http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7681914.stm
Printable View
I like the idea. Atheism is a value just like Christianity. I'd love to see this in more cities.
I think its ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as religious propaganda on a bus to begin with. Many atheist's, especially the organized Humanists, dig themselves into the same close-minded hole many religions do. It's simply proselytizing a different religion. Like this quote from the article posted...
"This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think - and thinking is anathema to religion."
That's where I stopped reading.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
Hee hee!! Very clever!Quote:
Atheism is a non-prophet organization
Atheism IS a religion. A lot of atheists don't seem to realise this. Your religion is your set of beliefs about all those questions like "What happens after we die? Is there any absolute moral authority outside of society? Where did life come from?" etcetera. An orthodox Christian has one set of answers to those questions, involving a God who created us, has set rules in place, and will judge us after we die. An atheist has a different set of answers, involving random chance, no outsite authority, and complete destruction after death. Someone else might answer those questions by saying that after we die, we come back again, the only authority is your own conscience, and life has been around eternally. All three are religions, even though two of them won't lead to someone praying, worshipping God, attending religious services, or any of the other aspects of organized religion.Quote:
Originally posted by Ilusan
It's simply proselytizing a different religion.
Thinking is not anathema to religion. Thinking is a very good thing, because it helps you codify your religious views instead of simply following someone else because you feel you ought to. And there are people who follow atheism without thinking, same as there are followers of every other religion who haven't thought about it.
This is a prime example of freedom of religion at work. Let 'em buy some advertisments. There's nothing wrong with it.
That's because it's not true. Atheism is a philosophy, not a religion.Quote:
Originally posted by Rosuav
Atheism IS a religion. A lot of atheists don't seem to realise this.
Religion requires faith, and faith in the supernatural in particular. I am an atheist and have zero faith in anything supernatural, therefore I am not religious.
Any such beliefs that are derived from scientific observation or logical deduction are not religious beliefs.Quote:
Originally posted by Rosuav
Your religion is your set of beliefs about all those questions like "What happens after we die? Is there any absolute moral authority outside of society? Where did life come from?" etcetera.
Is there some reason why you think having opinions - let alone answers - to those questions is necessary, and that everyone is obliged to have some? Many atheists have no answers to those questions and don't claim to, because there is insufficient evidence. Religious people claim to have those answers despite there being insufficient evidence. And as previously stated, science can and does answer a lot of those questions. In addition to 'where did life come from' and 'what happens after we die', you could have included, 'What is thunder?', 'What is disease?', 'Where does the sun go at night?'. For a long time, those questions had religious explanations because people didn't have enough scientific knowledge to answer them correctly. I know where the sun is at night - that doesn't mean I have a religious belief about it, and if anyone a thousand years ago suspected that the earth was a satellite orbiting the sun, it wouldn't mean that person had a religious belief either if it was logically deduced or based on some observed phenomena.Quote:
Originally posted by Rosuav
An atheist has a different set of answers, involving random chance, no outsite authority, and complete destruction after death.
Rational thought does not equal religion. This 'atheism = religion' bullshit is something that was cooked up by religious nutjobs who try to validate their own irrational belief system by implying that it's at par with logical reasoning. It's not. Get over it.Quote:
Originally posted by Rosuav
All three are religions
Science can tell you that YOUR life came from someone else's. Science has not yet shown where all life came from. Also, it hasn't explained what happens to you after you die - only to your body. There's a fair amount of scientific evidence (not proof, but evidence) that your body is not all there is of you.
Scientific observation cannot answer the question "Is there any absolute moral authority outside of society?". That's not a scientific question at all, any more than "What does Adjective mean" is a mathematical question. And it's a question that everyone has to have an answer to - either you believe that no, there isn't, or you believe that yes, there is, and it is [insert name of authority here]. Or perhaps you might believe that yes, there is, and you're still trying to find out who, or something. But you can't just not-answer.
EVERY person has faith. It is simply unavoidable. Your beliefs, worldview, philosophy, or whatever you want to call it is your faith. They are simply terms that define the immaterial understandings that you have of the world that motivate and/or influence your choices and therefore actions.
NO faith whatsoever would be nihilism. The irony of nihilism is that it is inherently an oxymoron. Since the belief in nothing is still effectively a belief in something.
Religion is the communal organizational structure that comes with those who share the same beliefs/faith/worldview/philosophy/whatever. In this case, 100% without a doubt.. atheism is a religion.
Spouting off that science hasn't answered everything yet is not an argument. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with your initial assertion that atheism is a religion, nor my rebuttal.Quote:
Originally posted by Rosuav
Science can tell you that YOUR life came from someone else's. Science has not yet shown where all life came from.
Um.. yes, I can not-answer. By your asinine pseudo-logic, people have to provide answers to pretty much any question imaginable.Quote:
Originally posted by Rosuav
Or perhaps you might believe that yes, there is, and you're still trying to find out who, or something. But you can't just not-answer.
Why are you having trouble understanding this? Religion requires faith with an absence of evidence. I refuse to have faith with an absence of evidence, and I am not committing a crime or any intellectual dishonesty by doing so. In fact, you're the one being intellectually dishonest by offering up an answer to a question that you're in no position to evaluate. That is irrational, and that is why (presumably) you're religious.
Rosuav, I hate it when you post on these questions because I always feel like I have to respond to your misinformation, and because for YEARS now you have willfully ignored ANY scientific information that contradicts your belief, I get more and more frustrated and it gives the impression that I dislike you, and I don't dislike you, so that is frustrating too.
I don't think you're a dishonest person, Rosuav, so I have a lot of difficulty understanding why you continue post the exact same arguments over and over again when they have been exposed as uninformed or fabrications.
I wish you would give some sort of indication that you had read the talk.origin refutations to your canards - which we have directed you to over and over again, or that you would give some acknowledgement of the effort that so many people have gone to to explain the science behind their understanding, posts that they have spent many hours laboring over - frankly, it's very disheartening when someone goes to such enormous effort (such as rereading and summarizing text books and research papers) PURELY to help educate you on something you have NO IDEA ABOUT only to have you completely ignore the post.
Stop it. Please stop it.
I'd like to see you try to explain how belief in nothing is "effectively" a belief in something.Quote:
Originally posted by Pae
Since the belief in nothing is still effectively a belief in something.
P.S. The proper term in this context is faith, not belief. People can believe all sorts of things based on science and observation, etc. The reason I'm being so nit-picky about this distinction is because a common debate tactic used by religious people is to conflate religious faith, i.e. irrational or unfounded belief, with rational belief. i.e., 'I believe there is a God' vs. 'I believe I had breakfast this morning.'
I just put a Jihad on you all!! :) ;)
Heh, it's no good when either side gets snooty. Here's a quote I liked.Quote:
Originally posted by Ilusan
I think its ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as religious propaganda on a bus to begin with. Many atheist's, especially the organized Humanists, dig themselves into the same close-minded hole many religions do. It's simply proselytizing a different religion. Like this quote from the article posted...
"This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think - and thinking is anathema to religion."
That's where I stopped reading.
I don't have an issue with the signs at all. I know both sides may be worked up about them but more than likely, they're going to be ignored like most of the other bus signs out there. Pity, but there you go.Quote:
Spirituality and discipleship officer Rev Jenny Ellis said: "This campaign will be a good thing if it gets people to engage with the deepest questions of life."
Heh since I posted the article, I suppose I should offer my own opinion!
I have 2 opinions about these signs. On one hand, I think it's annoying that a message like this is being advertised. It's annoying in the same way that religious advertising is annoying. It's annoying in the same way that people who put bumper stickers with political/moral/etc. messages on their cars are annoying. Why do people feel the need to declare (scream) their deepest (and yet somehow most superficial) beliefs to every passerby? Save that shit for the people close to you. For the people who care.
On the other hand, I'm happy to see this kind of thinking becoming more mainstream and more accepted. Let's face it, religion has historically been overpowered as much as religion in Threshold has been overpowered. ;)
BTW
Atheism is not a religion. A religion is a group of organized people who prescribe to a preset (sometimes thousands of years old) beliefs. They follow (or are supposed to) prescribed lifestyles. They perform regular rituals according to religious belief.
Atheists just live their lives the best way they can without worrying about all that crap. Having in common the belief that there is no god does not make them an organized group in the same way that religion is.
This kind of thinking just comes from the "Us vs. Them" mentality that arises.
Organized religion is continually losing power and influence in developed parts of the world, and so they are fighting to stay alive. I'm pretty sure the Catholic religion is going to be dying out in the US within the next few generations, for example. Just look at the trends.
Personally, I don't worry about either side of the debate. I'm agnostic, which would be the proper objective and philosophical viewpoint to take. We currently can't prove that god is real, nor can we prove that god is not real. I'm not interested in attempting to prove it one way or the other, and so I just go about my business.
A page that I don't have permission to? Or is it just me?Quote:
I'm not going to get in too deep into this thread other than I don't believe in religion and I don't believe in politics. To me all I see is people arguing about what is right and what is wrong or who is better. Petty stuff that I hate to be involved in. I hate the people that sit there trying to push it on you even more. (I don't hate anyone in Thresh)
:)
I think it's just you... I verified the link works with a third party. it's a public forum image hosting site, so it should let you in. :\Quote:
Originally posted by Isaviel
A page that I don't have permission to? Or is it just me?
Anyway, I put it on another site for you... Definitely work safe. :)
http://i33.tinypic.com/w3fop.jpg
when I saw one of these signs, I didn't even give it a second thought. I suppose I assumed they had been on the buses for a while, and I just never noticed before, especially as we don't go into London all that often, perhaps a handful of times a year. The interesting thing is, as far as I can tell, nobody even notices the signs.
I have a feeling the only people that will get all that worked up about them are tourists from fundamentalist countries in the middle east and the US.
British people, for the most part, don't seem to care about religious issues. They have a state church here, but if anything, that makes it even worse. I am not convinced even the Church of England itself cares about its existence, let alone its small handful of adherents. Well, I say small number... most people do go to C of E primary schools in the rural and suburban areas, and there is still a fair number (although not a lot, really) who get their babies christianed. The few couples who bother to marry in a church do tend to use C of E, and the C of E does get the bulk of funerals, but very few people go to church, and of those that do, don't really do so for what an American would identify as the usual motives.
C of E Churches in most towns and villages are more like historical societies and civic centers than anything else. They don't really have any spiritual life to them. Most of the monies they raise go toward various historical preservation projects to do with the C of E properties around the town itself, and civic activities for the town.
Every once in a while, one of what are affectionately, if dismissingly, called "American" sects, and what Americans would identify as evangelical or fundamentalisl churches, does try to get the community stirred up, but it never really goes anywhere, as far as I can see. It's the same with these signs.
Whether it's secular humanists or charismatic evangelicals, the British seem to remain tolerant, and immune. They seem to like being tied to a church where God is essentially comatose, and this contentment makes them fairly immune to proselytising.
I say fairly, because every once in a while, you will run into a British convert to American style evangelicalism, or a Brit who cares enough about faith one way or another to call themselves anything other than C of E or "not bothered" but even than, British evangelicals and atheists are far less militant, in my experiene, than their American counterparts.
Thanks! That was too funny!Quote:
Originally posted by Leshrak
I think it's just you... I verified the link works with a third party. it's a public forum image hosting site, so it should let you in. :\
Anyway, I put it on another site for you... Definitely work safe. :)
http://i33.tinypic.com/w3fop.jpg
Belief in a god or belief in atheism is a belief. It is not something you choose. It is pointless to try to get someone to see it your way if they state they are in opposition to you.
Messages about this or debates about this are only for the undecided. Often times people take it personally that someone else is not sharing their belief and want to change them. That is pretty selfish.
My mother is religious. She believes in God. If I had an agenda to convert her to atheism I would be doing that for me, not her. It would be to win some sort of battle.
But what makes it truly selfish is that she actually enjoys being religious. It gives her a sense of community. It gives her a social life. It gives her a place to go sing. It is doing no harm to her at all but only adding value to her life. Why would I take all that away from my mother?
Conversely, being atheist makes me happy. I have religious friends and they all respect that.
The religious debate can be enjoyable but I only get into when I feel like learning more about what other people think and believe because that is interesting. It is not because I think I am going to change their minds.
People like Dawkins and PZ aren't about taking belief from people like your mother particularly. The atheist movement has largely arisen in direct response to attacks against secularism such as science in schools, stem cell research, the right for women to control their own bodies. It's come on the back of politicians and shock jocks saying that atheists aren't real Americans and shouldn't be allowed to vote or run for office.
Religious institutions have ridiculed science and materialism as part of this conservative fundamentalist 'culture war' which has been going on for 10 years or so. It is in this environment that some atheists are getting loud.
I firmly agree that religious folks should not be attacked purely for being religious, but when that religion encroaches on my right to control my body, or attacks science for attempting to understand the world, or murders people in the name of God then I think it's fair to propose an alternative understanding to the invisible sky fairy.
Remember, people aren't born with the bible in their heads. Their parents indoctrinate them with the comforting myths and absolute horror of it all.
Sebboe, I'm interested to know why you think that belief in atheism or religion is absolute when so many people become 'born again' or, when most atheists in the Western world have grown up religiously and walked away from their faith as a result of argument, contemplation and or education?
I didn't just wake up one day as a non-believer. It was an involved process that went on for at least 5 years.
Exactly.Quote:
Originally posted by Sebboe
The religious debate can be enjoyable but I only get into when I feel like learning more about what other people think and believe because that is interesting. It is not because I think I am going to change their minds.
Religion isn't a topic that can be successfully debated, because people come to the discussion with their minds made up, unwilling to alter that point of view.
The best you can hope for is people putting forward their opinions, without taking offense at the opinions of others.
But, someone will eventually feel that their God/faith/imaginary-friend has been insulted, and then the flame-war begins.
I am personally undecided, or to accept the most accurate term available to me, Agnostic. I don't know, I don't claim to know, I doubt I'll ever know, most importantly though, I don't pretend to know.
You could believe in the almighty-paperclip, but so long as you're a decent person, that is absolutely fine by me.
Jackbooting atheists make me rage just as much as moonbat fundies.
At least the fundies don't run off crying "BAAAAWWWWW! OPRESSION" when you call them on their bullshit though.
Yeah, cuz we all know where you stand on evolution and abortion, Maelgrim.
I have to say I'm really saddened by the personal attacks in this thread. It began with Snrrub's response to Rosuav which appeared to have a pretty nasty tone. Malacasta, you at least were polite to Rosuav but you still singled him out. And now this crap between Maelgrim and Malacasta?
I thought the topic here was signs on buses, not "why the other side is WRONG." Am I wrong?
Are we adults capable of respect and civility or not?
The real problem here is that the idea that something is something is bullshit is mutually held by the theists and the atheists.Quote:
Originally posted by Maelgrim
Jackbooting atheists make me rage just as much as moonbat fundies.
At least the fundies don't run off crying "BAAAAWWWWW! OPRESSION" when you call them on their bullshit though.
As an atheist I never run off crying at anything because your opinion can never be anything but a reflection of yourself, not me.
Maybe the atheists think, "At least the atheist don't go running off to hug their rosary when they get called out on their bullshit."
I think that people are too concerned with being right rather than being happy. I don't care if I'm right or wrong because I'm happy with the fact that my gut tells me something is true. There is nothing to be gained by attacking the other side.
As I pointed out before, the debate only has value to someone seeking clarity.
I have had so many religious friends in my life that I realize that their faith is something they are not something they do.Quote:
Originally posted by Malacasta
Sebboe, I'm interested to know why you think that belief in atheism or religion is absolute when so many people become 'born again' or, when most atheists in the Western world have grown up religiously and walked away from their faith as a result of argument, contemplation and or education?
I didn't just wake up one day as a non-believer. It was an involved process that went on for at least 5 years.
I don't have scientific proof that god does not exist. I personally just do not believe it. I have faith in my belief. That may change some day.
At the same time, I have friends that believe in god and one day they might get a gut feeling that they are wrong. Their faith will change.
I do agree with you that religion should not have a hand in laws. I do not think anyone, theists or atheists should interfere with the lives of others. That includes not stopping science or even hindering it.
If everyone focused on themselves and making them be the best person they could be within the constraints of what they believe I think everyone would be happier.
I feel bad for anyone who get's angry or frustrated that their beliefs are not universal. There are so many good things to do with your life besides banging your head against a wall.
I'm really on the curb about this, I think people should be free to be atheists and not be judged on it but on the other hand I do agree that even anti-religious slogans could be just as annoying as pro-religious stuff.
I am an agnostic and non-religious, personally. I believe there's something out there and things going on that we as humans cannot completely comprehend or even prove, and I'm a bit on Snnrub's side in that I don't really wish to commit my faith blindly to something I have no idea if it exists or not. I just wouldn't go as far as to say I'm atheist because I believe its there, but there's no real hard, solid proof. Mostly just heresay and blind faith.
Organized religion itself (overall) has always just been completely distasteful to me. The bible is full of contradictions and has been translated hundreds and thousands of times, plus I have a hard time believing that God (if there is one) spoke to people so they could write down what he said. If that's the case, why hasn't God spoken to any of us? But that's all he-said she-said anyways and I'm delving off topic somewhat. There are SO many religions out there and its impossible to tell which ones are right or wrong, or if any of them are right at all.
What's been bothering me lately is that I'm currently in a custody battle, and my kid's father suddenly "found God", which I can very well imagine he only picked up religion because it'll look good in court. I'm worried that it *will* look better on him that he takes the kids on church every Sunday while I sit there and say I'm Agnostic and don't go to church because of it.
So what's the point of all this babble? Well I think that perhaps advertising Atheism and similar philosophies may be benefitial to a degree if it wasn't over done. It would be nice if non-religions were more accepted because it seems like people who do have a religion (and generally one more accepted around the US such as Catholics and Christians) are generally seen as being the better or more moral people. Why can't people be seen to have Christian (or another religon) values and not be religious?
****
As for the personal attacks on this thread, you really have to come to expect it at times when discussing religion. Religion and faith (or lackthereof) is something that people tend to be pretty passionate about and generally are cemented into the values that they have been raised with or have embraced on their own. I would just suggest that people take what is said as tongue-in-cheek and try not to feel too offended by it. People will believe what they believe and fight for that belief to the death. Hell, most of the major wars were over religions.
Hundreds and thousands?Quote:
Originally posted by Rijiny
The bible is full of contradictions and has been translated hundreds and thousands of times......
I heard it was ten million.
Bahahahaha.
Wikipedia has this to say about jackboots: "...jackboots have been strongly associated with totalitarian motifs. The word is commonly used in Britain as a synonym for totalitarianism, particularly fascism, although jackboots and similar types of footwear have been worn by various British regiments since the 18th Century."
Maelgrim, nobody forced you to write the post or use the words you did. 'Jackboots' or 'Jackbooting' has the same inference in Australia as it does in Britain so I assume we are interpreting the word the same way and therefore, as far as I can tell you're accusing certain atheists of being totalitarian. Which atheists and why?
You also seem to be accusing some atheists of crying "BAAAWWWWW! OPRESSION". Which atheists are doing and what bullshit are they actually called on? It is my experience that the opposite actually is true, for example, this post lead to all manner of wailing and gnashing of teeth http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...acker.php#more
You have written a post in weasel terms which could be read as an attack against posters in this thread, or could be a reference to (for example) that guy who tried to take god out of the pledge (which would be odd since he hasn't been mentioned yet), but since you have made no effort to actually elucidate your argument I choose to interpret your comment as a flame against me.
Fact #1 : Nobody actually knows. That includes followers of all religions, all non believers, and everyone in the gray area in between.
Fact #2 : The best anyone can do is guess, going with whatever we agree with internally.
Fact #3 : Everything is conjecture.
Conclusion : Fuck off with your conjecture.
End of religious debate. Everyone loses.
Continue beating the dead horse at your leisure.
This statement is ridiculous for a couple of reasons. First being that atheists really are oppressed sometimes. Second being that fundamentalists do sometimes cry about oppression. It would be pretty easy to find examples of both, I think. I could even post some personal examples if neccessary.Quote:
Originally posted by Maelgrim
At least the fundies don't run off crying "BAAAAWWWWW! OPRESSION" when you call them on their bullshit though.
Howsabout not advertising religious (or anti-religious) semantics at all?
Oh. Wait.
I don't understand how posting an advertisement saying "There is probably no God." or even "There probably is a God." is supposed to make people 'think.'
People think quite naturally on their own. Fuck, if we didn't we likely wouldn't have ever manufactured the idea of religion in the first place, nor atheism itself later on. Obviously who ever's bright idea this was simply wanted to increase the amount of anti-religion in everyone's lives.
Great job. A regular Gandhi.
Too bad it won't work. Though it'll likely piss off a few people. Maybe that was the intended reaction.
All the evidence and scientific method in the world hasn't been enough to make evolution a 'law'. As such, I treat it with the same skepticism as any other unproven theory.Quote:
Yeah, cuz we all know where you stand on evolution and abortion, Maelgrim.
However, neither do I believe that the universe and all therein was created in a week circa 6000BC, either.
As for abortion, You have no goddamn idea where I stand on abortion, sweetie, because *I* don't even know where I stand on it. :)
And you know what makes me so iffy on it? Beautiful, wonderful science, which keeps finding more and more aspects of self-awareness in less and less developed fetuses. When does it stop being "Aborting Pregnancy" and start being "Infanticide"?
I'm sure you, being a woman with a child, whom you love as only a mother can, will empathize with my conflict here.
And I really wish you wouldn't.Quote:
You have written a post in weasel terms which could be read as an attack against posters in this thread, or could be a reference to (for example) that guy who tried to take god out of the pledge (which would be odd since he hasn't been mentioned yet), but since you have made no effort to actually elucidate your argument I choose to interpret your comment as a flame against me.
You are clearly familiar enough with my writing style to recognise that if I wanted to flame you, I would do so directly. Please do not create vendettas where none exist.
In my experience, (in response to those who disagree with my 'Atheist=BAWWW" comment,) it is predominantly the hard-line atheists who like to paint themselves as persecuted intellectuals, when in fact they are just as much close-minded braggarts as the fundamentalists they so vehemently lambast.
I have seen a woman reduced to tears by a sneering group of atheists in a university tutorial for merely mentioning the word 'god'. Yet the same individuals were featuring in the guild newspaper promoting 'increased tolerance for individual belief.'
So when I see Atheists so proudly touting their beliefs and their right to do so, yet not even having the common decency to allow others theirs, Yes, I tend to rage a bit.
Me either Theairoh. If you put that online, we'd probably call it "Trolling."Quote:
I don't understand how posting an advertisement saying "There is probably no God." or even "There probably is a God." is supposed to make people 'think.'
In fact, no, I'll delete what I wrote. Trying to argue with fundies online is a sport one can't win.
All snipped out :(
A great deal of iconoclastic talent is wasted on bashing religion. How banal. What makes it insufferable is the smug attitude people take on when doing it, as if they were doing the world a favor. However, as a dedicated libertarian and freedom of speech advocate I support a citizen's right to say whatever they want- so long as taxpayer is not footing the bill.
You want to be a real iconoclast? Put a brick through your television. Go on a media fast. Cut processed foods from your family's diet. In an age where God has been replaced with consumerism, intelligent asceticism is the new counter culture. Oh wait, that stuff is hard and requires effort.
Unless there is a major collapse and new Dark Age on the horizon, traditional monotheism will continue slowly losing its relevance in the modern era. That said, I concede that the death throes in the coming centuries will be destructive. I am not sure what good is being done by belaboring the point other than to piss people off.
All belief systems are flawed and incomplete, even yours. There is also the notion that some people are more “objective” than others and thus have more valid belief systems. Academics are commonly held to be more objective than the hoi polloi. One look at the dingbat politics most academics endorse will cure you of that delusion. As for scientists, here is a quote from Robert Anton Wilson’s Prometheus Rising.
Quote:
Scientists, however, are still believed to be objective. No study of the lives of the great scientists will confirm this. They were as passionate, and hence as prejudiced, as any assembly of great painters or musicians. It was not just the Church but also the established astronomers of the time who condemned Galileo. The majority of physicists rejected Einstein’s Special Relativity Theory in 1905. Einstein himself would not accept anything in quantum theory after 1920 no matter how many experiments supported it. Edison’s commitment to DC electrical generators led him to insist AC generators were unsafe for years after their safety had been proven to everyone else.
Science achieves, or approximates, objectivity not because the individual scientist is immune from the psychological laws that given the rest of us, but because the scientific method -a group creation- eventually overrides individual prejudices, in the long run.
Edited for clarity.
I threw mine off the top of an apartment building. I expected more of a crash.Quote:
Originally posted by Korah
You want to be a real iconoclast? Put a brick through your television. Go on a media fast. Cut processed foods from your family's diet. In an age where God has been replaced with consumerism, intelligent asceticism is the new counter culture. Oh wait, that stuff is hard and requires effort.
We ended up with another TV, again, for free...I may give this one similar treatment at the end of my lease.
/me rebels
Completely offtopic, but... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02...005_episode_6/Quote:
Originally posted by Rilthyn
I threw mine off the top of an apartment building. I expected more of a crash.
We ended up with another TV, again, for free...I may give this one similar treatment at the end of my lease.
/me rebels
This illustrates that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You think that a scientific law is more valid or more concrete than a scientific theory? Wrong. Einstein's theory of relativity explains motion far more completely and eloquently and accurately than Newton's laws of motion. In general, a scientific law describes a phenomena whereas a scientific theory explains a phenomena. Theories are typically much stronger than laws, and ideas are never promoted or demoted from one category to the other because the their formulations are distinct, i.e. description vs. explanation.Quote:
Originally posted by Maelgrim
All the evidence and scientific method in the world hasn't been enough to make evolution a 'law'. As such, I treat it with the same skepticism as any other unproven theory.
I realize that the layman uses the word theory as a synonym for a wild guess or speculation, but in science, for something to be classified as a theory it must meet a very high standard. A scientific theory must explain all of the evidence available, and contradict none of it. So yes, evolution is 'just' a scientific theory, but creationism isn't even a theory. Creationism is simply wild guessing and unfounded speculation.
"Television is like taking spray-paint to your third-eye."Quote:
Originally posted by Rilthyn
I threw mine off the top of an apartment building. I expected more of a crash.
We ended up with another TV, again, for free...I may give this one similar treatment at the end of my lease.
/me rebels
- Bill Hicks.
Okay, 2 facts before I turn the engines up to "talking bollocks" and engage warp-drive.
1) I was raised half-athiest, half pagan (ie one parent of each flavour)
2) I recently started attending a local church, just out of curiosity and wanting to know what they had to say, as I'd spent two and a half decades listening to "The Dark Side".
Now... Graeblyn is totally right. In England the church is very much a sort of extra curicular club. A small minority shose to show up. They're ocasionally openly ridiculed for it, more often just ignored and written off as "God-botherers". Support for those wishing to learn more about Christianity (regardless of whether they want to follow it's teachings or not) Just does not exist. If you've ever seen a show called The Viccar of Dibley, it really is like that. The only real exception to this if if you have attended a private, religious school. In my entire life I've only ever met two people who were practicing Christians (that I'm aware of anyway) - One was the Son of a Viccar, the other had been taught it since birth by her parents. In England the powers that be like to make a big song and dance about what a multi-faith society we are, but it jsut isn't true. Muslims and Sikhs (the few that we have here) are very openly proud of their religion as it's a tie to their cultural heritage, but for the most part we're a nation that doesn't really care either way. Here christians have bake-sales, coffee-mornings and chior rehersals, while huge areas of London are "re-developed" to appease the ever expanding Muslim population.
Athiest slogans will, on the whole, go pretty much unnoticed here just as the pro-Jesus ones we already have do. The athiests (on the whole) like the idea of upsetting people and being controversial because it makes them feel revolutionary in some way, like they're fighting opression. Christians like to try and spread the belief in God because they feel it's their duty to, just liek athiests feel it's their duty to "save" people from what they percieve as lies and ignorance.
At the end of the day an approach of deciding for yourself and doing whatever makes you happy as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else would be my philosophy. Shame there's so many people out there who think their ideas are worth hurting people over. Fuckers.
I find it a little irritating that people keep suggesting that claims of atheist oppression are bullshit. It most definitely does happen. While I don't really follow the modern atheist movement closely, I grew up in the era where the lords prayer was still present in Canadian schools. I know oppression of atheists happens, because I've been through it, and I'm not that old.
I find the term "oppressed" a little strong to describe the state of atheists in the West and somewhat insulting to people who are truly oppressed.Quote:
Originally posted by leira
I find it a little irritating that people keep suggesting that claims of atheist oppression are bullshit. It most definitely does happen.
Everyone is a victim in some form or another. Claiming victim status allows people to justify all sorts of outrageous behavior, hence its popularity.
In some places athiest do get oppresed.Quote:
Originally posted by leira
I find it a little irritating that people keep suggesting that claims of atheist oppression are bullshit.
In some places Christians get opressed.
In some places Muslims get oppressed.
In some places Jewish people get oppressed.
In some places Bhudists get opressed.
There isn't really one spiritual path that doesn't get shit on by somebody else at some ome point.
No, I believe that's a scientific law. A law has to be completely accurate under all circumstances; a theory, like a model, is allowed to be flawed. The theory of evolution has its failings, and I don't think even its most ardent supporters would deny that; but so do many other theories.Quote:
Originally posted by Snrrub
A scientific theory must explain all of the evidence available, and contradict none of it. So yes, evolution is 'just' a scientific theory, but creationism isn't even a theory. Creationism is simply wild guessing and unfounded speculation.
Could you please provide an argument, some evidence, and some sources for your position?Quote:
Originally posted by Rosuav
No, I believe that's a scientific law. A law has to be completely accurate under all circumstances; a theory, like a model, is allowed to be flawed. The theory of evolution has its failings, and I don't think even its most ardent supporters would deny that; but so do many other theories.
Then you believe wrong.Quote:
Originally posted by Rosuav
No, I believe that's a scientific law. A law has to be completely accurate under all circumstances; a theory, like a model, is allowed to be flawed.
From Kennesaw State University's website Link:
From U.S. National Academy of Sciences:Quote:
[On laws & theories] Both are based on tested hypotheses; both are supported by a large body of empirical data; both help unify a particular field; both are widely accepted by the vast majority (if not all) scientists within a discipline. Furthermore, both scientific laws and scientific theories could be shown to be wrong at some time if there are data to suggest so.
From Chemistry.com:Quote:
Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena
Some definitions of Scientific Law:Quote:
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it.
...
A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them.
...
Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.
"A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement." ( Krimsley, V. S. 1995. Introductory Chemistry, 2nd Ed. Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., Pacific Grove.)
"A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present" (Oxford English Dictionary)
Some definitions of Scientific Theory:
"The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena" (Moore, J. A. 1984. Science as a way of knowing--evolutionary biology. Amer. Zool. 24: 467-534.)
"A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed." (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961)
As previously stated, the theory of relativity is more accurate than Newton's laws of motion. Here are some more examples of theories giving better and more accurate explanations than laws:
The Kinetic Theory of Gases > Boyle's Law
The Quantum Mechanical Theory of Atomic Structure > The Law of Fixed Proportions
The Theory of Molecular Genetics > Mendel's Laws
Advertisements that say there is no god and to advertise such horribly shakes the foundations of people who've spent their lives believing in a god. This is not only damaging to them, but to their goals in life.
I don't see how saying that there is a god is as damaging to non-believers if they also live their life according to law and positive values. Some people that consider themselves religious simply practice the codes of morals contained in the bible and the HOPE that there is life after death without ever taking it any further.
I imagine there is some evidence out there stating that religion stats are going down. So why fret? If non-believers are out there pushing their non-religion, it's going to start looking like a religion. The message of christianity tends to be one of hope verses the atheist message of "ONE DAY YOU WILL DIE, IT WILL BE THE END OF YOU AND YOUR EXISTENSE IN THIS WORLD, AND EVERYTHING YOU HAVE DONE WILL BE FOR NAUGHT."
I think if atheism is going to start pushing their 'beliefs' they need to go ahead and write a bible, too, so that we know that they have a sense of morals and positive values. People are scared that non-atheism will equate to mass disease, crime, outright rudeness, etc. and atheist have no common book of codes that they live by. There's nothing that explains them. We're just supposed to trust ALL of you guys? At least you can call a religious man out on his lack of following the codes of the bible.
I know for a fact the only thing that's kept me from getting me thrown in prison a couple times is the idea that a god -might- exist. And I'm about as mellow a dude as you can get. Sometimes there comes a time in certain dudes' lives where they start to not give a shit about things. Couple that with drug/alchohol dependence and some rap and you have a serious problem. It helps to have that certain uncertainty about after-life to keep them in check. If poverty in the US is rising, a non-religious atmosphere seems like a bad idea to me.
I'd like to see some stats of how many people in the armed forces believe in a religion. I'd also like to see how many people 'say' they don't believe in a religion, yet end up praying or asking for 'divine' aid during frightening (or similiar) moments in their life.
Must be an aussie thing, Ros, because I had the same thing drilled into my skull for 12 years.Quote:
No, I believe that's a scientific law. A law has to be completely accurate under all circumstances; a theory, like a model, is allowed to be flawed. The theory of evolution has its failings, and I don't think even its most ardent supporters would deny that; but so do many other theories.
Oh well, I suppose 5 high school teachers and 2 university lecturers are wrong.
*uses scare tactics*