing the theories become. Perhaps it is up to philosophers to decide the parameters of enquiry and science's job to push the boundaries and shape the debate. My views are my own and I have faith (such as it is) that science will one day have the answers.

The problem i have is with the elements of religion that suggest that scientific theory must be perfect for it to be valid, while religious theories are beyond reproach. Or that somehow by being a 'non believer' you are morally inferior.

It's a bit naive to believe that all Christians think the earth was created in 7 days - because the majority definitely don't.

I don't actually believe that all Christians believe that the Earth was created in seven days, just as not all believe that 'Jesus' walked on water or fed the five thousand, but some do. For the sake of argument I used it as a reductio ad absurdum example of certain elements of the complex narrative of christian faith.

millar time

millar time, why such a closed minded attitude?

Surely my opinion is no more closed minded than those who would suggest that there is a God? Anyway I'd argue its difficult not to appear closed minded in a short forum missive.

Just because there is supporting evidence does not mean that it is correct, that's the beauty of the scientific theory. You could have all the evidence in the world, but one exception will debunk that theory, and a new one needs to be proposed and tested.

I accept that theory can be disproved. My belief is that science does have the answer (or was it smarties?) and the more iterated and complex theories we have the more convincing the theories become. Perhaps it is up to philosophers to decide the parameters of enquiry and science's job to push the boundaries and shape the debate. My views are my own and I have faith (such as it is) that science will one day have the answers.

The problem i have is with the elements of religion that suggest that scientific theory must be perfect for it to be valid, while religious theories are beyond reproach. Or that somehow by being a 'non believer' you are morally inferior.

It's a bit naive to believe that all Christians think the earth was created in 7 days - because the majority definitely don't.

I don't actually believe that all Christians believe that the Earth was created in seven days, just as not all believe that 'Jesus' walked on water or fed the five thousand, but some do. For the sake of argument I used it as a reductio ad absurdum example of certain elements of the complex narrative of christian faith.

millar time

Oops sorry for the double post