Okay, so the article generated a bit more discussion than I had expected.  I had sort of found the campaign a bit silly, since I doubt anyone is going to have their mind changed by a couple sentences on the side of a bus.  But Katisara seems to view it as worse than just a waste of money, and in fact mean spirited and an attack.  I found that a bit interesting, since most people don't view messages like "Jesus is Lord!" and such as attacks, or mean-spirited.  Can atheists promote atheism without being mean spirited?  Is it possible to tell someone you think they're wrong in a way that's not an attack?  I tend to think so.  IF there is no God, I would hope most people would want to know that fact (though I've certainly heard people say that they would rather keep on believing in God, even if God weren't real, which may be the key difference in opinion here).  While the lack of belief in God is the defining concept of atheism, I don't think it's fair to say it has no value other than that statement, any more than it's fair to say Christianity has no value beyond the supposition that there is a God.  The important thing in each case is what you do with the information.  If there is no God, how does that affect how one lives ones life?  Is the idea that there is no God just so offensive to theists that an atheist simply can't express it in a non-mean spirited way?  Is the opposite true?  It seems like there is a double standard here (and highlighting this may have been more a motivation for Dawkin's and company than actually changing people's minds).  Why is that?  What makes "There's probably no God" significantly different from "Jesus is Lord?"

As to gammaknights point, yes, "probably" implies they're not sure.  And that's a good thing!  Absolute certainty without absolute proof is unjustified, and should be avoided.  I think one of the problems most atheists have with theism is the idea that you should believe in God more than you have evidence for (ie, the stronger your faith, the better--doubting Thomas admonished for not believing until after he saw, etc.).  While there are atheists who will tell you they're absolutely certain there is no God, they usually haven't realized that that is a faith-based position just as much as theism is.  Realizing that new evidence could change your mind is always a good thing, in my opinion.  Some people think "atheism" only applies to those who are feel they are absolutely certain, while anyone who admits any possibility of being wrong is "agnostic."  It's a quibble over labels, so it's really important, but my take on it is that an atheist is someone who thinks there probably isn't a God, whereas an agnostic prefers not to even give their best guess.

I disagree that it's a waste of money.  They probably did cause discussion, which was their goal.  But it did seem to be a direct attack.  This isn't the same as "Jesus is Lord!" sort of statements since those are a positive statement.  It may contradict other statements, but it is not directly saying they are wrong.

The statement on the bus says "THERE IS NO GOD".  The article wrote it as "There's probably no God".  Notice the capitalization.  That means it's referring to a specific god, not Zeus, not Allah, but God of the Christian religions (the only one I know of who refers to their god simply as 'God').  Obviously, the bus sign is all in caps so it's ambiguous, but it can still be read that way, especially paired with the statement below, "so stop worrying", which seems to tie back into the idea of guilt and shame being caused by religion (Christianity and Judaism specifically).  If the statement had a lowercase 'god', it would be difference, if only because it isn't singling out Judaism/Christianity specifically to say 'no, you're wrong'.  Whether their intent was to publish "God" or "god", we can't be clear, but the message, not its intent, is what is important.

But like you brought up, the question is, does atheism have any value beyond 'there is no god', or it is it inherently a contradiction of another belief and absolutely nothing more?  Or is the only value in contradicting another belief system?

Just for clarity, the bus sign still had the word "probably" in it too.  I know you were focusing the caps issue, but I just wanted to make clear that the paper didn't add the 'probably' themselves.

Anyway, the sign is in all caps, so its not really possible to distinguish between God/god, though as they are atheists, I imagine their intent was god, not just God.  Assuming they're not talking about other gods seems odd to me.

Is "There is a god" a fundamentally different type of statement than "there isn't a god?"  Is one an attack and the other not, simply because one is asserting a negative instead of a positive?  Does "there is a god" not imply atheists are wrong in the same way that "there isn't a god" implies theists are wrong?  I guess I don't see why theists should be more offended by "there is no god" than non-christians should be by "Jesus is Lord."  If there were another word, other than atheist, to describe the view, would that matter?  If atheist could state their view without reference to gods, would that change things?  Would "there exists nogodness" be fundamentally different from "there doesn't exists godness?"  Is "the coin is heads" fundamentally different from "the coin is not tails?"  Do atheists need to come up with a new word, that doesn't reference gods in the way that "heads" is a positive thing while "not tails" is negative?

As for the value of atheism, it comes down to the fact that what you believe about the existence or non existence of any deity affects how you live your life.  Believing there isn't a god has the same type of value that believing there is one does.  Both views affect what you consider important, what choices you make, how you treat other people, etc.  Both views are beliefs about reality.  They both contradict each other.  It seems odd to me to think one view has no value, while the opposite view does have value.  At very least, can we assign value to believing that which is true rather than that which is false?  If so, that would be a value atheists would attach to their view.  Put another way, does it matter at all if theism is true, or is its value independent of its truth or falsity?

One is asserting a positive (more generally it's 'my god is real', not simply 'yes, there is a god', and it's not addressing anyone else in particular as being wrong), the other is a contradiction of a specific group's belief ('your god is not real').

Like I said, if the sign said 'there is no god', it would have a different meaning and at least be a little less of an attack ad; it isn't saying specifically 'YOUR religion is wrong', it's a statement on its own.

It's like the difference between saying 'Ford is the best car company' rather than 'Chevrolet is a terrible car company'.  One is a positive, constructive statement, even if, by virtue of its being true, it perhaps denies anyone else the spot of being the best company.  The second is specifically attacking one entity.

So yes, lowercase 'god', which refers only broadly to any god, but no one in particular (or gods, if the sign is all in caps and therefore unclear), or in a culture where there is no particular god named "God", using it would be alright, since again, it isn't specifically attacking any one belief or group.



I would have to disagree here.

As a Christian, not only must I accept there is a god, but I must accept my relationship with that god, and how my life should change to reflect that.  It's an entire body of belief.  If you took out all of the lines about God from the bible, you'd still have quite a large quantity of material.  Even without a god, Christianity can be judged on its own merits and qualities, of which it has many.

So this is why I'm wondering what more there is to atheism.  Is it just 'there is no god.  That's really all I've got to say on that topic.'  Does it have no value beyond denying another belief system?  Does their belief extend beyond 'don't go to that church!' to something which actually provides a service?  Or is it only specifically there to tell me not to believe someone else, without providing anything of its own?



Because we can't possibly prove its veracity compared to say Christianity, I think we need to 'judge it by its fruit'.  Does it have anything else to offer?  Christianity, for all of its failings, at least tries to promote moral living, as an example.

That's fair enough.  I'm pretty confident that was their intended meaning.  And I'm willing to concede the point that perhaps all caps was a poor choice to convey that meaning.




Agreed.  And as an atheist, one does not only accept that there is no god, but also must accept how ones life should change as a result of that.  As I said, either way, ones beliefs will affects ones life, choices, behaviors, etc.


I would say if you took any given atheist's body of belief, and removed all the lines about gods, you'd still have quite a large quantity of material.  Granted, atheists are a less uniform group than christians, and don't have a collected book that they all agree upon the way christians do, but I don't think that should be taken to imply that they don't each believe in large quantity of things due to their atheism.  I would say that any given atheist's version of atheism can be judged on its own merits and qualities.  The fact that those merits and qualities may very significantly from atheists to atheist shouldn't, in my opinion, make their views valueless, any more than disagreements over transubstantiation should make christianity valueless.


Yes, the beliefs do extend beyond "don't go to church," however, there isn't an organized body to tell you what those beliefs should be to the degree that there is in christianity.  As an example, not believing in an afterlife should cause one to value this life more (which was part of the message on the buses).  I would argue that most atheists also consider skepticism very important, rationality very important, open-mindedness very important, etc.  These are the kinds of things that one can come to value after concluding that there is no god, akin to how charity, purity, faith, tradition, etc., are things that one can come to value as a result of concluding that God is real.  While I'm sure there are atheists who get to "there is no god" and simply stop thinking about the issue, I don't think they define atheism anymore than people who go to church simply because that's what their parents did define christianity.



While I'm quite comfortable with a comparison of the "fruits" of atheism to those of christianity, I don't think this really addresses the issue.  I would wager that every group would think the "fruits" of their particular belief system are the best, but even if not, I don't think it's a good way to judge the truth-value of something.  If the people who drank the coolaid with that Jones guy back in the day were the happiest people to ever live, does it make it any more likely that they were right?  That's sort of what I'm saying about is the value of theism independent of its truth value.  You seem to be implying that it is; that whether it's true or not, it's value is still the same.  To me, however, I wouldn't want to follow a false religion, even if I got benefits from it.  I think most atheists would say the same.  I think most atheist place an intrinsic value on believing that which is true, even if it's not the most pleasant or beneficial thing to believe.  It's sort of the issue of religion being the "opiate of the masses": believing something might make you feel good, but if it's not actually true, it's just enjoyable self-delusion.  Which is very much like opiates.  Especially if one thinks there are downsides to religions as well as upsides, such as giving up part of your income/time/etc., or such as causing hatred/fear/etc., of those who aren't part of the religion.  I would say many atheists view religion as an enjoyable, but potentially harmful self-delusion.  "there's probably no god," might be akin to a "say no to heroine" message. ;)

(as an aside, would you consider "just say no" a mean-spirited attack?  Would it be if it specified a specific drug?  Would a "wait till you're married" sign on the side of a bus be a mean-spirited attack add?)

I would say that for all their failings, atheists too try to promote moral living.  They may disagree about just what constitutes moral living more than christians do (though, christians disagree about that quite a bit too--just look at the Anglican church right now), but each individual is trying to promote what they consider to be moral.  In addition to morality, there's also a more general issue of how own figures things out.  For atheism its more of a method for finding out for oneself, rather than simply a book that tells you all the answers.  Some might prefer the book to the method, but I think atheists would view it as a "give a fish vs. teach to fish" situation and put value on the process of thinking things through, of trying to figure out an answer, rather than just being told the answer.  Different strokes for different folks, perhaps, but even if one thinks theism has more to offer, I think it's unfair to say that atheism has nothing to offer.

But how many of those beliefs are distinctly atheist?  Would you consider rationalism 'atheistic'?  What about a preference for chocolate?  A dislike of authority?  Are any of these 'atheistic'?

I think most people agree that charity is a 'Christian' value.  I'm not aware of anything in particular which is an 'atheistic' value.  But if they were pushing for those sorts of things, rather than trying to pull down someone else's, it would definitely shift the nature of the ad.



Then I think that that's the sort of thing that atheists should be trying to teach and push, rather than the line of 'you're wrong'.  I think if a church put up the ad, "Muhammed was wrong", people would agree that's an attack ad.  If atheists said something like "Your life is in only your hands" or something positive, no one can really argue that's an attack ad, even if you personally believe in divine intervention.



The problem is, no one can be sure which religion is 'false' or not, so that line of argument is moot.



Which is why it would be an attack ad :)  We don't get concerned about attack ads against heroine because most people agree that heroine is a bad thing.



I don't think it's mean-spirited to attack something which everyone agrees is wrong.  However, we're also differentiating between actions and beliefs.  If you believed drugs were the key to inner awareness, my saying "drugs are stupid" would probably be offensive against you.  The drug-oriented ads above are attack-ads (even if they're not 'mean-spirited', since they aren't trying to tell anyone, at least anyone I'm aware of, that their beliefs are wrong, just that those actions are wrong).

I don't think 'wait til you're married' is supporting a particular behavior.  If it said 'don't bang her until you're married', it would be stepping across that thin line (although again, I don't think it would be 'mean' because no one believes God told them to have sex before marriage).



This too would be a great thing for an ad.  I should have brought that up.

I wasn't trying to say that atheism has nothign to offer, but to genuinely ask, what is it offering?  What does it provide of value?  Because once you have that, you have something worth putting on an ad, rather than just 'these other guys are wrong'.

I would say rationalism is characteristic of atheism.  It's not uniquely atheist, nor is it universally atheist, but I would say it's a quality it that a large majority of atheists consider valuable/important/desirable/whatever.


I would consider rationalism, skepticism, rejection of dogma, and a desire to figure things out instead of just being told, to all be atheistic values.  Again, doesn't mean every atheist does all these things anymore than all christians are charitable.  Just means that most atheists would consider these traits to be desirable.


True, but it would also change the add if they changed "Jesus is Lord!" to "give money to charity!"  In each case, I think the idea is that accepting the primary premise (eg, "there is probably no God" or "Jesus is Lord") will lead one to naturally accept the values in question.


The trouble, though, is that the central idea of atheism is the lack of any deity.  There's just not really a way to phrase that positively, unless we come up with some new word that is the positive trait of God not being there (similar to 'dark' being just a lack of light, but actually having it's own positive word).  "There's probably no god" isn't just a statement that everyone else is wrong, but rather an actual, positive belief, in the same way that "it's dark outside" is.  The difference, though, seems to be that we have a word for "dark" so we don't have to say "it's not light outside," whereas we don't have a word for the lack of deities.  I suppose they could have said "reality is probably secular" or something, but I'm not sure that would have conveyed the intended meaning properly.



I disagree.  The fact that a viewpoint can't be confirmed or denied doesn't make it valueless.  While we can't know with certainty if any religion is true or false, we can say that IF it's true it has more value than IF it's false (or, at least some people would believe that, myself included).  I would say that many atheists would argue that there is intrinsic value in believing that which is true over that which is false.  It's not just the practical benefits of a belief system that determine whether or not you should accept it.  Even if believing that magical glue holds you to the Earth makes you happy, most atheists, I would wager, would say it's still better to believe in gravity.  The point being that I don't think it's true that there has to be a practical benefit to believing there is no god to justify pointing it out.  If one thinks its true, that's enough reason to justify pointing it out to others, in my opinion.  There doesn't need to be any type of "believe me, and you'll get this prize" situation involved.


So what determines it's means-spiritedness is how many people disagree with it, not the feeling it is intended to produce in the observer?  I would have to disagree with that--but I don't consider you mean-spirited for making the statement! ;)


Again, though, "there's probably no god" is more than just "these guys are wrong."  It's a different view of reality, which, due to our language lacking a word for it, can only be expressed with reference to the opposite.  The next line of the signs was "so stop worrying and enjoy your life" is an example of what it's offering.

I am going to break my silence on this, because this is not a political issue, but a religious one.  Also I feel the end coming more and more quickly and feel I need to try to save someone. :)

Athiest and agnostics have always confused me.  I didn't grow up in a religious home, though both my parents confest some belief in God.

I seems to me that athiest are going through life like they have their eyes covered by blinders and agnostics with their hands cupped over their own eyes.

Let me elaborate.

Athiest, as far as I know, are saying that there is no god(s) what so ever and no afterlife.  Or if they say there is an afterlife, its usually something like reencarnation or a joining of spirits somewhere.

Agnostics say, I don't care if there is a god(s).  I am going to live my life and when I die we'll see if there is one.

Both a flawed in their thinking.  If an athiest would take the blinders off and look at the world, weigh the evidence in nature alone, they would see that something created all this.  (I'll talk about this more in the creation thread.)

Agnostics though have to look at what they're doing like this.  You walk across the street and say, "I'm not going to look for the cars, I'll just deal with whatever happens."  Then they walk out in the street without looking to see if traffic is coming.  Now they might get across the road this time, but eventually they'll get creamed.  I'm sorry, but when your dead, it'll be too late then.

God sent his book so that you would have no excuse on how you live this life, He also made nature to reflect Him as well.

Please let me know if what I view of their views is incorrect and I'll adjust as needed.

This is just using the old Romans argument (that verse is probably my least favorite in the bible, by the by), which is one of my biggest pet-peeves regarding christianity.  It's one thing to say "I'm right" it's another to say "it's so obvious I'm right, that everyone who disagrees with me secretly knows I'm right, but just won't admit it."  The fact is, to many, many people it's not at all obvious someone create nature.  In fact, to many, many people, it looks very much like a natural (ie, non-divine) product.  Making accusations of blinders is sort of verbal shorthand for saying someone is holding to assumptions which make objective assessment of the situation impossible (ie, that even if they were wrong, they wouldn't be able to see it).  That may be true, though, to me it looks like its creationists who hold such assumptions.  As I said in the other thread, if you hold a position such as "the bible is always right.  If it looks like the bible is wrong, it's actually right, and whatever is making it look wrong is what's actually wrong.  And if I can't see how the bible is right after looking at it that way, well then I'm just not meant to understand right now, so I just need to trust that it's right, and move on," you'll not be able to realize it if the bible happens to be wrong.  That, to me at least, seems more like "blinders" than an atheist position of "reality appears to be explainable without a deity, so we shouldn't make the assumption there is one."

Perhaps a more even-handed way of looking at it is that one side defaults to no god, and will believe in god only if there is sufficient evidence, while the other side defaults to god, and will only stop believing in a deity if sufficient evidence against it is found.  To me, the former seems more reasonable, to others that latter will.  Trying to prove something doesn't exist is pretty difficult, when it doesn't have to follow the normal laws of nature, then it's pretty much impossible.

For me, the fact that religious people dismiss the evidence cited by all other religions seems to indicate that none of the evidence is particularly strong.  Christians will say it's obvious the bible is true, muslims will say it's obvious the Koran is true, and so on.  But neither finds the other's book convincing.  So it's not just a predisposition towards not believing in a deity that causes atheists to doubt any particular religion, I don't think.  Every religion is doubted by most of the world.  Atheists just happen to doubt them all at the same time.

Gammaknight, also note that a lot of agnostics are searching, but really just don't know yet.  I know plenty of agnostics (Tycho included!) who have read the bible, read the book of Mormon, read the koran, read the Tai Te Ching, etc. and don't feel that any provide convincing evidence for their claims.  That isn't saying "I won't look for cars", it's saying "I hope a car comes so I can see one, I keep searching all of the roads but none come along."



See, and this is the point that I like to see from atheist texts and ads.  Not that 'hey, you're wrong about God', but rather 'we add value by critically examining our lives'.  That's positive and a building statement.  Even the word, "atheism", is a negative one - without-god.  That and agnosticism are the only belief systems I know which define themselves by what they are not.  If you asked me, atheism needs a bit of a face lift, to stop focusing on what they are not, and focus on what they are.  Otherwise, even unconsciously, they'll always be painting themselves as contrary or destructive (because that's what the name itself means).  "Humanism" or "rationalism" seem like much more logical choices.  It's like the difference between calling yourself a chocolate-hater and a vanilla-lover.



Is the premise of atheism "don't believe in god", or is it "critically examine your life"?



That is a problem.  Someone should fix it :)




Again though, I think you've gone into the core message of atheism.  Rationality, a critical view of reality.  That is a belief system.  I think you as an agnostic can agree, the goal of atheism is not to actively prove that God doesn't exist.  The goal is to approach the question honestly, open to whether he exists or not, but with the awareness that so far no evidence has shown that to be the case.  The ad also seems to touch on that ("there probably is no god"), but emphasizes their answer, when it's the question that's important ("is there a god?")  If atheism were about the strict belief that there is no god, it would be just as dogmatic as any other religion.



It would seem to me that the value of saying "there is no god" is about equivalent to saying "there is gravity" - none unless your focus is on the proof and method of getting it.  If someone went through the scientific process completely and proved gravity is in fact magical glue, doesn't that just go to show, again, it's the question, NOT the answer which is critical?  Why is our focus on the answer?



No, the difference is that if you're attacking no one at all, you're not hurting anyone, you're not being mean.  If you're intentionally attacking someone, that is mean.  If you are trying not to attack anyone, but attack someone by accident (say you claim there is no pasta-based god, being unaware of devout pastafarians), that isn't mean on your part (it lacked knowledge or intent).  I suspect these guys knew there is a large religious group who worships a fellow named God.  And I hope they realized that "god" and "God" look identical in all caps.  If they said there probably is no ZZykdor, since no one believed there was a Zzykdor in the first place, it's not really an attack against anyone at all, and therefore not mean.



I'd be interested in seeing any evidence that atheists enjoy their lives more than believers.  I don't think that's really the goal of most atheists, to enjoy life more (at least it isn't in the list you provided).  I could be wrong though.  When I read it, it would seem to me to imply "your God doesn't exist, so the guilt caused by believing in Him is unnecessary".  It doesn't say to me "there is no god, so we can finally have margaritas by the beach" (although maybe it does to you, or maybe the authors didn't realize the alternate message to what they wrote).

Again, I don't think the "benefits" of atheism are enjoying life more, or the goal is to disbelieve in something.  The benefits are getting to the truth, a critical eye, rationality (which, by the by, are not necessarily incompatible with theism, just like charity isn't incompatible with atheism).  So why are they talking about how my religion is wrong rather than how their beliefs are right?

A bit of both.  "There's probably no god" is a conclusion that's come from critically examining reality.  "Critically examine your life" is something that comes from reaching that conclusion.  It's sort of like "be charitable" isn't the core premise of christianity, but sort of just comes naturally (in theory) once one accepts Jesus is the son of God.


I agree that the question is important, but I wouldn't say it's all there is to it.  The answer that atheists reach is important because the effect that answer has on their lives, behaviors, etc.  Would you consider the sign less offensive if it said "Is there a god?  Probably not, so stop worrying and enjoy your life"?  While asking the question "is there a god?" is a key component of atheism, deciding/realizing that the answer is "no" is also a key component.


If 90% of americans didn't believe in gravity, I would think "gravity is real" would be a valuable statement to make.  It's true that having the actual evidence there to back up the claim makes it more valuable, but keep in mind this is the side of a bus we're talking about, not a journal article.  The reason why the answer is important, I think, is that it is the product of the method of investigating the question.  Put another way, one shouldn't aim for one answer or the other during the investigation.  But after the investigation, one shouldn't ignore the fact that you've reached on answer or the other.  It is the implications of the possible answers that motivate investigating the question in the first place.  The reason that we ask "is there a god?" is that the answer will affect our decisions, actions, etc.  Atheism isn't just rationalism, or skepticism, anymore than christianity is just charity or humility or whatever.


That's not quite what the sign said, though.  It wasn't "believe there is no god because it will make you happier."  That's sort of reversing the premise and the conclusion.  The premise was "there's probably no god," and the advice on how you should act on that information is "so stop worry, and start enjoying your life."


I think that's the goal of pretty much everyone!  I didn't list it as an atheist quality because I thought of it more as a universal to everyone quality.  Everyone wants to be happier, no?  I would agree that increasing ones happiness isn't necessarily a reason to accept the atheist premise (or reach the atheist conclusion, or however you want to describe it).  But if believing there is no god allows one to cross one worry off their list of things to worry about, then they should indeed stop worrying about it.


No, I think your take is what they were aiming for (though I might phrase it slightly differently, such as "no gods exist, so all the fears, guilt, hatred, etc caused by believing in any of them are unnecessary.")


I think they are talking about their beliefs are right.  It's just that there's not really a way to express it in english without reference to your beliefs being wrong.  There's just not a word to express the positive lack of existence of a deity the way there is for many other things like darkness (which is a lack of light), coldness (which is a lack of heat), contentedness (which is a lack of want), fullness (which is a lack of additional space), etc.  For many situations, there are two words to cover two opposite conditions (eg, tall/short, fat/skinny, rich/poor).  For others, there's just one word, and it's negation (habitable/uninhabitable, for-profit/not-for-profit, theist/atheist).  If you have a way of conveying the idea that atheists are right, without making a reference to deities, I could probably agree that that'd be a better thing to put on the sign.  But I just don't know how to make such a statement in english.

     Then of course, there are the dyslexic atheists who don't believe in any dogs ....

If that's the take they were going for, they probably should have realized it would upset some people, since it is attacking their beliefs.  It could be that that was also their goal, since people talk more about controversy than about stuff everyone agrees with.  That's a great way to get publicity.  HOWEVER, even if it is effective (just like mud-slinging campaign ads are effective), no one should be surprised if they call it an attack ad or mean.  They knew it would be seen as mean, and thought it was worth that cost because of the value added to their advertising campaign.  Perhaps they even thought it was necessary, that they're doing some sort of charity, like an intervention (and interventions can definitely be mean, even if the intention is tough love), although I sort of doubt it.  But that doesn't make it any less aggressive.

How about compared to signs that say things like "Jesus is the one true God?"  Would you put that in the same category?  Or "it's not a choice, it's a child?"

I suppose I could agree that the ad is an attack on an idea (though not on a person), but I don't think that makes it mean-spirited.  I guess I just don't feel it's automatically mean-spirited to point out that someone is wrong.  I realize it can cause offense, and if you said the ad was offensive to some people, I probably wouldn't disagree.  But "mean-spirited" seems to imply an intent that I don't think was necessarily there.

Yeah, that one sort of gets me.  Or worse still, "Jesus is the God of gods", implying that their god trumps your god.  Still, at least it's a positive message in that it's not directly addressing anyone else, just sort of generally out there.  If it were "Jesus beats Buddha", that would be really mean.



I'd consider that an attack ad, but not mean in that I don't think a lot of people consider their stance on abortion part of their identity.  An attack against someone's religion really is generally an attack on their identity.



To quote the article you originally posted:

"Professor Dawkins said: "Religion is accustomed to getting a free ride - automatic tax breaks, unearned respect and the right not to be offended, the right to brainwash children. "

Since Dawkins did most of the work funding the thing, I would tend to think that confirms it was in fact mean-spirited.



I don't think it's mean-spirited to say someone is wrong, or to attack their position.  However, I do think it is mean-spirited to attack the person's identity.  Religion is a matter of identity, hence part of why it is a taboo topic of debate in many circles.  Even here, if we went out and said "all cat-lovers are stupid", I think most people would shrug and continue on their way, because cat-loving is an attribute, not not really a personality-defining one.  If we went out and said "all Catholics are stupid", that would be deeply offensive, because so many Catholics hold their religion so dear to them.

I think in fact that most of the taboo points of conversation; race, politics, religion, etc. are points linking to identity.  Those things not related to identity, or when we can discuss them while disassociating ourselves from it for that time, are the safe topics.

  Both a flawed in their thinking.  If an athiest would take the blinders off and look at the world, weigh the evidence in nature alone, they would see that something created all this.  (I'll talk about this more in the creation thread.)

I see a flawed world. One that we can't survive naturally on most of its surface, one that gets routinely covered by ice, bombarded by meteorites, and is close enough to other stars that a supernova among them would wipe this planet clear of life. Our body is fragile, and full of flaws, prone to falling ill or dying at the slightest disruption

If this universe was created, it was not by a benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent being. The craftsmanship present indicates unskilled labor, a drunken student, perhaps, trying to hammer out a research paper the night before its due.

Agnostics though have to look at what they're doing like this.  You walk across the street and say, "I'm not going to look for the cars, I'll just deal with whatever happens."  Then they walk out in the street without looking to see if traffic is coming.  Now they might get across the road this time, but eventually they'll get creamed.  I'm sorry, but when your dead, it'll be too late then.

If there is a god, and that god would punish me after death for not believing in him or her, then that god does not deserve my worship or belief. Period. All it deserves is for someone to cast him or her down from its throne, and end its tyranny.

God sent his book so that you would have no excuse on how you live this life, He also made nature to reflect Him as well.

Odin did no such thing.

That's a common thought for many. A more appropiate one though is that you have a choice. You can choose God or not God. Whatever you choose, you get.

To go further with this, Jesus went to the cross, and paid the price for your wrong doing, and my wrong doing. He paid that price in full so that you would no longer owe anything for the payment. It is payed for in full.

Now, as a person you have your choice. You can choose to accept this gift, or you can leave it unused. That's your choice. If you accept it, great, at the end of your life here in this realm, in this body, God will allow you that choice. If you choose not to accept it, well, that is your choice. God doesn't want you to take that choice, but it is your choice. I suspect God will do things like place people in your path, He might put people on rpg forums, and bring up ideas, challenge you, etc. God does not want you to choose to leave the gift unused.

In the end, it is your choice.
This message was last edited by the player at 01:49, Fri 24 Oct 2008.

I would like to add that God has been represented by Christians and others for a long time.  God doesn't punish sinners in everlasting torment.  On the contrary, a careful read will find that unrepentant sinners are consumed by the fires of Hell and only Satan and his angels are tormented eternally.

God is a father, and like a father he will teach you what you can handle and with hold what you can't.  Also, I use this myself when teaching my children, if they choose to disregard my warnings or teachings, I let them take the consiquenses.  If it means they fall out of the tree I've told them to get out of and hurt themselves, then I let them.

It is an active choice.

Anyway, things in the universe are falling apart because of Man's sin, not God's work.  His work was perfect, but we had to go and screw with the machinery. :)

Oh and sorry about the blinders thing.  It was the only way I could think of at the time to describe what I understood and was looking for clarification.
This message was last edited by the player at 02:21, Fri 24 Oct 2008.

That's a common thought for many. A more appropiate one though is that you have a choice. You can choose God or not God. Whatever you choose, you get.

Choosing the right religion is not a choice, by the definition. A better term would be: blind, random guess. Choosing a religion is not making a choice, it's playing the lottery and hoping you chose the right number.

Now, as a person you have your choice. You can choose to accept this gift, or you can leave it unused.

And how, precisely, do you know that this is the 'gift' you should be accepting? How do you know, for instance, that the real way into the afterlife is not by accepting Jesus, but rather by dying honorably in battle, and being carried off to Valhalla by the Valkryies, so that you may spend your days feasting and fighting, until it comes time to fight in the final battle at Ragnarok?

God is a father, and like a father he will teach you what you can handle and with hold what you can't.  Also, I use this myself when teaching my children, if they choose to disregard my warnings or teachings, I let them take the consiquenses.  If it means they fall out of the tree I've told them to get out of and hurt themselves, then I let them.

Except that there are no obvious consequences to religious choice. The god as a parent analogy doesn't work. Do you hide from your children and not let them ever know you exist?

If you start talking about the bible being proof, let me just point out to you that Christianity is not the only religion in town, and there is nothing that suggests it is any better than any of the others?

Anyway, things in the universe are falling apart because of Man's sin, not God's work.  His work was perfect, but we had to go and screw with the machinery. :)

Even if I were inclined to be a believer, it's things like this that would keep me from being a Christian. Allowing this to happen means that your god is either petty, or weak, and neither has any real attraction for me.
This message was last edited by the player at 11:33, Fri 24 Oct 2008.

Ah, but its not.  I had a hard time truely believing until I read Case for Christ and other literature.  Your are making a choice right now in what you believe.  I didn't choose Jesus, because I just spun a wheel and it landed on Him, I chose Him because he was the only one that made sense.  Also what other religious leader could claim that they were raised from the dead?



If you wish to believe that, it is still your choice.  You know the gift, by the knowing the giver.



What do you call the Bible?  Definetly not hiding.
If you start talking about the bible being proof, let me just point out to you that Christianity is not the only religion in town, and there is nothing that suggests it is any better than any of the others?



Okay so you are in the camp that believes that a child should be protected from everything.  That nothing bad should ever happen to a kid.  Is this correct?  I want to make sure I am following you before I continue.
This message was last edited by the player at 13:09, Fri 24 Oct 2008.

Ra, Odin, Isis, Osiris, Baal, Adonis, Mithra and some Roman guy whose name I've forgotten (off the top of my head).

The word "choice" is a bit problematic in these situations.  As you point out, you had a hard time believing at one point.  If it were just a choice, there'd be no hard or easy about it.  You'd just choose what you liked.  As you say, though, you believe Him because it's the only one that makes sense to you.  It's not so much a choice what you believe, but rather you automatically believe that which makes the most sense to you, and then choose your actions based on your beliefs.  To illustrate the point the point that belief isn't a choice, let me bring out a couple tests (apologies to those of you who've seen me say this a million times now):
1. grab a pencil and hold in out in front of you in your hand.  Decide to believe that when you let go of it, it will just hover in front of you rather than fall.  Then let go.  If belief is really a choice, rather than something that is the result of all your previous experiences, then you'll be surprised when the pencil falls.  If, on the other hand, it falls and you're not really surprised, this shows that you can't just choose your beliefs.  Something other than just your own decision has to cause you to believe it.
2. just as an experiment, choose to believe the Jesus isn't God, and instead become a Muslim for 10 minutes, and then switch back to being a christian.  My guess is that you can't change beliefs like that at will.  Again, it's not that you choose to believe in Jesus, but rather that you do believe in Jesus, and choose how to act on that belief.

In my opinion, beliefs are not choices.  Actions are choices.  Beliefs are reactions to experiences you have.  Believing one thing may lead you to believe another (ie, beliefs can be experiences themselves, and thus be causes as well as effects), but you can't just change your beliefs at will.

Going back to the original point: you believe in christianity because it's the only religion that makes sense to you.  You don't believe other religions because they don't make sense to you.  People of other religions are just the same: their religion makes sense to them, but your religion doesn't.  Everyone believes their religion makes the most sense, and all others are nonsensical to some degree.  Atheists go one religion further, and feel that none of the religions make much sense, and agnostics believe they can't reliably tell which, if any, makes the most sense.

There is a problem though with that analagy.  Your assuming that you have the power to over right the laws of physics.  The only one's I ever heard say that are the ones who believe that nothing is real except them, and they are usually put in a looney bin!  Something you wish to admit Tycho?  :P

People do change their beliefs.  There are ex-muslims, ex-gays, and sometimes, ex-christians (though I hate to admit it :)).  Beliefs grow and change sometimes do to new information or new insights.

How would you respond to this situation:  someone grabs you, holds you over a cliff, and says "oh no!  you're in horrible danger!  if I let go, you'll fall down this cliff and die!  But if you give me all your money, then I'll pull you back here to safety!  It's your choice.  I don't want you to choose not to give me your money, but I'm not going to force you to do it.  It's your call.  Choose to have me drop you to your death, or give me all your money.  I'm trying to be a savior here.  I'd love to keep you from falling.  But in the end, it's your choice."
Would you say someone who did that is a good guy?  Personally, I wouldn't.  The whole "it's your choice, I won't force you" argument rings a bit hollow, when you take into account the unspoken part that says "...but if you don't choose what I want you to, I'm going to sentence you to eternal torment in hell."  Sure, there's a choice being offered, but there's a lot of coercion involved.

Giving someone a choice between doing what you want them to, or you doing something horrible to them doesn't absolve you of the blame for doing that horrible thing if they choose not to do what you want.  I can't point a gun at someone and say "do X or I'll shoot!" and then say "hey, I gave him a choice!" when people get mad at me for shooting him.  Perhaps a better example would be if I were walking across a bridge, and found TitL clinging to the edge, about to fall off.  He says "hey Tycho!  Give me a hand up, will you?  I slipped over the edge, and I'm losing my grip here!"  If I say "hmm, seems like you're in a jam, Trust.  I guess I can help you, but I'll only do it if you renounce christianity."  TitL would likely say "No way!  I'd rather die than that!"  If I then shrug my shoulders and say "well, it's your call," and walk away, then I would be a horrible person.  Offering him a choice in the matter doesn't make me any less horrible.  The right thing to do is the right thing to do, and the wrong thing to do is the wrong thing to do.  Offering him a choice doesn't absolve me from the the fact that I didn't the right thing.

It's not just that one has a choice, in the christian model, but rather that God has forced a choice upon you.  It's not like the rules were set, and now His hands are tied.  He made the rules.  He created the situation that caused you to make the choice.  He's like the guy pointing a gun at you, saying "do X or I'll shoot!"  He's not so much offering a choice, but forcing a choice on you.

Now, you can say "hey, He's God.  If He wants to force a choice on us, who's gonna tell Him He can't?"  And that's true.  He can make up whatever rules He likes, I suppose.  But I think you miss a key aspect of the situation when you portray it as "hey, He lets you decide, it's all up to you, He won't force you, etc."  It's not the kind of thing we'd accept if a human did it.  That doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't accept it from a Deity, and to a degree, should/shouldn't isn't really an issue if you believe in Him, anymore than it is if someone has a gun at your head forcing you to do X or die.  The choice in both case is yours, but in neither case do I think it's appropriate to present that choice as a virtue.

Ah, but its not.  I had a hard time truely believing until I read Case for Christ and other literature.  Your are making a choice right now in what you believe.  I didn't choose Jesus, because I just spun a wheel and it landed on Him, I chose Him because he was the only one that made sense.

A Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Wiccan, they would all say the same thing. Why should I listen to you instead of them?

Also what other religious leader could claim that they were raised from the dead?

The Buddha achieved Parinirvana, what other religious leader can claim that?

Also what other religious leader could claim that they were raised from the dead?

I call it a holy book, just the same as every other holy book in existence. The bible is not a unique text, there is nothing suggesting that it is any more valid than say, the Koran.

Okay so you are in the camp that believes that a child should be protected from everything.  That nothing bad should ever happen to a kid.  Is this correct?  I want to make sure I am following you before I continue.

What precisely does that have to do with anything?