Calling All Atheists
 

I don't believe that . . .

Hypocrisy at it's finest.

Any display or discussion remotely resembling an endorsement of religion by a public entity, is fought tooth and nail as unconstitutional.

Unless of course, such display is against religion. At which time, the same loons vigorously defend it as free speech.

And bald is a hair color right?

They have advertised for churches, so I fail to see the hypocrisy.

Thank God I'm an atheist!!

Agreed, I feel more and more that religious texts are simply guides to live ones life. Since the people who wrote those stories told them by word of mouth they have significantly changed from person to person. Language translations certainly don't help maintain its original meaning.

I treat the bible like Greek Mythology. Stories that helped people of a long lost era explain the unexplainable and comfort them in the after life.

I take solace in that fact that I don't know everything. I won't know where I am going or what created the Universe.

I say for the good of everyone that we're all different. Treat everyone with fairness and respect. Sadly most followers of many religions tend to forget that. :(

We have a separation of church and state in this country. Not-church doesn't qualify as church.

If God (or Deity of choice) were to appear, would Congress charge them as a cult leader?

I hope so. It is certain to be true.

Just ordered a book by Dennis McDonald, arguing that the Gospel of Mark is modeled after Homer's Odyssey in a deliberate attempt to replace Odysseus with Jesus. Should be an interesting read.

Poor God. Every country tells its people that they are backed by God as the country to win during war time. Who will he back? Difficult decission. God would be much better off without religion, for when common sense stops, religion takes over. Personally speaking, I believe God did not create man; man created God.

Atheism can not be defined nor discussed, without invoking references to religion. As such, there is no way to address atheism in a government sponsored context, without running afoul of the very separation you claim exists for such matters.

I don't believe in atheists .that would require too much faith to do so:P

well, i'm an agnostic. (i think i just disproved the above.) ( and advertisements have nothing to do with governments.)

Atheism can't be discussed without discussing metaphysics but is metaphysics equal to religion? I don't think so. Religion is far more than metaphysics. A person can easily be a theist without being religious and a person can be both religious and atheist.

THE BAD NEWS.....................

The Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.....:eek::o:eek:


"Atheist"???...professing too be wise..they have become fools.....:(


John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily,verily, I say unto thee,Except a man be born again, he cannot, see the kingdom of God.


THE GOOD NEWS..........................
Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. :D

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.:D

Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved........................:D:D:D


Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth:, it shall not return unto me void, but , it shall accomplish that which, I please, and it shall prosper in the thing where to I sent it.,.....:D:D:D

Damn dude. You just converted me.. you can sleep easily tonight ;)

Ahh...I love a sense of humor!!.....;)

Food for thought...though!!.....:D

For God so loved the world that he sent a bunch of them into the lake of fire?
Sounds like a one god death panel to me. Should at least bring in Zeus and Athena for second opinions.

But what does it explain? Just because I gave you an answer doesn't mean it is the right answer, does it? Are you so easily comforted by an answer that you don't care whether it is right or not but that you have an answer? IOW, if you are trying to figure out what 2+7 is and I say it is 51, will that make you happy and content now that you have an answer? I'd rather have no answer than the wrong answer, but that is just me.

Those Iowans had better tighten up their bible belt.


I am a dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac. I stay up all night wondering if there is a dog.

I think man crated god/gods to give them an answer since they cannot accept an answer of "I don't know". Deity allows them to plug in an answer even if it is the wrong one. If you don't understand it, well it is part of a plan you cannot understand.

Still using the bible to justify the bible? Kinda like using your own book to prove that 4+4=44

والله أكبر لسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته :D

A SURE SIGN OF TONGUES!!! :D ;)

When did you become Pentacostal, Jim B? :confused: :D

LOL!!.......:D

Aklim, I don't think you understand what I am trying to say.

Stories from ancient times whether they come from Greek, Arabic, Hebrew, Hindi, or cultures further east were word of mouth stories and then eventually written down. The vast amount of knowledge and tools we have now weren't available to the people of the ancient world. The campfire stories of "Where did we come from?" and "Where do I go after I die?" did so much to help those people of the past who lead terribly rough lives to have something to look forward to when they die.

Nowadays we have more and more answers that have demystified the natural occurrences around us. Unfortunately we may never know how the Universe came to be.

So to people living around us what's easier and more consoling to understand, a garden where two naked people came from or understanding the big bang theory and natural selection?

Personally I take the latter of the two. We have so much to learn and shouldn't blind ourselves away from discovery because of an old book.

That may be why religion is referred to as the "Opiate of the masses". It cannot solve anything other than to take some pain away because some might not be strong enough to live without it.

So we don't know or we might never know. Is that a reason to accept an answer just because you will "know" the answer before you die? Why can't we just say "I don't know" instead of accepting any answer just so we can look smart and say "I know"?

What discovery is there? It basically states this is how things are. No explanations because you cannot understand it. If anything, it is more like a rule book.

that's funny right there I tell ya.

That's similar to the campaign in England I think. Richard Dawkins sponsored that one.

I liked the idiot transportation directors comment about the probelm being only with the word "god" and that they had advertised for churches but never for their specific beliefs. What a load of bull. People who deny supersition have as much right to advertise as any medievalist cult.

- Peter.

What an idiot he is. Churches surely have no intention of propagating their beliefs when they advertise.:rolleyes:

He was a she, but otherwise, yes you're right.

- Peter

I see ads for the church of scientology allll the time on tv, if these ads are banned I don't want to see another scientology ad agian.

To further stir up the excriment, I have to assume the reason we call any religion "faith," is because that's what it is - nothing more. To believe all the superstitions, peganistic procedures, and mysterious mumbo-jumbo of most organized & unorganized religions, one must have "faith."

So believe what you want, but don't try to cram it down my throat. And if you really want to save me, get the government off my back and the getto gansters off my street.

Nonsense. Around here I see Jesus billboards all the time. I have yet to see one getting torn down. As an atheist, I have no problem with Jesus billboards, but I do have a problem with atheist messages/advertising not enjoying the same freedom of speech that religious messages enjoy. Every American should be concerned with this regardless of religious beliefs. I also have a problem when govt requires the recital of religious propaganda, e.g. the current version of the Pledge of Allegiance. That's different from a mere advertising banner.

[QUOTE=280EZRider;2272091], I have to assume the reason we call any religion "faith," is because that's what it is - nothing more. To believe all the superstitions, peganistic procedures, and mysterious mumbo-jumbo of most organized & unorganized religions, one must have "faith."

[QUOTE]

I believe 'faith' in this sense is largely a modern invention, in order to preserve the content of a tradition that is no longer thought to be 'true'. To believe that Jesus was the Son of God did not take 'faith' in the modern sense when people thought gods took human form all the time. Religion can and does exist without 'faith' in this sense.

Yes but people being people, if my guy, be it the Prez, God, the dog catcher, etc, etc, whatever he does is ok. You oppose him, you are a scumbag.

I'd feel better if they took the religion out of it.

How so? Religion is not about proof. When I say proof, I mean something verified by someone else besides your source. If the book justifies itself using itself, what justification is that?

I everyone thinks its 'true' that the earth is 8000 yrs old, it does not require religious faith to believe it. If the standard view is that the earth is much older than that, it takes 'faith' to believe it is 8000 yrs old.
I think you're mistaking modern religion for some kind of universal essential religion. It didn't require 'faith' to believe that mental illness was caused by demons in 1200AD. Now that we know some physiological causes of mental illness, believing that mental illness is caused by demons either requires a person simply be ignorant, or that they have religious faith.

Same thing.

- Peter.

It often is the same but not always. I know some completely self-conscious religious believers. The know the world scientifically and materially but choose to have faith, fully aware that it is in tension (contradiction?) with what they know. I would not call them ignorant.

My parents would be a prime example. Neither of them is stupid. Both highly educated for their time and at this time, reasonably educated. When there is a dispute between faith and anything else, faith wins.

Sorry to intrude, as I am not an atheist, but I feel a comment is in order.

Aklim, you obviously believe that the physical world that you see, hear, feel ,smell, etc is all there is to reality.
Just as obviously, your parents believe that there is more to reality than whan can be observed thru the physical senses.
Both of your positions--yours, as well as your parents-- begin with an unproveable assumption. Your unproveable assumption is no less a matter of faith than is theirs.

I don't agree with this. Both begin with a metaphysical view, one is simpler than the other but neither requires faith, just a working hypothesis. The proof is in the pudding. Which metaphysical view works out better in life. Is it better to think that there are malevolent personal forces trying to control our minds called demons? Or is it better to think that mental disturbances are not caused by malevolent personal forces but by material or mental causes unrelated to additional supernatural beings?
In my view, the demon possession view is on the decline, because its metaphysically simpler opposition wins out in real life. I'm guessing that even Aklim's parents dont pay for exorcisms anymore.

Intrude away. I am honestly curious. I can touch the physical world. They cannot really touch the metaphysical world. Isn't that different?

I don't know. From what I have seen exorcisms are generally free. I do know my parents believe the can cure the gay people via prayer. Does that qualify?

From your POV, or theirs? You are still using your rules to jusge their world. Do they argue that you should be able to touch the immaterial world?
Isn't that rather like a blind man complaining becasue he can't see the light?

I see. Makes sense.

I don't think it qualifies unless they think that gays are demon possessed. Typically people who think gays can be cured by prayer nowadays believe homosexuality is a moral failing.

I used the demon possession argument because when it comes to metaphysics, one crucial issue in my mind, is whether the universe is populated by additional personal beings that are invisible to us, ie, immaterial beings.
I think the metaphysical materialists have won the debate over the existence of malevolent immaterial beings (except with people like Palin who still believes in them by all accounts) because the alternative view has been more successful in treating the problems previously ascribed to demons/devils/malevolent gods.
But I think giving up on benevolent immaterial beings is a much more difficult thing for humans to accomplish because it implies their own existence is a kind of accident, inessential to reality. No matter how successful naturalistic materialistic atheism/agnosticism becomes, it won't be able to deal with a fundamental human problem which supernaturalistic/immaterialistic/theism does quite well: death. So as long as we die, benevolent gods are likely to be with us because naturalism doesn't offer the kind of panacea that theism does.