There is probably no God. So stop worrying and enjoy your life.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Grand-Moff-Gav
http://www.freethinker.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/atheistbus.jpg

Ok, so the British Humanist Association has plastered signs all over London's "bendy-buses" which assure commuters that God doesn't exist and they can get on and live happily...oh wait sorry, they don't assure. They suggest that God may not exist and therefore people shouldn't worry...

Here's a critical piece about the worst campaign in history.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
http://www.freethinker.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/atheistbus.jpg

Ok, so the British Humanist Association has plastered signs all over London's "bendy-buses" which assure commuters that God doesn't exist and they can get on and live happily...oh wait sorry, they don't assure. They suggest that God may not exist and therefore people shouldn't worry...

Here's a critical piece about the worst campaign in history.


Come on Grand-Moff-Gav, I don't do big blocks of text. Format that thing.

...and I always support happiness.

King Kandy
I could barely read the article it was so poorly formatted.

Red Nemesis
I'm going to ignore the end of the quote, in which liberals are dragged into the discussion, and it takes a turn for the worse (belligerent)
Here's the first thing I noticed:


Many people who believe in God cite a fear of Hell, or some other form of Pascal's Wager as a reason to convert. This statement is saying 'In Pascal's Wager, the odds are in favor of NOT believing. So stop worrying about Brimstone.'
For example:
http://wondermark.com/c/2004-04-20-051.gif


For me, A fear of punishment if I fail to follow an insecure Skygod's edicts is the weakest reason to convert. If I do convert, it will be through an honest review of the facts and a feeling that I would be happier, healthier and better supported inside a religious faith than out of one. The problem is that following a code I believe to be false (pretty much any metaphysical edicts at all) would not make me happier or healthier. So I don't.

Dawkins might have supported a more focused attack on Yahwe, but the majority of his followers are not willing to engage in a full scale 'battle' with the church. Lack of 'belly fire' is rampant.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Come on Grand-Moff-Gav, I don't do big blocks of text. Format that thing.

...and I always support happiness. Originally posted by King Kandy
I could barely read the article it was so poorly formatted.

Oh! Sorry Guys I never looked at how it turned out! Apologies!



from this site

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/howard-jacobson/howard-jacobson-so-god-probably-doesnt-exist-dont-these-atheists-have-any-conviction-972794.html

DigiMark007
Basically Gav hates the signs and he posted an article that berates them.

Whether or not you disagree with the premise, the goal is to promote happiness. As such, I like the signs.

The other main argument of the piece is that if God doesn't exist, neither does morality. Strictly speaking, objective morality doesn't exist, but the cliche (and by now, tired) argument that atheists can't have morals is roundly defeated by the obvious fact that the vast majority of atheists do have morality, at least as strong as any theist. It may baffle those who feel the need for a deity to be present in order for morality to exist, but I would find it hard to argue when atheists aren't trying to take over the world through violent means, raping and pillaging, and generally spreading anarchy.

It also calls out the signs for not being more militant. "Probably" doesn't convey the message that the public thinks atheists represent. Why not say he "surely" doesn't exist? Because we don't know that. Atheism, as it's always been, is a belief that God doesn't exist. Not a dogmatic assertion of knoweldge that he assuredly doesn't. The article insultingly suggests atheists should have far more "fire in their bellies" and asks what the point is otherwise. Clearly the point is that atheists can live normal, happy lives without needing to fit into some preconceived stereotype thought up by the author of the article.

I'm surprised you'd endorse such drivel, Gav. It's fine to disagree with the sign. But to disagree with that nonsense of a rebuttal is far worse.

Bardock42
Won't read article.

Think sign is stupid.

Don't think outrage is justified.

Laugh at BHA society for wasting money.

lord xyz
"If God exists, absolute morals exist." -- true

"If absolute morals exist, God exists" -- not true

I believe absolute morals are whats good for the universe. Our world and our life are something we should cherish.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lord xyz
"If God exists, absolute morals exist." -- true

"If absolute morals exist, God exists" -- not true

I believe absolute morals are whats good for the universe. Our world and our life are something we should cherish. Neither is true, necessarily.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Bardock42
Neither is true, necessarily. Well, God has rules, so there must be absolute morals.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lord xyz
Well, God has rules, so there must be absolute morals. Why?

I understand they are morals, why absolute? Cause God has the biggest cock?

lord xyz
Originally posted by Bardock42
Why?

I understand they are morals, why absolute? Cause God has the biggest cock? Yeah, pretty much.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Whether or not you disagree with the premise, the goal is to promote happiness. As such, I like the signs.

There's no way you're that naive.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bardock42
Why?

I understand they are morals, why absolute? Cause God has the biggest cock?

Perhaps because of the omniscience thing. If God knows everything then he's capable of knowing the outcome of everything. Absolute morals might exist they just might be extraordinarily complex rules.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Perhaps because of the omniscience thing. If God knows everything then he's capable of knowing the outcome of everything. Absolute morals might exist they just might be extraordinarily complex rules. That's a big maybe.

But, God existing still doesn'T mean that absolute morals have to exist.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's a big maybe.

But, God existing still doesn'T mean that absolute morals have to exist.

Or more importantly, that anyone knows what they are.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Basically Gav hates the signs and he posted an article that berates them.

Whether or not you disagree with the premise, the goal is to promote happiness. As such, I like the signs.

The other main argument of the piece is that if God doesn't exist, neither does morality. Strictly speaking, objective morality doesn't exist, but the cliche (and by now, tired) argument that atheists can't have morals is roundly defeated by the obvious fact that the vast majority of atheists do have morality, at least as strong as any theist. It may baffle those who feel the need for a deity to be present in order for morality to exist, but I would find it hard to argue when atheists aren't trying to take over the world through violent means, raping and pillaging, and generally spreading anarchy.

It also calls out the signs for not being more militant. "Probably" doesn't convey the message that the public thinks atheists represent. Why not say he "surely" doesn't exist? Because we don't know that. Atheism, as it's always been, is a belief that God doesn't exist. Not a dogmatic assertion of knoweldge that he assuredly doesn't. The article insultingly suggests atheists should have far more "fire in their bellies" and asks what the point is otherwise. Clearly the point is that atheists can live normal, happy lives without needing to fit into some preconceived stereotype thought up by the author of the article.

I'm surprised you'd endorse such drivel, Gav. It's fine to disagree with the sign. But to disagree with that nonsense of a rebuttal is far worse.

Actually, I love the signs- I think its great that the "God Debate" is now being taken to a new level. However, I can't see where in the article you are getting this "atheists can't have morals" thing from...What the author is saying is that A) Bendy Buses are the worst thing to hit london since the congestion chareg and B) the atheist message should be stronger.

Ofcourse an atheist who put the sign "God does not exist" would be accused of dogmaticism.

Also, I don't believe there is an outrage over the signs, indeed a Christian Think Tank donated money to the signs campaign because they believe they promote the Alpha Course (a course about learning about Christianity)

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Actually, I love the signs- I think its great that the "God Debate" is now being taken to a new level. However, I can't see where in the article you are getting this "atheists can't have morals" thing from...What the author is saying is that A) Bendy Buses are the worst thing to hit london since the congestion chareg and B) the atheist message should be stronger.

Ofcourse an atheist who put the sign "God does not exist" would be accused of dogmaticism.

Also, I don't believe there is an outrage over the signs, indeed a Christian Think Tank donated money to the signs campaign because they believe they promote the Alpha Course (a course about learning about Christianity)


I don't understand how you can take debates about God serioulsy when it seems in the Christian faith there is not an accurate defintion of what god is.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
I don't understand how you can take debates about God serioulsy when it seems in the Christian faith there is not an accurate defintion of what god is.

I think there is, he's an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being totally one but in three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit who created all things, sustains all things and rules all things.

That may not be accurate in your view, but you don't know for sure do you?

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I think there is, he's an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being totally one but in three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit who created all things, sustains all things and rules all things.

That may not be accurate in your view, but you don't know for sure do you?

Yeah im aware of that but why make a big deal about discussing something you can't prove? Really im not saying you shouldn't discuss it but since God is infinite and eternal you can't prove for sure that god exists.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Yeah im aware of that but why make a big deal about discussing something you can't prove? Really im not saying you shouldn't discuss it but since God is infinite and eternal you can't prove for sure that god exists.

Its still a wonderfully fascinating thing to debate- the irony is. Even you seem to enjoy the debate,...

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Its still a wonderfully fascinating thing to debate- the irony is. Even you seem to enjoy the debate,...


Well I think it depends on how you debate it....as long as your not expecting to get anything really concrete from it. *shrug*


Im not sure if its fascinating, I think it can be a waste of time. I love how people always seems to assume that God is always trying to help 'good' people and doesn't assist evil people.

Bardock42
I prefer discussing the shortcomings the belief in either causes over whether it actually is truth.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Well I think it depends on how you debate it....as long as your not expecting to get anything really concrete from it. *shrug*


Im not sure if its fascinating, I think it can be a waste of time. I love how people always seems to assume that God is always trying to help 'good' people and doesn't assist evil people.

Hmm, I don't get your last sentence- is that an attempt to stir up a discussion on the "Something good happens God did it, something bad happens God had nothing to do with it" theme?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I prefer discussing the shortcomings the belief in either causes over whether it actually is truth.
Well, these posters suggest belief makes you worry whereas disbelief means you don't worry...(at least not about Godly things.)

Bardock42
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav

Well, these posters suggest belief makes you worry whereas disbelief means you don't worry...(at least not about Godly things.) Yeah, already said I think they are stupid.

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Hmm, I don't get your last sentence- is that an attempt to stir up a discussion on the "Something good happens God did it, something bad happens God had nothing to do with it" theme?





LOL actually im a bit tired im not sure what im doing. for some reason I was thinking of the heroes series. They seem to imply that God is on the side of good people and not evil....not sure how this is even relevant to the thread sorry. laughing out loud

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There's no way you're that naive.

Nah. I realize everyone has an agenda. But if they were trying to be jerks about it, they could say a lot of different things. As it is, that's about the tamest thing I could think of that still promotes atheism. The God billboards all over the country are far worse, for example, and no one complains about them.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Actually, I love the signs- I think its great that the "God Debate" is now being taken to a new level. However, I can't see where in the article you are getting this "atheists can't have morals" thing from...What the author is saying is that A) Bendy Buses are the worst thing to hit london since the congestion chareg and B) the atheist message should be stronger.

Fair enough. Though it sounded like you endorsed the article when you called the buses "the worst campaign in history" and then posted the article.

The author says far more than those two things, though. Your interpretation of his points is generous to him, to say the least. It's an awful critique that basically says that atheists, and their propaganda, should conform to what he imagines them to be...which is an amalgamation of various common stereotypes associated with atheism, few of them with lasting merit.

I got the overriding feeling that if he were re-writing the message, it would say something akin to "God isn't real, and religion is a tool of the weak!" Certainly better fodder for a hack writer, though not in touch with reality.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Nah. I realize everyone has an agenda. But if they were trying to be jerks about it, they could say a lot of different things. As it is, that's about the tamest thing I could think of that still promotes atheism. The God billboards all over the country are far worse, for example, and no one complains about them.

The people who put those up typically do think that on one level or another their actions are helping people to be comforted. Atheists don't.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The people who put those up typically do think that on one level or another their actions are helping people to be comforted. Atheists don't.

erm at the blanket stereotype. Yes, I'd argue, they believe they are doing good by spreading their message. And it's in a very non-overt manner, since, as the article suggests, it could be much more shocking in its message.

Do you really think that the only reason they'd do it would be to create controversy or make theists upset? Seems a shoddy reason to market a wide-scale advertisement. And falls completely flat when you realize that if those were their goals, the message on the buses would be far different.

Jesus has plenty of well-meaning adverts. Atheists are allowed the same. If nothing else, it raises awareness without being derogatory, which is a good thing.

anaconda
who worries if there was a god , free will must count for something ............or not ........................so?

dadudemon
I do agree that God equally does not exist as existing.

However, do things like apatheism, agnosticism, etc...fall under atheism? I guess I had this notion that they were separate and atheism is a pure set of "beliefs": God or any of its incarnates, do not exist.

Could someone clear that up for me.

Also, is there some sort of Chart out there that is similar to that Christianity chart that starts with Catholicism and shows all the other religions? If atheism is at the top and then all others fall underndeath it, it'd be nice to see that.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by DigiMark007
erm at the blanket stereotype. Yes, I'd argue, they believe they are doing good by spreading their message. And it's in a very non-overt manner, since, as the article suggests, it could be much more shocking in its message.

Plastering a message on the side of a bus isn't overt enough for you?

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Do you really think that the only reason they'd do it would be to create controversy or make theists upset?

Frankly, yes. There's nothing else that a rationalist could hope to produce with those signs.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Seems a shoddy reason to market a wide-scale advertisement. And falls completely flat when you realize that if those were their goals, the message on the buses would be far different.

And less defensible if anyone called them on it.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Jesus has plenty of well-meaning adverts. Atheists are allowed the same. If nothing else, it raises awareness without being derogatory, which is a good thing.

Awareness of what? That atheists exist? That they can be just as evangelical as theists? That atheists consider religion to be a bad thing?

It hurts the "cause" of atheism more than it raises any sort of awareness.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
I do agree that God equally does not exist as existing.

However, do things like apatheism, agnosticism, etc...fall under atheism? I guess I had this notion that they were separate and atheism is a pure set of "beliefs": God or any of its incarnates, do not exist.

Could someone clear that up for me.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, is there some sort of Chart out there that is similar to that Christianity chart that starts with Catholicism and shows all the other religions? If atheism is at the top and then all others fall underndeath it, it'd be nice to see that.

I know of something about "strong" vs "weak" atheism with only "God doesn't exist and you'll burn in hell if you disagree" being truly strong, with agnosticism being the weakest and everyone else falling in the middle. Ignosticism and apatheism fall outside classification as neither truly addresses God, both boiling down to "ya'll are idiots".

Deja~vu
I'd enjoy my life if it wasn't for those fundamentalists. mad I'm related to them...

DigiMark007
Raising awareness and spreading their message doesn't make atheists "religious." Evangelization isn't inherent to religion.

And no, Sym, I think it could be a lot more offensive. I don't think think the message they used is at all offensive, to anyone of any religion, unless they're looking to pick a fight. If they wanted to offend, to upset, etc. they would have used a far different message.'

And when I used the term "non-overt" I purposely stated that the alternative would be a more-overt shocking message. You ignored that part when you asked "what's more overt than a bus sign?" I don't disagree that advertising is an overt display of a doctrine. But why bemoan it for atheists when just as obvious (and frankly less socially tactful) Christian adverts are literally everywhere. Atheism deserves the same treatment: namely, tolerance and acceptance.

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I think it could be a lot more offensive.


To be quite honest it could, but to be quite frank its not hard to offend religous fundamentalists. They probably find that sign offence as well.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
To be quite honest it could, but to be quite frank its not hard to offend religous fundamentalists. They probably find that sign offence as well.

True, but we can't help their reactions to simple propaganda. Like I said, if the intent was to offend, the message on the buses would be far different.

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I know of something about "strong" vs "weak" atheism with only "God doesn't exist and you'll burn in hell if you disagree" being truly strong, with agnosticism being the weakest and everyone else falling in the middle. Ignosticism and apatheism fall outside classification as neither truly addresses God, both boiling down to "ya'll are idiots".

Actually that post demonstrates you know nothing of strong vs. weak atheism. Weak atheism is nothing like agnosticism, nor is strong atheism a more fundamentalist position.

The only difference is this. Weak atheists say there is no God as it is ridiculous to belief in such a construct that there is no evidence for.

Strong atheists say there is no God because the evidence actively shows he does not xist.

That's all. It's all down to "I do not believe there is a God" vs. "I actively believe there is no God" (although 'believe' is a poor word to use with atheist views).

Agnosticism is nothing like either. Agnosticism is, at base, uncommitted. 'Weak' atheism is every bit as committed as 'strong', just for a different reason.


Your idea that the onbly reason to put the signs up is to upset theists is arrant nonsense, and nothing to do with 'rationalists' or any such thing, another label I suspect you use entirely incorrectly. It is being done to counter religious adverts that have been put up in the same way; the propogation of atheist belief is in the idea that it is in people's best interests, just as with religious beliefs.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Actually that post demonstrates you know nothing of strong vs. weak atheism.

As evidenced by my phrasing I didn't claim any sort deep knowledge and I certainly don't appreciate being attacked for something so irrelevant.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Your idea that the onbly reason to put the signs up is to upset theists is arrant nonsense, and nothing to do with 'rationalists' or any such thing

No person who is thinking rationally about the signs can possibly think they will do anything but upset theists.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Raising awareness and spreading their message doesn't make atheists "religious." Evangelization isn't inherent to religion.

I know. And it's just as sickening when atheists do it. Except that most of them claim to be thinking about what they're doing.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
And no, Sym, I think it could be a lot more offensive. I don't think think the message they used is at all offensive, to anyone of any religion, unless they're looking to pick a fight. If they wanted to offend, to upset, etc. they would have used a far different message.'

How is picking a phrase that says "you're wrong and unhappy and my way is better" not picking a fight? You have a clear bias in this discussion if you really don't think that the person who made those signs was both intelligent and not trying to offend people.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
And when I used the term "non-overt" I purposely stated that the alternative would be a more-overt shocking message. You ignored that part when you asked "what's more overt than a bus sign?" I don't disagree that advertising is an overt display of a doctrine.

My mistake. Sorry.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
But why bemoan it for atheists when just as obvious (and frankly less socially tactful) Christian adverts are literally everywhere. Atheism deserves the same treatment: namely, tolerance and acceptance.

And getting torn apart when they're dogmatic evangelists. The Christian adverts have plenty of social tact considering most people in the places where they are identify as Christian already, not that I don't find the signs just as bad I just recognize that there are people who will see "Jesus Loves You" and be comforted but no one who sees "God Doesn't Exist. So Stop Worrying" and feel the same.

red g jacks
thats not a very catchy slogan

and from what i can see the sign is just black text on a white background

how boring. maybe religion wouldn't be so widespread if atheists had a better marketing plan.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by red g jacks
how boring. maybe religion wouldn't be so widespread if atheists had a better marketing plan.

yes

Bicnarok
The sentence on the Bus gived the impression that if God does exist its a bad thing, how odd.

I wonder why they put this slogan on a bus its bound to wind some people up, not that it matters like. Quite funny really imo.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Bicnarok
The sentence on the Bus gived the impression that if God does exist its a bad thing, how odd.

I wonder why they put this slogan on a bus its bound to wind some people up, not that it matters like. Quite funny really imo. Well, my atheism has eternal lack of suffering and peace for everyone....most forms of Christianity have agonizing, torturous hell.


...yeah, would be a bad thing, imo.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, my atheism has eternal lack of suffering and peace for everyone....most forms of Christianity have agonizing, torturous hell.


...yeah, would be a bad thing, imo.

Most forms of Christianity also have eternal happiness for everyone too.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Most forms of Christianity also have eternal happiness for everyone too.

I don't even know if even one of them has that. "Most" certainly don't.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't even know if even one of them has that. "Most" certainly don't.

Crazy little thing called heaven.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Crazy little thing called heaven. Ohhhhhhhhhhh, you mean "possible eternal happiness for everyone, but only if you follow the exactly correct rules which, usually would rule out about 99% of all humans that ever lived and will ever live, which instead will be in eternal pain and sufferring" ... err...I lost my train of thought...how does this relate to what I said?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bardock42
Ohhhhhhhhhhh, you mean "possible eternal happiness for everyone, but only if you follow the exactly correct rules which, usually would rule out about 99% of all humans that ever lived and will ever live, which instead will be in eternal pain and sufferring" ... err...I lost my train of thought...how does this relate to what I said?

That's your version. Many sects have more lenient requirements that let in most people or at least most Christians.

Ironically the sign presented pushes people towards God not away from it. If you're afraid of God you try to fulfill whatever the requirements are rather than becoming an atheist.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's your version. Many sects have more lenient requirements that let in most people or at least most Christians.

Ironically the sign presented pushes people towards God not away from it. If you're afraid of God you try to fulfill whatever the requirements are rather than becoming an atheist.

As I said, I don't know of any, I don't think that most do. The biggest certainly don't.

And, still, the sign is stupid.

Deja~vu
And which rules...i.e. denomination should we follow to get to Heaven?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Deja~vu
And which rules...i.e. denomination should we follow to get to Heaven?

Whichever one you like.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Whichever one you like. That your belief?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bardock42
That your belief?

They all have the same odds of being true (including atheism) and there's no way to improve those odds.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They all have the same odds of being true (including atheism) and there's no way to improve those odds. Why do you think they all have the same odds?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bardock42
Why do you think they all have the same odds?

No one has any sort positive proof.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No one has any sort positive proof. Don't you think those that state something that is proven wrong should have worse odds?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bardock42
Don't you think those that state something that is proven wrong should have worse odds?

Only if that is integral to the belief and only if the that belief actually states that. In any event that still fails to effect the odds significantly and certainly makes trusting in science look idiotic.

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They all have the same odds of being true (including atheism) and there's no way to improve those odds.

something being untestable does not mean it has equal probability to other untestable things.

For instance, God has an probability of X. God, who wears a 10 gallon hat, has a probability of X + the probability of God wearing a 10 gallon hat.

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Only if that is integral to the belief and only if the that belief actually states that. In any event that still fails to effect the odds significantly and certainly makes trusting in science look idiotic.

based on statements of fact (though themselves untestable) made by any faith, one can make predictions based on what one might expect to see if that faith were true.

At best, one can say that an existent God has callous indifference for those who are said to be his "creations" and no regard for those who follow him in life. Any religion that does not propose that, has evidence provided against it.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
Ohhhhhhhhhhh, you mean "possible eternal happiness for everyone, but only if you follow the exactly correct rules which, usually would rule out about 99% of all humans that ever lived and will ever live, which instead will be in eternal pain and sufferring" ... err...I lost my train of thought...how does this relate to what I said?


oooooor, Mormonism. Where everyone born on Earth will go to some sort of Heaven......besides the people like Judas (who receive a fullness of knowledge and turn away from it for deliberate, evil reasons.)

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
oooooor, Mormonism. Where everyone born on Earth will go to some sort of Heaven......besides the people like Judas (who receive a fullness of knowledge and turn away from it for deliberate, evil reasons.) Ah, so one sect. Though, to be fair, Christians don't accept you as Christians. What...with you worshipping an angel called Moron.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
Ah, so one sect.


Yes. Because that would leave a very small handful of individuals who deliberately chose to NOT go to heaven. no expression





Originally posted by Bardock42
Though, to be fair, Christians don't accept you as Christians.

Some Christians do not accept us as Christians because we took away some of their congregation with our unpaid clergy, etc. no expression

Originally posted by Bardock42
What...with you worshipping an angel called Moron.


No. We don't worship any being except for God. no expression





Yes, I know you're being an a$$ for humor's sake. no expression

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
something being untestable does not mean it has equal probability to other untestable things.

For instance, God has an probability of X. God, who wears a 10 gallon hat, has a probability of X + the probability of God wearing a 10 gallon hat.

But neither is known or calculable, so doesn't it come out to be pretty much the exact same thing?

Originally posted by inimalist
based on statements of fact (though themselves untestable) made by any faith, one can make predictions based on what one might expect to see if that faith were true.

At best, one can say that an existent God has callous indifference for those who are said to be his "creations" and no regard for those who follow him in life. Any religion that does not propose that, has evidence provided against it.

Not at all. It has provided evidence that some aspect of it may be inaccurate or incomplete and absolutely no evidence against the idea of god. Being callous has no effect on one's existance, if it did serial killers wouldn't be a problem.

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But neither is known or calculable, so doesn't it come out to be pretty much the exact same thing?

no

we can't know the exact probability, but we know one is greater than the other...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not at all. It has provided evidence that some aspect of it may be inaccurate or incomplete and absolutely no evidence against the idea of god. Being callous has no effect on one's existance, if it did serial killers wouldn't be a problem.

fine, works well if the only tenant of your faith is that God exists in a form which has no effect on the world

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
no

we can't know the exact probability, but we know one is greater than the other...

By what amount?

Originally posted by inimalist
fine, works well if the only tenant of your faith is that God exists in a form which has no effect on the world

Or that God simply exists and does any number of different things that make noticing it impossible. It also works nicely when someone says "God doesn't exist" and acts as though they have proof of that rather broad claim.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Mormons, with their 15th wives and no black clergy...oh wait...thats in the past isn't it.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Mormons, with their 15th wives and no black clergy...oh wait...thats in the past isn't it.


You are correct, partially.

About 2% of the Mormons practiced polygamy. "Blacks" held the priesthood before the 70s. Some were exempt, though. Racism, I think. But when has God not been racist? We read about him being jealous, racist, and violent all throughout the old testament.


You're just jealous beacuse our Clergy can have sex.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by dadudemon
You are correct, partially.

About 2% of the Mormons practiced polygamy. "Blacks" held the priesthood before the 70s. Some were exempt, though. Racism, I think. But when has God not been racist? We read about him being jealous, racist, and violent all throughout the old testament.


You're just jealous beacuse our Clergy can have sex.

Ahh, not willing to give up a few pleasures for God no?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
You're just jealous beacuse our Clergy can have sex.

Ha, owned.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ha, owned.

I don't wish to take things to seriously but Priests do not enter celibacy begrudgingly. Everything is God's and we are glad to sacrifice small things to do his work.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I don't wish to take things to seriously but Priests do not enter celibacy begrudgingly. Everything is God's and we are glad to sacrifice small things to do his work.


Correct. My comment was just jest. Of course you're not angry about that.....why do it if you were?

edit-besides.....there's more than enough jokes to go around for both our faiths.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I don't wish to take things to seriously but Priests do not enter celibacy begrudgingly. Everything is God's and we are glad to sacrifice small things to do his work.

I'm well aware of that. Self denial is a very common way of finding meaning and connectivity, I respect that greatly. Nonetheless, he owned you.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm well aware of that. Self denial is a very common way of finding meaning and connectivity, I respect that greatly. Nonetheless, he owned you.

Why?

I don't see that...

It would be like me saying "atleast the head of my church gets to live in the Vatican"...

sex is only as important as the value you put in it...and when someone chooses not to have sex you cannot "own" them by saying "well I can have sex when I like". Especially when its probably no more true for him than it is for any priest...

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How is picking a phrase that says "you're wrong and unhappy and my way is better" not picking a fight? You have a clear bias in this discussion if you really don't think that the person who made those signs was both intelligent and not trying to offend people.

I sincerely don't think the intent was to offend. The article at this thread's opening admits that it isn't offensive. He even goes so far as to say that it should be more offensive, since the current phrase is fairly bland. If that is actually the intent, it's a horrible attempt at it. Some people will be offended at anything that disagrees with their personal sensibilities....but that's a natural part of existing in the world. So long as it's presented in a non-derisive manner, we can't be responsible for the supposed slights that others perceive in religious messages.

The obvious point also remains that no one need be offended at ANY religious propaganda. It is only offensive if we allow it to be, so long as it isn't negative toward any particular group of people.

I see nothing wrong with harmlessly displaying a position of opinion. Much as I wouldn't be offended at, say, a John McCain message on a bus.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
no one who sees "God Doesn't Exist. So Stop Worrying" and feel the same.

Disagree. It's very comforting to me, and to many atheists, because it's an affirmation of our own control over the meaning and direction of our lives, including our own happiness.

It also says he probably doesn't exist. I wouldn't normally play semantics, but it's an important admission, because it's the different between stubborn dogmatism and a rational opinion.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I sincerely don't think the intent was to offend. The article at this thread's opening admits that it isn't offensive. He even goes so far as to say that it should be more offensive, since the current phrase is fairly bland. If that is actually the intent, it's a horrible attempt at it. Some people will be offended at anything that disagrees with their personal sensibilities....but that's a natural part of existing in the world. So long as it's presented in a non-derisive manner, we can't be responsible for the supposed slights that others perceive in religious messages.

The obvious point also remains that no one need be offended at ANY religious propaganda. It is only offensive if we allow it to be, so long as it isn't negative toward any particular group of people.

I see nothing wrong with harmlessly displaying a position of opinion. Much as I wouldn't be offended at, say, a John McCain message on a bus.



Disagree. It's very comforting to me, and to many atheists, because it's an affirmation of our own control over the meaning and direction of our lives, including our own happiness.

It also says he probably doesn't exist. I wouldn't normally play semantics, but it's an important admission, because it's the different between stubborn dogmatism and a rational opinion.

Ahh Digi, when will you come home?

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Ahh Digi, when will you come home?

I'm assuming this is a humorous attempt at conversion, yes? I smiled, at least.

Jokes aside, playing the nostalgia card with my Catholic upbringing (i.e. calling it "home"wink isn't ever going to be effective. Ironic, though, because when I left Christianity, those who attempted to "bring me back" would ask similar questions. Do you miss it? or Does something feel like it's missing from your life? or variations thereof. The answer was always a contented "no" followed by brief explanation. The arguments never approached it from a logical perspective, but rather worked at playing the emotions. Which is effective only when one doesn't realize how emotional appeals are used to make religion seem so enticing.

Anyway. Ideologically, I'm about as far as is possible from Christianity, and very secure (and happy) in my beliefs. Sorry to burst the bubble Gav.

wink

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'm assuming this is a humorous attempt at conversion, yes? I smiled, at least.

Jokes aside, playing the nostalgia card with my Catholic upbringing (i.e. calling it "home"wink isn't ever going to be effective. Ironic, though, because when I left Christianity, those who attempted to "bring me back" would ask similar questions. Do you miss it? or Does something feel like it's missing from your life? or variations thereof. The answer was always a contented "no" followed by brief explanation. The arguments never approached it from a logical perspective, but rather worked at playing the emotions. Which is effective only when one doesn't realize how emotional appeals are used to make religion seem so enticing.

Anyway. Ideologically, I'm about as far as is possible from Christianity, and very secure (and happy) in my beliefs. Sorry to burst the bubble Gav.

wink

That didn't answer the question though did it?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
sex is only as important as the value you put in it...

that coupled with a plethora of biological systems creates varying degrees of libido.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
and when someone chooses not to have sex you cannot "own" them by saying "well I can have sex when I like".

Yes, yes you can. Because it's a joke.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Especially when its probably no more true for him than it is for any priest...

laughing laughing laughing


Wait, you WERE making a joke about priests molesting and raping little boys, right?




edit-

Wait, holy damn....... no expression

You could also be saying that I'm an internet nerd who is most likely a virgin. I'm married.

The kids go to bed by 8:30 pm. I'm up until 1 or 2 every night. Do the math. flirt

Bardock42
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I don't wish to take things to seriously but Priests do not enter celibacy begrudgingly. Everything is God's and we are glad to sacrifice small things to do his work. Of course they don't. They know they can tap some major altar boy ass no expression

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
That didn't answer the question though did it?

It answered it at length, and in no uncertain terms. You're just being difficult about it.

wink

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
By what amount?

an unknown amount.

pretend there are Z number of potential ways the universe could have began. Let X represent the number of ways the universe could have been created by God. X/Z then represents the probability that the universe would have been created by God.

Y is a subset of X, which represents the number of times God created the universe only while wearing a hat. Y/X represents the probability of God wearing a hat and Y/Z represents the probability of God creating the universe while wearing a hat.

X, by definition, has to be larger than Y, because Y is a subset of X and it is possible God was not wearing a hat when he created the universe.

X/Z - Y/Z would be the equation for how much more likely it is that God created the universe vs God created the universe with a hat. Given that X/Z has to be larger than Y/Z, it will always be more unlikely that he wore a hat (unless there is empirical evidence that shows he had to wear a hat).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Or that God simply exists and does any number of different things that make noticing it impossible.

indeed, or any other number of permutations. My more general point being that, although God is unfalsifiable, predictions and claims made by a religion are not.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It also works nicely when someone says "God doesn't exist" and acts as though they have proof of that rather broad claim.

not requiring proof of something's non-existence, I've never ran into that problem. But yes, I would agree that people who claim to be able to disprove the existence of God are incorrect.

Magee
I didn't read any of this thread but those buses are simply to convey the other side of the coin, to make people think. The amount of posters and huge boards over the place advertising the christian faith, the amount of people in the high street trying to get a few moments of your time to tell why you are wrong, so why exactly can we not have people saying there is no God? If I seen a bus with that on the side It would make my day and if it offends some religous people then obviously the faith in there belief is so weak that we don't have to worry.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by dadudemon
Wait, you WERE making a joke about priests molesting and raping little boys, right?

That is always part of priest jokes...




Originally posted by dadudemon
edit-

Wait, holy damn....... no expression

You could also be saying that I'm an internet nerd who is most likely a virgin. I'm married.

The kids go to bed by 8:30 pm. I'm up until 1 or 2 every night. Do the math. flirt

Umm that thought didn't come to my mind- I was thinking that you can't actually have sex when you want any more than a priest. You cannot order your wife to have sex with you- if she says no thats it. (Unless you choose to rape her, but a Priest could do that) Your other options would be to A) go to a club and try and pick up a girl, which is no guarantee you would get sex but a Priest can do that too...or B) go to a prostitute, which a priest could also do.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by DigiMark007
It answered it at length, and in no uncertain terms. You're just being difficult about it.

wink

I asked when and you gave me a political sidestep...

(I am not actually trying to convert you or anything btw, just having fun)

Originally posted by Magee
I didn't read any of this thread but those buses are simply to convey the other side of the coin, to make people think. The amount of posters and huge boards over the place advertising the christian faith, the amount of people in the high street trying to get a few moments of your time to tell why you are wrong, so why exactly can we not have people saying there is no God? If I seen a bus with that on the side It would make my day and if it offends some religous people then obviously the faith in there belief is so weak that we don't have to worry.

As I walked through the campus today I saw a man with a big sign saying "God says sex must be with 1 Man 1 Wife 1 Marriage ALL ELSE IS SIN! Repent JESUS is LORD"

Amusing.

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by Magee
I didn't read any of this thread but those buses are simply to convey the other side of the coin, to make people think. The amount of posters and huge boards over the place advertising the christian faith, the amount of people in the high street trying to get a few moments of your time to tell why you are wrong, so why exactly can we not have people saying there is no God? If I seen a bus with that on the side It would make my day and if it offends some religous people then obviously the faith in there belief is so weak that we don't have to worry.

Im religous and I totally agree with you.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
As I walked through the campus today I saw a man with a big sign saying "God says sex must be with 1 Man 1 Wife 1 Marriage ALL ELSE IS SIN! Repent JESUS is LORD"

Amusing.

So, a nut caring a sign and a sign on a bus are equivalent?

eek!

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, a nut caring a sign and a sign on a bus are equivalent?

eek!

Just illustrating his point with an example...oh and actually yeah they are equivalent...

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Just illustrating his point with an example...oh and actually yeah they are equivalent...

No, a bus sign has to be approved by a group of nuts.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I asked when and you gave me a political sidestep...

(I am not actually trying to convert you or anything btw, just having fun)

Clearly that isn't the actual goal. It's hard to argue against truth anyway.

happy

And the implication was "never." I wasn't actively trying to dodge the question. Though yes, I suppose I didn't actually answer it.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, a bus sign has to be approved by a group of nuts.

So does do signs which are carried around Public Property.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Clearly that isn't the actual goal. It's hard to argue against truth anyway.

happy

And the implication was "never." I wasn't actively trying to dodge the question. Though yes, I suppose I didn't actually answer it.

Haha! yaay a small victory!

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
So does do signs which are carried around Public Property...

Did you miss my point? sad

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Did you miss my point? sad

I saw it, and thought I'd remind you that local councils are also filled with nuts eek!

leonheartmm
Originally posted by inimalist
an unknown amount.

pretend there are Z number of potential ways the universe could have began. Let X represent the number of ways the universe could have been created by God. X/Z then represents the probability that the universe would have been created by God.

Y is a subset of X, which represents the number of times God created the universe only while wearing a hat. Y/X represents the probability of God wearing a hat and Y/Z represents the probability of God creating the universe while wearing a hat.

X, by definition, has to be larger than Y, because Y is a subset of X and it is possible God was not wearing a hat when he created the universe.

X/Z - Y/Z would be the equation for how much more likely it is that God created the universe vs God created the universe with a hat. Given that X/Z has to be larger than Y/Z, it will always be more unlikely that he wore a hat (unless there is empirical evidence that shows he had to wear a hat).



indeed, or any other number of permutations. My more general point being that, although God is unfalsifiable, predictions and claims made by a religion are not.



not requiring proof of something's non-existence, I've never ran into that problem. But yes, I would agree that people who claim to be able to disprove the existence of God are incorrect.

they really arent incorrect if they can point out INTERNAL inconsistancies in the concept of god {internal contradictions which destroy the attributes of the being from inside out}. there may be a god, but there is positively NO god with all the claimed attributes of the omnipotent christian/muslim/judaic god at the same time.

inimalist
Originally posted by leonheartmm
they really arent incorrect if they can point out INTERNAL inconsistancies in the concept of god {internal contradictions which destroy the attributes of the being from inside out}.

if humans had access to a system of logic which was universally accurate, one might be able to say what qualities a god might or might not have.

To say two qualities are inconsistent would require humans to know the absolute consistency between those items being contrasted.

Humans do not know the true nature of omnipotence, nor what could or could not exist alongside omnipotence without being internally inconsistent.

The best you can say is that, in the system of logic you use to evaluate things, there are contradictions between concepts relating to God. This does not mean that, had you access to all the information in the universe, they will always be contradictions, just that they are contradictory in your opinion.

for you to be correct, you would require absolute knowledge of what comprises a God.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
there may be a god, but there is positively NO god with all the claimed attributes of the omnipotent christian/muslim/judaic god at the same time.

this was my argument, except, omnipotence is a non-testable quality.

God being omnipotent does not make any predictions that can be tested empirically, so it is moot.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
an unknown amount.

pretend there are Z number of potential ways the universe could have began. Let X represent the number of ways the universe could have been created by God. X/Z then represents the probability that the universe would have been created by God.

Y is a subset of X, which represents the number of times God created the universe only while wearing a hat. Y/X represents the probability of God wearing a hat and Y/Z represents the probability of God creating the universe while wearing a hat.

X, by definition, has to be larger than Y, because Y is a subset of X and it is possible God was not wearing a hat when he created the universe.

X/Z - Y/Z would be the equation for how much more likely it is that God created the universe vs God created the universe with a hat. Given that X/Z has to be larger than Y/Z, it will always be more unlikely that he wore a hat (unless there is empirical evidence that shows he had to wear a hat).


indeed, or any other number of permutations. My more general point being that, although God is unfalsifiable, predictions and claims made by a religion are not.


not requiring proof of something's non-existence, I've never ran into that problem. But yes, I would agree that people who claim to be able to disprove the existence of God are incorrect.

Take you logic and well reasoned mathematical proofs elsewhere mad

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Take you logic and well reasoned mathematical proofs elsewhere mad

...just like facts have no place in organized Religion?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
That is always part of priest jokes...

Cool.




Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Umm that thought didn't come to my mind- I was thinking that you can't actually have sex when you want any more than a priest. You cannot order your wife to have sex with you- if she says no thats it. (Unless you choose to rape her, but a Priest could do that) Your other options would be to A) go to a club and try and pick up a girl, which is no guarantee you would get sex but a Priest can do that too...or B) go to a prostitute, which a priest could also do.

I disagree. I'm quite sure that I make the nasty when I want to, ridiculously more often than a Catholic priest gets to when he wants to. And I'm quite fine with only sleeping with my wife.







Also, those buses are just as offensive to theists as those road signs guilting people to go to a certain church so the Pastor, Preacher, or what have you, can make some money. It seems like I see far more Christian signs that attempt to guilt me into going to their church than a do see atheist signs trying to relieve my guilt. lol

RedAlertv2
Although those signs represent a pretty similar outlook to my own, it still seems futile to try and change peoples minds by advertising that view. People are hardly going to change their spiritual beliefs because of something they read on a bus.

Deja~vu
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Whichever one you like. But the others will say that you are wrong and should join their "true" belief.

Should I go Baptist? If so, then one must be baptised as an adult to get to Heaven. Where does that leave everyone else?

Oh, maybe I should join the Pentecostal group. But hmm, I need to speak in tongues to prove that I have the holy spirit to get into Heaven.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Deja~vu
But the others will say that you are wrong and should join their "true" belief.

Should I go Baptist? If so, then one must be baptised as an adult to get to Heaven. Where does that leave everyone else?

Oh, maybe I should join the Pentecostal group. But hmm, I need to speak in tongues to prove that I have the holy spirit to get into Heaven.

The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Besides, why limit yourself to Christian sects? Think of the potential benefits of Hinduism or Judaism or Wicca or Atheis-- scratch that one. You get the picture.

Deja~vu
I already have. Religion is a joke.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Deja~vu
I already have. Religion is a joke.

Interesting choice.

Deja~vu
Why?

Magee
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
As I walked through the campus today I saw a man with a big sign saying "God says sex must be with 1 Man 1 Wife 1 Marriage ALL ELSE IS SIN! Repent JESUS is LORD"

Amusing. I'm not sure what you mean by this but it would amuse me to.

I see a 50ft wide poster every day saying Jesus died for my sins, it changes every month with some slogan about Jesus, God or asking me why I don't go to church. I find it sad that these adverts on the buses even made news considering the constant presence of advertising for the Christian faith.

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Take you logic and well reasoned mathematical proofs elsewhere mad

Science wins again!

parvati120
why worry when you believe the world is in good hands :P

who made atheism a group worthy of noting anyway... they're just the people having nothing better to do than minding other people's business, just like people whining about other people whining, completely useless bags of air ;/

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Deja~vu
Why?

Surely all choices are interesting...

The whole nature of "choice" itself is interesting, yeah there are lots of debates that could spring up from that comment...

Originally posted by parvati120
why worry when you believe the world is in good hands :P

who made atheism a group worthy of noting anyway... they're just the people having nothing better to do than minding other people's business, just like people whining about other people whining, completely useless bags of air ;/
Like Christians?

DigiMark007
Originally posted by parvati120
why worry when you believe the world is in good hands :P

who made atheism a group worthy of noting anyway... they're just the people having nothing better to do than minding other people's business, just like people whining about other people whining, completely useless bags of air ;/

Wow. How....progressive and tolerant.

roll eyes (sarcastic)

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Wow. How....progressive and tolerant.

roll eyes (sarcastic)

His beliefs look quite fun...smile

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by parvati120
who made atheism a group worthy of noting anyway... they're just the people having nothing better to do than minding other people's business, just like people whining about other people whining, completely useless bags of air ;/

I don't think anyone here is going to argue against that. Of course, there a long standard of people who are convinced they're right doing exactly that. Atheists are just a bit less successful.

Deja~vu
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
His beliefs look quite fun...smile Can we eat him? eek!

Please, pretty please?

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Deja~vu
Can we eat him? eek!

Please, pretty please?

Sure, after all I am a Cannab...Christian!

Deja~vu
Eat you too. laughing out loud

Can, can, can if I want. Just don't put much effort in these things these days...........Hahahahaha

Could. Could though, could. LOL

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't think anyone here is going to argue against that.

confused

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by DigiMark007
confused

Oh, except Digi stick out tongue

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Oh, except Digi stick out tongue

Heh. I'd like to think I'm not the only one who would object to a blanket statement that amounts to "{insert cultural group} is just a bunch of idiotic whiners." It just so happens to be atheists in this case, but it would be false with pretty much any sociologically distinct group in the sentence.

wink

inimalist
Originally posted by DigiMark007
but it would be false with pretty much any sociologically distinct group in the sentence.


women?

I mean, they do whine a lot

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by inimalist
women?

I mean, they do whine a lot

Game. Set and Match.

Deja~vu
NOT. We are just up front.


Blame god. roll eyes (sarcastic)

inimalist
Originally posted by Deja~vu
NOT. We are just up front.


lol, ya, thats always been my problem with women, how up front they are, how they always let you know what is bothering them right away and it never comes back in confusing ways.

Deja~vu
Originally posted by inimalist
lol, ya, thats always been my problem with women, how up front they are, how they always let you know what is bothering them right away and it never comes back in confusing ways. This is a natural thing. It is to communicate. Why do men have a problem with this? Is it cause you don't want to hurt feelings???

DON'T get it. confused

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Deja~vu
NOT. We are just up front.


Blame god. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Oh, stop whining.

occultdestroyer
Or is there?

DigiMark007
Originally posted by inimalist
women?

I mean, they do whine a lot

Point conceded. I always f*cking lose to in.

embarrasment

...good thing we agree on most things.

Devil King
Originally posted by Deja~vu
Is it cause you don't want to hurt feelings???

Oddly enough, that is the most rewarding aspect of my interaction with people.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Devil King
Oddly enough, that is the most rewarding aspect of my interaction with people.

Well well...isn't that enlightening.

Devil King
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Well well...isn't that enlightening.

Not really; didn't you already assume as much about me?

Deja~vu
To you ^^laughing out loud


Oh, and I'm not whiny. I'm really not, ya know.

Someone needs to give an example of whiny-ness.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by Devil King
Not really; didn't you already assume as much about me?

Life's a stage...

(more true in this case I feel)

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
http://www.freethinker.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/atheistbus.jpg

Ok, so the British Humanist Association has plastered signs all over London's "bendy-buses" which assure commuters that God doesn't exist and they can get on and live happily...oh wait sorry, they don't assure. They suggest that God may not exist and therefore people shouldn't worry...

Here's a critical piece about the worst campaign in history.

That's pretty funny, and it reaffirms my opinion that Brits seem to come in one of two religious categories: loud militant Muslims, or loud militant Atheists.

Devil King
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That's pretty funny, and it reaffirms my opinion that Brits seem to come in one of two religious categories: loud militant Muslims, or loud militant Atheists.

gTRjWDW3JSg

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That's pretty funny, and it reaffirms my opinion that Brits seem to come in one of two religious categories: loud militant Muslims, or loud militant Atheists.

You stereotype everyone into little boxes, without recognizing the spectrum that is human thought. Both of those groups are in the minority, even in England, which is (per capita) one of the most non-religious nations on the planet.

And making a sign on a bus isn't "loud." It's propaganda, but nothing worse than the decidedly far louder culture we already live in.

I would, conversely, consider the insane level of Christian dogma that currently leaks it's way into, say, politics, as far "louder" than a sign on a bus, and also much more of an imposition upon those who don't believe its tenets.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.