There’s probably no God
21 Oct 2008
The BBC news site have posted today and article about how the British Humanist Society (BHA), have with the support of Professor Richard Dawkins, paid for adverts to be placed on buses that say ‘There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.’
Two inevitable quotes from Dawkins and the BHA:
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. This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think – and thinking is anathema to religion”
Hanne Stinson, Chief Executive of the BHA, said: “We see so many posters advertising salvation through Jesus or threatening us with eternal damnation, that I feel sure that a bus advert like this will be welcomed as a breath of fresh air. If it raises a smile as well as making people think, so much the better.”
It bugs the heck out of me, and I usually just sigh an move on, but today offer some thoughts:
1. Ignorant: It’s so utterly ignorant of Christianity, let alone other religions, with ongoing crude stereotypes, that seek the worst of religion and put that against what they see is their best, which seems so pathetic and anaemic.
2. Thinking:And therein it betrays it’s own lack of thinking with the claims that it levels at religion. How more non-thinking can you get than inane statements like this. Is this the best atheism and humanism can offer?
3. Religion: And yet again atheism and humanism claims thinking that is independent from religion, seemingly without the ‘testicles’ to acknowledge it’s own traditioned heritage and functioning as a ‘religious system’, freely brainwashing us into it’s belief about the nature of life, and the universe. The arrogance of claiming neutral space, or correct thinking methodology is staggeringly arrogant as usual. Not to mention the constant consumer religion that is already peddled on bus adverts, about meaning, nature and the purpose of life as consumers.
4. Polarising: Perhaps this will just make the BHA and Dawkins atheists feel smug, they sound it, and makes those of religious conviction feel ostracised, and alienated.
We deserve something better than this, we all do, whether agnostics, atheists, theists, polytheists and consumer apatheists. Some genuine open dialogue and interaction with all religions, including the religious fundamentalism of Dawkins atheism would be most welcome, at least by me.
64 comments
Trackback
Comment by Katie
3.17 pm on 21 Oct 2008
I completely agree. If the humanists used Dawkins’s much vaunted intelligence a little more they would realise that religion only gets what he patronisingly calls “a free ride” in the West, and that elsewhere in the world (the majority of the world) it is an essential part of life, the only thing that makes life better or in some cases keeps it going at all.
And I also think that Dawkins is a product of his generation, out of touch actually with what mainstream Britain today thinks. The irony is that most of Britain doesn’t have any faith and could care less about these terrible posters, they see. We live in a God-less society in my opinion and that’s what he wants so I don’t see what he has to complain about, let alone waste money taking ads out to convince people of what they have already made up their minds not to believe.
Reply to this comment
Comment by peejay
5.37 pm on 21 Jan 2009
Everybody is missing the point of “Probably” it’s there for two reasons, firstly you cannot disprove the existence of anything which is why god and the flying spaghetti monster have the same evidential standing, the second use of “Probably” was to mirror the Carlsberg adverts.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Katie
3.28 pm on 21 Oct 2008
PS and if they believe strongly enough to put out ads…why do they say “probably”? Is there therefore an element of doubt? Or did they think that saying there was definitely no God would alienate people? Strange that the humanists and Dawkins don’t have the courage of their convictions.
Reply to this comment
Comment by peejay
5.04 pm on 22 Oct 2008
“PS and if they believe strongly enough to put out ads…why do they say “probably”? Is there therefore an element of doubt?”
For exactly the same reason that you can’t rule out the flying spaghetti monster or Russlls teapot, it’s impossible to prove something doesn’t exist, you can only say it’s not where you looked, someone can always suggest it’s somewhere other than where you looked, that’s how religion works. You must wonder how your god who you believe is omniscient and omnipotent has never seen fit to heal an amputee! starfish and lizards re-grow limbs every day, I’m sure you believe your god cures blindness and cancer every day, are you telling me there has never (ever) been a deserving amputee?
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason
5.12 pm on 22 Oct 2008
Peejay, you seem to want to perpetuate the generalizations about what we believe about God, as we we don’t wrestle with doubt, questions, suffering, which we do.
And you seem to insist that we are the only people who are religious? Atheism is as much a faith statement as our christianity.
And the religion we discuss and critique together isn’t the one you seem to think, or Dawkins does. Religion is far more complex than the crap stereotypes Dawkins puts about.
Just as atheism is more nuanced and thoughtful than the one he presents.
Reply to this comment
Comment by John Davis
4.25 pm on 21 Jan 2009
Peejay – You can say something doesn’t exist without having to prove it, it’s up to the people who say something does exist to prove it, and when they can’t, it’s just a belief system.
I’m not going to say there probably isn’t a chocolate centre to the sun, or that trees probably don’t water ski when no one is looking, the answer is 100% negative to both of those – they do not require proof – they are flights of fancy, human imagination, just like God.
Reply to this comment
Comment by alistair mackinnon
12.09 am on 30 Mar 2009
Its just as much a flight of fancy as the form of creation that is currently upheld within ’scientific’ circles… that life arose through chance from innert matter. This mythological statement has no bearing on reality when this question is asked… when has matter in ever added any information to the genome. Or this… if we have a selfish gene that has ‘pupose’ then there is no ‘chance’ allowed in the creation of the genome, its teologically incompatible,
Unfortunatly your perception of what and who god IS, is not correct. To restrict your epistimolgy to postivism gives rise to the Riandian concept of survival of the fittest we see been enacted in politics, business and science today
Reply to this comment
Comment by Kev
8.23 am on 30 Mar 2009
The only thing we can say is that “we don’t know”…
Without absolute, positive evidence, either way…the only position that we can take is one of “not knowing”…
We can ponder, guess, want, wish, desire, presume any imaginable scenario to be the correct one – however, without “verifiable data” we can’t move beyond the “I don’t know” stage.
Faith, belief, theory, whatever one likes to call it – has no validity until DATA is presented to illustrate a possibility is actually present.
The existance of a god is not a potential scenario – until we have data to suggest/support that as an option.
Faith/belief does not provide that required evidence.
Reply to this comment
Comment by alistair mackinnon
10.25 pm on 31 Mar 2009
Ah evidence… verifiable data…
at the moment all ‘knowledge’ is contestable, but I would suggest that maths and basic physics still are ’strong’. As long as you can restrict the form of the data, then your result can be verifiable.. but we are not in the realm of strong knowlegde here we are deeply into weak knowledge and strong opinion. It is very much NOT a matter of taste as dawkins would have the debate framed.
In my own experience having been a confirmed athiest, it took a direct, active, overpowering experience that shifted my paradigm. I did not expect that by uttering a few words to placate a friend of mine, what would take place.
but that is my experience… so back to data… and evidence.. can you tell me of any time since the beginning of time when matter has added any information to the genome. The genome is an INFORMATION system and inert matter cannot create information
Then I guess if you cant then all that you said in your post equally applies to the current mythology around the origin of life.
Comments won’t nest below this level.
Comment by Kev
7.12 am on 1 Apr 2009
My point merely is….that niether of us has any absolute verifiable data. Therefore, that said…we can draw NO CONCLUSION either way, hence we have no other option but to take the neutral stance of “I do not know”
No other potential position is currently available to us. Only when “positive” DATA has been presented to us (in either direction) can we move from a “neutral” stance to a pro-active one.
I cannot present data to suggest that a god doesn’t exist…just as YOU cannot present data to suggest that one does exist. Therefore, we both are unable to HOLD any opinion. An opinion, assumption, faith. belief, etc of any kind requires positive DATA.
All we have left is the neutral “I do not know” option.
KEV
Comment by alistair mackinnon
12.26 am on 2 Apr 2009
mmmh
unfortunately we are back in the realm of experience.
I moved from not from’i dont know’ but from ‘there is no god’ to knowing there is one…. in the space of 30 seconds.
I cannot convince you of my experience nor can I go back to my previous state.
I did not plan it nor was I seeking it… i became submerged in it… and it was a state of pure joy
and there is no data for joy.. where the causal factor was the speaking of a dozen words
For myself, now, the ‘I dont know’ option is no longer an option.
There is only for me the fact that ‘god’ exists. This does not mean that I dont struggle with it, it just pushes on me a greater responsibility to behave, in this world, as though the kingdom of god is here now.
where the violent are taking it by force
Comment by Kev
7.01 am on 2 Apr 2009
You don’t “know” there is a god…you simply ‘believe’ or ‘think’ that there is one based upon your own sensory experience.
However, having already established that it is impossible to “know” anything in the absolute…simply because humans do not possess “all knowledge” by which to make a relative comparison…WE are thus forced to estrapolate that this “impossibility to know in the absolute” also applies across the entire spectrum of human experience. As subjectivity is an entegral part of the human psycholical system, it is not possible to draw a conclusion of absolute knowing.
For you, the “I don’t know” is not longer an option…not because you DO know, but because you have merely satisfied your personal epistomological “criteria” for “god” acceptance.
As a marathon runner, each Sunday I go for my weekly long run of about 24 klms (15 miles)…From my sensory experience perspective I “believe” that I DO indeed run those miles (along with all the other runs I do during the week)…However, knowing that “it could be an illusion” (created by a whole slew of possible external and internal based scenarios)…can I truly say with an 100% absolute “knowing” that I actually DO what I experience?
NO, I cannot…I can’t even “know” with absolute certainty that I even ‘exist’ in the form/state/being that I think I do.
It appears to be very difficult, for some people to accept that WE “know” nothing in the absolute…especially when it pertains to religion, god, etc.
I’m inclined to suspect, that this inability to recognize this…stems from an inner EGO driven need/desire to be self-validated, rather than sustaining the actual god “belief” itself.
KEV
Reply here
Comment by Rick C ruse
3.31 pm on 21 Oct 2008
I agree with your points, Jason. It seems that our books, TV shows and media are filled with the stereotypes, the caricatures. Yet, we need to remember two things:
1. Some of the loud critics are men and women who, somewhere and somehow in the past, have been deeply wounded by Christians and/or the Church. somehow we need to find ways to come alongside these folks and hear their own stories.
2. Like the U.S. Republicans with Sarah Palin, we in the church continue to give our critics so [expletive deleted] much ammunition. Not only do we often shoot our own wounded, we give bullets to the other side.
Yet, as Katie mentions in her comment, the good news is that most people won’t waste their time giving the posters another thought. Finally, there might even be some who. reading just the big print, assume it’s another ploy by Christians to get God into the conversation.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Pastor Chad
3.37 pm on 21 Oct 2008
This is a great post and it reminds me of the recent film by Ben Stein “EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed”. Why is it that those who ‘think’ couldn’t possibly be religious, while all those other ‘ignorant’ folks are stuck in the dark ages.
Priceless
Reply to this comment
Comment by Alan Mann
3.50 pm on 21 Oct 2008
I’m with you Katie, ‘probably’ – that’s hardly reassuring. Probably God might turn out to be an utter despot who will hand us all over to the sadistic whim of Satan if we don’t stop slagging God off. But hey, don’t let that worry you, just enjoy your life.
I’m not sure who this is aimed at. I think there probably is a God. But either way, I wasn’t particularly worried. Actually, I think the majority of the world’s population would be more worried if they thought there probably wasn’t a God, so I’m not sure this is that helpful from a purely psychological wellbeing point of view. If humanists really cared about human beings, then they would leave them alone to the comfort of their beliefs instead of trying to undermine them all the time and force their secular agendas on everyone – after all, there’s simply no evidence that the world would be a better place without our theistic belief systems.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Peter
4.35 pm on 21 Oct 2008
You’re right Jason. And I don’t think we need to waste much time with atheist fundamentalists who mirror the kind of sick evangelism that the church has mostly dumped long ago.
Isn’t it a sign of (1) the weakness of their arguments and (2) their desperate sense of losing ground in an society that is getting ever more interested in religion?
Reply to this comment
Comment by Cobus
4.36 pm on 21 Oct 2008
Every time I hear stuff like this I wish someone would point Dawkins to Maz Warren’s 7 rules for dialogue with persons of another faith system…
Reply to this comment
Comment by brett jordan
4.42 pm on 21 Oct 2008
i’ve got no problem with british humanists advertising their (non) beliefs…
however, the the more i read that strapline, the more naff it becomes… a bit like a poster campaign declaring ‘you’ve probably not got cancer’ it does little to comfort those who were worried already, while making others worried where they weren’t worried before…
Reply to this comment
Comment by Helen
5.02 pm on 21 Oct 2008
Jason I agree with you about open dialogue between people who believe differently.
I think it’s better to ask questions which arouse curiousity than make assertions like these bus adverts which many readers clearly disagree with and find annoying. This is a very ‘in your face’ approach that I doubt will evoke a positive response from Christians.
On the other hand aren’t some Christian billboards and poster ads as assertively dogmatic as this?
Maybe Christians can use these humanist adverts to open up dialogue if they start with humility and say to humanists/atheists “I had a very negative response to those bus adverts. Is that how you feel when you see Christian bus adverts and billboards? I had no idea…”
Just a thought.
Reply to this comment
Comment by brett jordan
5.10 pm on 21 Oct 2008
yep, that is a great idea for a discussion starter helen
Reply to this comment
Comment by Helen
10.24 pm on 21 Oct 2008
Thanks Brett.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Michael
5.29 pm on 21 Oct 2008
Now keeping THIS comment short will be very hard. Ok, quick points:
1) We are getting exactly what we deserve, they are merely reflecting back to us what the see as our own behavior ( see “kissing hank’s ass” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ for clarification ).
2) However I would also disagree with their assertion that careful thinking is an antidote to religion ( see http://toyblog.typepad.com/lemon/2008/10/proper-understa.html for poetic exposition )
3) I often wonder if someone who rejects the random seeming all powerful being who wants to enslave everyone and make them miserable, won’t be surprised in heaven when they are welcomed as lovers of the creator of the universe who they worshiped in spirit and truth, but never knew the name of. ( the tash/aslan thing, http://www.victorianweb.org/victorian/courses/fiction/65/lewis/west3.html )
Reply to this comment
Comment by Michael
5.32 pm on 21 Oct 2008
I failed. Had to add more.
… all that said, and I still agree with you that this sort of thing is painful. Pray for ourselves, pray for the lovers of human rationality. God have mercy on us all.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason
8.39 am on 22 Oct 2008
Thanks everyone for your comments, I’ve been out from my computer, I’ll post some replies asap.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Daniel Clark
10.29 am on 22 Oct 2008
Some thoughts
1) Prof. Dawkins gets offended everytime he is referred to as a “fundamentalist” atheist. Isn’t it beautifully ironic that he is financing a method of proselytism pioneered by Christian “fundamentalists”?
2) I live in the UK. Very few people seem “worried” about whether God exists or not, even those who call themselves Christians. It could even be argued that if there was more worry about whether God existed we would actually behave in a better way, think for example at the greed and short-term thinking which has compounded the credit crunch.
3) The advice is to “enjoy” oneself.What enjoyment does belief in God preclude? This basically seems to be advice to drink a lot, use drugs and engage in extramarital sex (Dawkins seems very hung-up on the issue of religion and sex…)
So the economy is on the blink, poverty is increasing and the environment going to pot…yet the best the BHA can come up with is the old line of “Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die”.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Mark
6.26 pm on 22 Oct 2008
Going back to Jason’s original comments I think “thou protesteth too much”! I see the advert as a great way to open the whole debate and will in fact get people thinking about, even searching for, God. (it does indeed seem that many people are too busy to bother much). Keep it up Dawkins! He always seems a rather unhappy and very angry man to me, so he is hardly a good advert for atheism. This will only turn out for good. I agree that we should have open dialogue, admit none of us have all the answers and see the good in others (yes, even Richard Dawkins). God bless you Richard. (yes, I do believe there is a God! or rather “God is”.) Mark
Reply to this comment
Comment by Mike McNichols
4.06 pm on 23 Oct 2008
Here in Southern California (where we are all crazy) the Skeptics Society held a recent conference where a number of voices were welcomed, including Dr. Nancey Murphy from Fuller Theological Seminary (she is a believer and has a very big brain). These folks actually have some meaningful dialogue about faith, doubt, the nature of the universe, etc. I appreciate these kinds of events because they tend to avoid screaming, bumper stickers and crass generalizations. It can happen.
What is interesting to me about people like Dr. Dawkins is that if he is right and there is no God, no higher power, no nothing but us and evolutionary movement, then why does he care if people are religious? What evolutionary aberration would provide him with a mechanism for outrage against a quest for higher meaning? Wouldn’t that be nothing more than an anomaly that the process of evolution is allowing, and to be outraged against that would be to stand outside of that process?
In a purposeless, meaningless universe, there should be no outrage switch in any human being. What is simply is. To be outraged at religion is to claim a higher moral authority, which doesn’t seem possible in Dr. Dawkins’ world.
I’ve read debates that he has done. He is just a bit cranky. Somebody surely hurt him along the way.
Thanks, Jase, for getting this started. Let’s pray for Dr. Dawkins and his friends.
Reply to this comment
Comment by D.G. Hollums
4.36 pm on 23 Oct 2008
I wonder if most of the arguments against the existence of God will center around the problem of Evil. I have not had a conversation yet that did not bring about the underlying issue of the problem of evil and the ignorance by most that Christians do not wrestle with that issue, as well.
I am wondering also, why they would choose to advertise in a country that is already less than what 2-5% Christian? Just wondering why.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Johnny Laird
5.29 pm on 23 Oct 2008
I found the whole thing quite funny.
You don’t have to be a genuis…or even an Oxford Don…to see that this is a spectacular own goal from Richard Dawkins and his Humanist buddies.
I’m quite glad they are willing to contribute hard cash to further stimulate dialog about faith, and encourage conversations about Jesus in pubs & coffee shops across London.
Thanks folks!
Pax
J
Reply to this comment
Comment by Johnny Laird
5.31 pm on 23 Oct 2008
Will there be a follow up campaign from Dawkins which simply says “Don’t worry – just buy more of my books”
Reply to this comment
Comment by Paul
6.48 pm on 23 Oct 2008
there probably is no Richard Dawkins either
Reply to this comment
Comment by James Prescott
1.57 pm on 24 Oct 2008
Totally agree with you Jase. I almost get bored listening to Dawkins and humanists nowadays. Nevertheless this kind of stuff does warrant a response, and I hope mine is as considered yet strong as yours is.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Reid
9.39 am on 25 Oct 2008
I gave £2 tues morning before they made the 5.5K they wanted. How much did you give?
I thought the amusing thing was, the first time they ran this project they didn’t get enough money! I know of countless churches that could raise this kind of money in a single offering.
Ciao
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve
11.31 pm on 27 Oct 2008
Thanks for the post Jason, I was also quite surprised at the wording of the campaign. ‘Don’t worry about it’ can be used interchangably with ‘forget about it’ – i.e. the campaign seems to actually encourage people not to think. It would surely be more open minded and thought provoking to write something like “God may or may not exist, so think about it.”
Unfortunately, however, as some have been quick to observe, Christianity can have a pretty big log in its own eye when it comes to presenting open minded and intellectually honest view points (which can make blogs like yours seem quite refreshing!)
Reply to this comment
Comment by Marc Alton-Cooper
4.26 pm on 28 Oct 2008
I really, really wish I could bump into some of them collecting money for this..Oh what a conversation we’d have:)
Reply to this comment
Comment by fernando
7.03 am on 29 Oct 2008
There’s already been a few public atheists expressing concern over Dawkins’ rants and I suspect that trend will increase. It’s not his atheism per se that is worrying, but the larger fundamentalist agenda that he vomits out of his pursed and angry lips: Parents of sunday schoolers being treated as child-abusers, compulsory anti-religion education in schools.
In the past month I’ve read Callum Brown’s Death of Christian Britain and Amy Chua’s Day of Empire. The relevant message from both is that Britain simply doesn’t understand itself as a Christian or religious nation anymore and that religious intolerance is a sign of decline (of hyperpowers and probably of powerful nations as well.
That Dawkins cannot see this is testimony to his cultural and sociological blindness. It’s a sad thing to watch when smart and well educated people become so caught up in their ideological quixotism that they become blind to the reality around them.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Ian Minus
11.56 am on 5 Nov 2008
Having read some of the works of Richard Dawkins, I find he takes a detailed and analytical approach to the subject. He attempts to consider both sides to the argument and presents a compelling case . I must admit I cringe when I see in his television programs the way we questions in such an aggressive and biased tone.
This does not however, detract from the message.
Religion places power in the hands of unqualified and unelected to influence the susceptible.
Faith, whilst being a very powerful and unique human affliction, is no substitute for evidence.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Rick C ruse
1.33 pm on 6 Nov 2008
Responding to Ian’s comment…
Your statement that “religion places power in the hands of the unqualified and unelected to influence the susceptible” certainly rolls off the tongue. It’s like a statement a preacher would like to make to help his point stick in people’s minds. However, it’s a statement that certainly needs definitions; it needs to be unpacked. I think once you finish these two steps of defining and unpacking, you would discover that it’s a pretty hollow statement (like too many sermons I’ve heard, as well).
By starting off with the term “religion” and next “power,” you would not get much disagreement from me. But Jesus was not about religion (except to decry it), nor was he about power (except insofar as he yielded it). The statement itself is rather like using a chain saw to perform brain surgery: you uncover some of the problems but destroy the patient in the meantime.
Lastly, your final statement sets up a false dichotomy, missing out on what some call “the genius of the ‘and.’” There is room for faith AND there is room for evidence.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Josh
3.51 pm on 12 Jan 2009
I seem late to this…
Good day to you all.
Regardless, I saw the bus on a walk home from work earlier today and I found it quite uplifting and amusing. I had been feeling quite down for most of the day but the slogan cheered me up no end. I’m not here to spread hate or reject any religious claims or beliefs, I just wanted to say that as a person who couldn’t care either way, I enjoyed it. I didn’t find my reigious beliefs (or lack of) seriously questioned and I was in no way offended.
Anyway, better stop before I really start to ramble on
Reply to this comment
Comment by John Davis
4.13 pm on 21 Jan 2009
My problem with this campaign is the use of “probably”. The earth isn’t “probably” not flat, the moon isn’t “probably” not made of green cheese, and santa does not “probably” not exist.
It’s just a shame that the more irrational types who wish to believe in supernatural beings as so unsure in their beliefs that they find these messages so disturbing.
If you believe in this God fella, then a poster shouldn’t make any difference to you – have the courage of your convictions (but please keep your make believe being to yourself).
Regards
John Davis
Reply to this comment
Comment by Mike McNichols
10.44 pm on 21 Jan 2009
So, should people like Dr. Dawkins keep their “probably” slogans to themselves as well?
Reply to this comment
Comment by Stuart Fisher
4.57 am on 22 Jan 2009
As long as that ideal relates to all the things that people “Believe” I may agree…
But seeing it was a reaction to the beliefs of others being shoved in the faces of those who don’t believe it… I mean… eye for an eye.. isn’t that what you would believe?
Reply to this comment
Comment by John Davis
4.20 pm on 21 Jan 2009
As regards the “there is probably no Richard Dawkins” quip, funny though it was, we at least have the hard evidence that he actually does – I just wish the same could be said of God.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Mark
5.17 pm on 21 Jan 2009
John Davis, thank you for your “probably” comments. I think also that however many probablies you don’t believe in (and I agree that the examples you give are blatantly not true), there is probably one that is true (and if you are wrong, then you would be wise to find out.) The thing is billions of people around the globe believe that the original “probably” put forward so kindly by Richard Dawkins is not a “probably” at all! God does exist, and you can see it in His creation and the lives transformed by following His ways. The opposite of that- complete Godlessness- has led to so much misery in our world (often by people who claim to believe in God, but whose actions deny that). Christians do not have a monopoly on the truth (although we do believe in one who IS the truth) and we can learn so much from each other. Thanks again, and thanks to Richard Dawkins for fueling this debate!
Reply to this comment
Comment by Stuart Fisher
4.53 am on 22 Jan 2009
I find it sad that Theist’s (mono, poly, blah blah) think that the only way a life can have a meaning or purpose is if some external “god” decides that for them.
If you have your meanings and purpose thrust upon you by a faceless unprovable entity, doesn’t that classify as “slavery”
(2. A condition of subjection or submission characterized by lack of freedom of action or of will. Websters)
A “god” that loves us but punishes us with enternal tourment (in what ever form you write that) for a non-conforming action doesn’t truely give us a choice, in the same way a slave master would punish a slave that doesn’t do his bidding.
“If” there was/is a “god” (probably isn’t) and “it” was a loving one as touted by some, then it’s doesn’t matter – so relax and enjoy your life…
If said “god” is a ‘fire-&-brimstone’ type as others tout, then there is not a soul on the earth that wouldn’t burn in the tourments of hell for eating fish on a friday or accidentally doing work on the Sabbath… so seeing you are already going anyway… relax and enjoy your life….
And before you start arguing that those ‘rules’ don’t apply anymore or to your specific type of belief, then consider the fact that with so many different sects, divisions, beliefs etc… the chances that you got the RIGHT one are SOOOOO slim… that you’re still in trouble anyway… so you may as well just…
Well you know what I would say there…
Reply to this comment
Comment by Youknow
10.07 pm on 29 Jan 2009
An interesting element of the bus slogan is the word “probably,” which would seem to be more suited to an Agnostic Bus Campaign than to an atheist one. Mr. Dawkins, for one, argued that the word should not be there at all.
But the element of doubt was necessary to meet British advertising guidelines, said Tim Bleakley, managing director for sales and marketing at CBS Outdoor in London, which handles advertising for the bus system.
REASON FOR THE WORD PROBABLY
Reply to this comment
Comment by Mike McNichols
10.29 pm on 30 Jan 2009
There probably is no Richard Dawkins.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Ian Minus
11.11 pm on 30 Jan 2009
The evidence is in his books – written by his own hand
Reply to this comment
Comment by Kev
12.08 am on 6 Feb 2009
Peejay – You can say something doesn’t exist without having to prove it, it’s up to the people who say something does exist to prove it, and when they can’t, it’s just a belief system.
Exactly, the onus is always upon the “believer” to provide supporting evidence that their claim is indeed true.
It’s mathematically impossible to “prove” a negative – simply because there is no baseline preimise from which to begin.
In order to prove that a ‘god’ doesn’t exist – one must first have DATA that clearly shows a ‘god’ did or even could exist.
As there is NO such data available…then there is no starting premise.
Faith/belief has no validity…unless it can be “verified” in the 3rd person. Just saying things like “I believe” or “I can feel that there is a god” is merely subjective, intangible epistemological based nothingness.
Reply to this comment
Comment by HKLinker
8.03 am on 8 Mar 2009
I attended church for a long time when I was a boy.I remember going through the process of being ‘confirmed.’ At the end, it was up to me to take the last step and go forward on my own into the church. And I did not.
I’m curious about the way the world works. And I’m suspicious of anyone who defends the existence of a god with too much energy.
But all of this debate doesn’t matter much. The real business is turning churches and their followers into regular members of society. If people want to believe in a god, let them. But no special privileges. That means no tax breaks beyond what any other society would get. Turn into real non profits.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Saber
3.39 pm on 30 Mar 2009
Let yourself think positively…
Where’s your instinct? [ Two things control men's nature, instinct and experience ]
I think:
When we have a question we have to give the answer just to jump to the next. But the big question: “Does God exist?” it takes the all time (all the life) and no one have the ability to answer it except PROPHETS.
Why we ask this question and we have the answer from prophets… Take it easy…
Reply to this comment
Comment by Kev
8.42 pm on 30 Mar 2009
The PROPHETS (as you call them) are also subject to the same verifiable data/evidence requirement.
Anyone can ‘claim’ to BE a prophet. This has no validity unless the said claim can be verified in the 3rd person.
Subjective epistemology rules here, and until one can provide DATA to suggest otherwise…the only position that can logically be taken is.
“I do not know”
No other option is even on the table…until positive data is presented.
Theory, belief, faith, ponderment, wonder, guessing, assimption has NO validity without actual positive “DATA” to substantiate it.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Saber
9.48 am on 31 Mar 2009
Can you touch your soul? And we know that she exist.
Can you touch the love? And we know that he exist.
there’s many things in this life that we can’t touch them, but we know their existence…
Who can see God? I think anybody from us.
But we have a feeling that He exist, all the time we have this feeling, and we ask “Where’s God?”.
Who create me?
Who create you?
Who create all those things? Earth, heaven, sun, sea, you and me, feelings, love, science, …….
I think: God create us and create something (as a feeling) with it we feel the existence. But we can’t see God with our eyes.
“I do not know” can be assigned to “How do I prove the God’s existence?”
And I think also, we are a human being, we have a limit in many things, in our life, in our bodies, in our thoughts, our imagination…. But we have to think positively and simply.
Reply to this comment
Comment by alistair mackinnon
12.55 am on 2 Apr 2009
MMMhhh its not subjective epistimology but more fundamentally a question of ontology, and within this we are bound by education and belief structures as to how we ALL interpret reality.
If you continue to believe that positivist materialism is the basis of how you interpert reality that is how you view it. But, you cannot structure the debate for all in how you view reality.
To continue to seek after only ‘verifiable’ data is based on a false assumption as it assumes that verifiable data is infallible and that it is always true. and Im pretty sure from your own experience this is not always the case as it would make that data omnipotent and always correct.
Until we get into a court of law….
and even here verifiable data from either side, even if it is true, will be scrutinized. However a judgement has to be made, the words spoken and the hammer falls. At this point regardless of the rightness of your position, the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law will become obvious-as we are dealing with humans and not data.
A similar debate took place between christ and pontius, were it hinged on the word ‘truth’- and we’re back into primary assumptions of ontology then into epistimology.
the reliance on data in human relations throws us right back to pavlov and skinner, and I dislike both. The reliance on data on the question of God is a false arguement as it does not reside within that ontological frame, as we move into binary statements… if a is true then b is false etc. God is transcendent and beyond binary, a bit like pi -a transcendental number that applies everywhere.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Ian Minus
8.38 am on 31 Mar 2009
There are those who scoff at the school boy, calling him frivolous and shallow. Yet it was the school boy who said, Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.
-Mark Twain
Reply to this comment
Comment by Ian Ransome
2.06 am on 22 May 2009
I’ve thought about this a lot. I suggest we all stop trying to solidify, defend or establish a position, either as an individual or on behalf of a group, and think of ways to understand our nature as a species and live in sustainable balance with the rest of the planet. Our goals are joy and peace, our work is to help everyone to reach these goals with us.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Kev
8.41 am on 22 May 2009
That’s a nice idea, I’ve often been called a left-leaning, tree hugging, idealistic old hippie myself
However, in reality the goal that you speak of is difficult when the two main sides have such opposing viewpoints.
Take me for example, the atheist…
Every morning I walk my dog past the local church, a rather large building, which takes a lot of money to maintain and occupies a sizeable chunk of expensive real estate.
I literally shudder to think that humans are wasting so much time, energy and financial resources on a primitive ‘fantasy’ concept that hold aboslutely no scientific evidence or support. Therefore, as a human being I’m literally compelled to speak out against this enormous waste of our species, both in a psycho-social and material manner. Just think of all the humongous amounts of money, real-estate and whatnot that is spent worldwide purely on a ‘false’ premis. It’s staggering.
Not only that…every adult generation is openly passing down this ‘fantasy concept’ to the next generation…freely, completely without any accountability or even the slightest hint of responsibility.
Once again I say. How can I as a human being just sit quietly in the corner and simply accept this at face value?
I would like to think that our ultimate goals are of joy and peace. But, I can’t stand idily by as ‘the religious’ of this world hi-jack society with their dillusional insanity, and who then cry foul when anyone challenges their nonesensical belief systems.
To me its a crime against humanity, so your request that I try to understand it is not a viable option. Just as I would not wish to negociate nor develop a balance with Adof Hitler and his Nazi fascist monsters.
Unfortunately, our species won’t be able to move forward in such a manner – until mythical, human-made, fairytale ideology is finally recognized rfor what it is.
A primitive mindset that has no place in a developed society.
KEV
Reply to this comment
Comment by Marc
8.58 am on 22 May 2009
Kev
Throwing insults is very easy and there plenty in your post:
primitive ‘fantasy’
‘fantasy concept’
dillusional insanity
its a crime against humanity
mythical, human-made, fairytale ideology
Sadly it seems something you dont understand and dont want to understand has no value in your world which I would of thought that you ‘non-primatives’ would of moved on from.
However it seems not!
Marc
Reply to this comment
Comment by Kev
9.16 am on 22 May 2009
From a scientific, logical standpoint it’s not possible to ‘insult’ something that doesn’t exist.
It would be akin to saying that one has ‘insulted’ Micky Mouse or Harry Potter, also fictious creations of the human mind.
WE have no scientific data to even suggest and/or support that a god exists.
(only subjective, anecdotal, associative belief/faith)…therefore the premise for “insult” cannot be applicable.
AS there is no “positive” scienfic data present to draw from (with regard the existance of a god/being) the only position that one can take is “that a god does not exist”, we have no choice here, because only ‘positive’ data can create a premise of possibility.
Insult cannot be applied to a negative.
KEV
Reply to this comment
Comment by Marc
9.47 am on 22 May 2009
Hi Kev
It’s just called manners.
regards
Marc
Reply to this comment
Comment by Kev
4.39 pm on 22 May 2009
Marc,
But you can’t reasonably expect me to ‘respect’ a premise that is completely insane, ridiculous and which has absolutely NO scientific data to support it.
Plus, one that I think is extremely detrimental to human progress and our very existance.
Even IF we humans DO have many things in common, which of course we do – it it simply unreasonable of YOU to expect me to have manners towards a platform that I regard as bad, negative, false, etc.
IF you can provide scientific data (verifiable in the 3rd person context thru mathematical formula and testing)…that suggests a possibility of a god/being (and not merely an subjective, anactdotal, associative ‘belief’ upon a personal epistemological based position)…then I will listen.
When I look around me and see the world, it’s suggests nothing more than that a ‘world exists’…in fact, with so much brutality & cruelty within the natural world, (especially in the animal kingdom)…it screams of non-inteligence.
I witness absolutely nothing to suggest that an advanced creature/being was behind all of this.
KEV
Reply to this comment
Comment by Mark
10.57 am on 22 May 2009
Hi Kev and Marc- I am interested to see that this debate still lingers, or perhaps rages! Go easy with each other guys! You probably have more in common than you realise. (you are both human, for starters.) For me this is such a fantastic time of year- Spring in its full glory. Last night I saw an otter for the first time, just on the edge of Newcastle Upon Tyne. What an amazing creature- so at home in the water, but also on land. The other animals and birds I saw – foxes barking, deer rutting, birds singing, green sprouting from everywhere. Yes, “the whole of creation CRIES OUT” – there is a God!- and He made it all! (How did that all happen by chance?! Takes a lot of “faith”! There is a Designer…) In Romans, first chapter- Paul does say that man is without excuse for not seeing what is so obvious. Sorry Kev, not trying to have a go at you at all- just asking you to open your eyes and SEE! Mark
Reply to this comment
Comment by Ian Minus
2.27 pm on 22 May 2009
From a purely evolutionary standpoint I imagine that the concept of a God and religious order was an essential element in the success of our species. A set of rules to inspire co-ordination and co-operation was probably essential in forming functional civilizations. The enquiring mind of the early ancestor required explanations for all sorts of phenomena and blind faith encouraged bravado to conquer new frontiers.
In the age of science we now have a set of rules that explain a great deal about our natural environment. These well tested laws enable us to make plans and reliably predict outcomes .
Surely now we can move on from the primitive unfounded, and lets admit it, unproven religious thinking and get on with it.
Religion has now become a major impediment to progress and can be abandoned.
I feel there are some that cling to their faith out of fear of what society would become if we lost our moral compass, something that they would claim is exclusively provided by a religious belief.
I would argue that an educated, mature and rational society can operate successfully without religion and possibly be better off without it.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Mark
3.16 pm on 22 May 2009
Responding to Ian Minus: “Educated, mature and rational” is not what I observe in this “post modern, post Christian” society. What I see is people claiming to be educated, yet behaving more selfishly (true education includes emotional and, I would argue, spiritual intelligence) We have a society that so often promotes and praises those who are self centered and irrational and in fact pretty immature. Much modern television demonstrates this very well (having said that there are also excellent programmes by those who do not profess a belief in God, such as David Attenborough). Our current “debt crisis” is another example of what can happen when we go our own way without God; the destruction of our beautiful world being another example. Often Christians have been very slow to recognise the importance of these issues, even though the book we claim to believe in is full of good advice on how we should respect this world and each other.
I do understand your wariness of religion and I am very much aware of how much evil has been done in this world by people in the name of religion. Religion without God (often in his name) is very dangerous.
You mention having a “moral compass”- but the need to have a faith to guide that is not driven by fear, but love. When I focus on me, my love grows cold. When I focus on God, I can love against all the odds. I cant explain it fully, I cant prove it by e mail, you have to see it for yourself. I do also see that in many who do not profess a faith- Christians certainly do not have a monopoly on doing good- far from it. But my faith does make sense and brings it all together and motivates me to love my neighbour as myself.
Reply to this comment