The obligatory “British atheist ad campaign really taking off” post

posted at 9:45 pm on January 6, 2009 by Allahpundit

The good news: They exceeded their fundraising target by 2,700 percent. The bad news: They totally wussed out by tossing “probably” in the slogan. The worst news: They couldn’t think of anything better to do with £135,000 than buy dopey ads on the side of a bus.

I’m losing faith. Or non-faith, rather.

Organisers of the four-week campaign said they had included the word “probably” because they did not want to be dogmatic in the way that so many religious leaders are…

In London they will coincide with a poster campaign on the London Underground with statements such as Emily Dickinson’s: “That it will never come again is what makes life so sweet,” and Albert Einstein’s: “I do not beieve in a personal God and have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.”

Many Christian groups and churches welcomed the campaign for putting God into such a prominent position in the public eye.

Paul Woolley, director of the religious think tank Director of Theos, said: “We think that the campaign is a great way to get people thinking about God. The posters will encourage people to consider the most important question we will ever face in our lives…

Mike Elms, a Fellow of The Marketing Society and former Chief Executive of ad agency Ogilvy and Mather, said that the campaign could play a role in the revival of Christianity.

I’ll have to remember that excuse the next time commenters start whining about atheism posts on the site. Here’s a clip of the campaign’s organizer from the Beeb last month; consider P.J. O’Rourke’s theory vindicated once again. Exit question: Bigger waste of time and mental energy — this, or the dreaded atheist symbol?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

As a Christian, I find this advertisement baffling. What exactly am I supposed to do that I would enjoy my life more if I were somehow convinced that there is no God? Stop honoring my father and mother? Lie? Steal? Kill? Commit Adultery? What?
I think it is more than just a little scary to think that any significant number of people out there are really considering that they are not living their life to the fullest if they deny themselves these things. One need not look very far into this modern world to see that evil is real, and it seems to be growing. What might happen if a billion or so people who now follow Christ, or in the case of the Jewish people, God, suddenly decided well to hell with all that. I can do whatever I want and it does not matter. If only say 10% of them became thieves and murderers, that would be a lot of mayhem. Is the idea that these atheists just want to be seen as right really worth that?

MikeA on January 7, 2009 at 12:10 AM

Nobody can be sure if God or afterlife exists, but if God exists I wouldn’t insult him by attributing him to these primitive bloodthirsty religions. If your Jesus were around today you all would ridicule and kill him all over again. You crucify him every day with your blasphemy.

At this point in history your “Gods” are thirsty and the only way to satisfy this thirst is with blood. Jihadists are in a tizzy, bloodthirsty IDF officers are filling up the Gaza hospitals with women and children as we speak, and the Christian Zionists can’t wait for the blood to flow so the end of the world can come. You people are savages.

LevStrauss on January 6, 2009 at 10:18 PM

This is one of the best I’ve seen from you. Please, forget about unity. Don’t hold back.

Well if God be the God of your bloodthirsty death cults, responsible for so much death and persecution throughout the years with impunity, then I want nothing to do with him.

LevStrauss on January 6, 2009 at 10:50 PM

And what if he’s not? What if God exists, but you don’t know one single thing about him?

Esthier on January 7, 2009 at 12:11 AM

Well I see the Liars for Christ meeting is in full swing.

BathTub on January 7, 2009 at 12:12 AM

It’s like this, either you an agnostic in the sense that you think “God’s” existence is unknowable, in which case your belief is untenable, or you are agnostic in the sense that you personally don’t know, in which case you should simply remove yourself from the conversation (except perhaps to ask questions to further educate yourself) until you know enough to come to an actual opinion.

justfinethanks on January 7, 2009 at 12:06 AM

Ah. In other words, unless you’re a fervent zealot of one side or another, you should shut up. Conversation is allowed to the fundamentalists only. Kindly take that idea and shove it.

I have plenty of opinions about both sides. Just because you don’t like them doesn’t mean they are uninformed, unfit for discussion, or anything else. You hate anyone who isn’t an acolyte. That’s fine. That makes you a fundamentalist douchebag on par with SaintOlaf. Have fun with your delusions of superiority. Meanwhile, some of us aren’t afraid to question our beliefs in order to reinforce them.

MadisonConservative on January 7, 2009 at 12:15 AM

bloodthirsty IDF officers are filling up the Gaza hospitals with women and children as we speak, and the Christian Zionists can’t wait for the blood to flow so the end of the world can come. You people are savages.

LevStrauss on January 6, 2009 at 10:18 PM

Call me Queequeg… I take that as a compliment from you…

TexasJew on January 7, 2009 at 12:19 AM

justfinethanks on January 6, 2009 at 10:50 PM

So you prefer agnostics, who really don’t have any dog in the fight, to atheists, some of which seem to actually despise theists?

Your offer of holding hands wasn’t even accepted.

Esthier on January 7, 2009 at 12:20 AM

It’s like this, either you an agnostic in the sense that you think “God’s” existence is unknowable, in which case your belief is untenable, or you are agnostic in the sense that you personally don’t know, in which case you should simply remove yourself from the conversation…

So a juror who isn’t sure either way in a deliberation should just shut up? Because someone doesn’t apply his thought process in the way that suits you, he isn’t worthy of being listened to until he is absolutely sure of a conclusion

Pointlessly conflating atheists and fundamentalists doesn’t cut it, it doesn’t mean anything

I am not pointlessly conflating anything. I am comparing the two, and it is a valid comparison.

Between a rabid theist, an atheist zealot, and the agnostic, the person who says he doesn’t know is the only one who knows absolutely that his belief statement is the correct one.

hillbillyjim on January 7, 2009 at 12:23 AM

Well I see the Liars for Christ meeting is in full swing.

BathTub on January 7, 2009 at 12:12 AM

Yes, we always lie. Wait… that must mean I just lied, which would mean…

There’s an Isle of Beguile joke there somewhere.

Esthier on January 7, 2009 at 12:24 AM

Well I see the Liars for Christ meeting is in full swing.

BathTub on January 7, 2009 at 12:12 AM

Yeah. The honest satan worshippers meet over at KOS.

Guardian on January 7, 2009 at 12:31 AM

Between a rabid theist, an atheist zealot, and the agnostic, the person who says he doesn’t know is the only one who knows absolutely that his belief statement is the correct one.

hillbillyjim on January 7, 2009 at 12:23 AM

I think many would disagree there. Many Christians claim they know God exists just as much as you know your father exists or that we here know you exist, that they have a relationship with God in much the same direct way.

I’m sure the same is true of some atheists, just with a lack of proof instead.

Esthier on January 7, 2009 at 12:36 AM

Ah. In other words, unless you’re a fervent zealot of one side or another, you should shut up. Conversation is allowed to the fundamentalists only. Kindly take that idea and shove it.

MadisonConservative on January 7, 2009 at 12:15 AM

If that is what I was saying at all, I could understand that reaction. But instead, all I’m saying is that “not knowing” isn’t an opinion, it’s a problem that should be corrected. Do you think that “I don’t know how to spend money” is an economic philosophy? Do you think “I don’t know what governments should do” is a political philosophy? Then why on earth do you think “I don’t know whether or not there is a God” is a position that has any real standing or even meaning?

I assume if someone came in and said “I’ve read both sides of the issue, but I can’t decide whether or not Obama is a good guy. Really, the people who love him and hate him are just two sides of the same coin,” and then proceeded to tell Obama haters that they act and think just like Obama lovers, you’d get real frustrated, real fast at his pointless waffling and trying to dismiss people who actually know enough to take a stance on the issue.

Ignorance is fine, if you can own up to it. It’s the first step towards knowledge. But you should humble yourself before the fact that knowledge is possible. The fact that you don’t know isn’t the fault of the subject matter, it’s your own.

justfinethanks on January 7, 2009 at 12:41 AM

I assume if someone came in and said “I’ve read both sides of the issue, but I can’t decide whether or not Obama is a good guy. Really, the people who love him and hate him are just two sides of the same coin,” and then proceeded to tell Obama haters that they act and think just like Obama lovers, you’d get real frustrated, real fast at his pointless waffling and trying to dismiss people who actually know enough to take a stance on the issue.

That is true in some cases. The “OMG OBAMA OSAMA IS TOTALLY A MUSLIM!!!” minority crowd on our side was pretty comparable to the other sides’ majority. However, I was on the clear side against Obama. Didn’t mean I couldn’t criticize the idiots on my side after going after the multitudes on the other.

Ignorance is fine, if you can own up to it. It’s the first step towards knowledge. But you should humble yourself before the fact that knowledge is possible. The fact that you don’t know isn’t the fault of the subject matter, it’s your own.

justfinethanks on January 7, 2009 at 12:41 AM

Once again, I never made the claim that knowledge was impossible. You’ve been implying that I do so, when I’ve never, in many discussions of faith, made any inclination towards believing. The reason for that is that I don’t see the knowledge as unattainable, per se. If we’re talking factual, provable knowledge, then yes, I believe it’s unattainable, as most sensible people do. If we’re talking empirical knowledge, I do believe it’s possible. The only ignorance that seems to persist is yours about what I believe. Study up, because you’ve failed every quiz so far.

MadisonConservative on January 7, 2009 at 12:51 AM

Esthier on January 7, 2009 at 12:36 AM

Yes, I see your point. But it seems to me that if one of the other two positions must be incorrect, then at least one of them couldn’t know their position was correct because one is inherently incorrect.

A different interpretation of knowing and believing, I suppose.

Bah! It was a meaningless observation anyway, at best.

I still hold that the comparison of the atheist zealot and the fundamental absolutists is a valid one, as they both leave no room for doubt, questioning, or new insight into rigidly held beliefs.

hillbillyjim on January 7, 2009 at 12:54 AM

You people are savages.

LevStrauss on January 6, 2009 at 10:18 PM

No wonder people get atheists confused with lefties – they argue in exactly the same style.

Venom, invective and a paucity of facts.

– Nora Charles

The Thin Man Returns on January 7, 2009 at 12:55 AM

A different interpretation of knowing and believing, I suppose.

Certainly, but you are also correct, though only half I’d guess. In this life it’s impossible to prove a negative, so atheists cannot have definitive proof even if they are correct.

However, if God exists and Christians really are talking with him during prayer and really do develop a relationship with Christ, then it can be said that they and the agnostics were completely certain in their beliefs.

Esthier on January 7, 2009 at 1:00 AM

The fool hath said in his heart there is no God.

Kjeil on January 7, 2009 at 1:03 AM

I assume if someone came in and said “I’ve read both sides of the issue, but I can’t decide whether or not Obama is a good guy. Really, the people who love him and hate him are just two sides of the same coin,” and then proceeded to tell Obama haters that they act and think just like Obama lovers, you’d get real frustrated, real fast at his pointless waffling and trying to dismiss people who actually know enough to take a stance on the issue.

justfinethanks on January 7, 2009 at 12:41 AM

Again, your argument is fallacious. It assumes that your hypothetical “someone” isn’t correct in his comparison of the other two. What if the Haters and Lovers in his experience have exhibited the same hatred and abhorrence toward any other view than their own?

I would try to persuade the hypothetical someone in your scenario to my position, not berate and denounce him. He wouldn’t be scolded for not having come to a conclusion, especially if I had no way of knowing his level of understanding of the issue.

hillbillyjim on January 7, 2009 at 1:11 AM

MadisonConservative on January 7, 2009 at 12:51 AM

I’ll be perfectly honest with you MC, I’m just picking on you because I’m sick of arguing with theists when these threads come up. Thanks for the change of pace. And actually, I think you are one of the more level headed and smarter posters at HA.

I happily concede and take back everything I said about agnosticism.

I’m going to bed. Have a good evening.

justfinethanks on January 7, 2009 at 1:16 AM

So let me get this straight…A cosmic Jewish zombie….

Blarg the Destroyer on January 6, 2009 at 10:46 PM

LOL, good one.

So let me get this straight…A giant explosion happened in space a bazillion years ago…
katy on January 6, 2009 at 10:54 PM

Touché.

However your explanation of the Big Bang and Evolution is a shoddy caricature and gross reductionism of two very well established scientific theories.

There is crucial and determining factor which relegates the Christian version of Creation to the realm of myths and fairy tales, while making the atheistic (scientific) version valid, is evidence.

There is absolutely no evidence of your god, or any of the fables recounted in the bible. There is no way to test any claims made by Christians, which is why it must be taken on faith. You believe it because it sounds reasonable to you-not because it is factual.

Science on the other hand rejects claims that cannot be validated with empirical evidence while keeping those that can be tested and verified. This is why the scientific method is such a powerful means of ascertaining the truth and gaining a genuine, deeper understanding of our world and the universe.

Different cultures had different creations myths. Some african tribes believe the earth was created from ant droppings, the Vikings believe we were created from the flesh of an ice giant, etc.

Now just because the Judeo-Christian mythologies managed to escape the Iron Age, doesn’t mean that they’re actually true. In fact, its elementary for any sensible person to realize your beliefs are nothing special and no different in their formation than that of other cultures who were trying to understand their world in a pre-scientific age.

Even atheists scream “Oh My God” as the bus runs them over.

katy on January 6, 2009 at 10:20 PM

Yes we also say ‘god bless you’, ‘thank god’ and ‘Merry Christmas’ but that doesn’t mean we’re closet believers if that’s your hope.

Muslims love atheists for that very reason. Most Western converts to Islam were formerly atheistic. I’ve heard Imams talking about how they recruit most easily from atheists because they both agree on the first fundamental “There is no God”. But slowly the recruiter will get the atheist to add the words “but Allah”.

It’s damn near impossible to convert a true Jew or Christian to Islam. Much easier to recruit from ignorance.

Guardian on January 6, 2009 at 10:36 PM

Do you have any statistical data to confirm that most western converts to Islam are atheist?

Why would they reject one monotheistic religion (Christianity) and then join another one that is similar but happens to be violent, backwards and inhumane (Islam)? Your claim is highly dubious as well as your rationale.

So are you calling 95% of scientists who are atheist ‘ignorant’? Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word before throwing it around so cavalierly.

thinkagain on January 7, 2009 at 1:23 AM

I’ll be perfectly honest with you MC, I’m just picking on you because I’m sick of arguing with theists when these threads come up. Thanks for the change of pace. And actually, I think you are one of the more level headed and smarter posters at HA.

I happily concede and take back everything I said about agnosticism.

I’m going to bed. Have a good evening.

justfinethanks on January 7, 2009 at 1:16 AM

I think I’m going to enjoy the plateful of super ultra WIN sandwiches and hit the sack.

Night all.

MadisonConservative on January 7, 2009 at 1:27 AM

thinkagain on January 7, 2009 at 1:23 AM

some minor corrections (forgot to proofread before submitting):

*there is a crucial…
*…and that is evidence.

thinkagain on January 7, 2009 at 1:29 AM

However your explanation of the Big Bang and Evolution is a shoddy caricature and gross reductionism of two very well established scientific theories.

These “scientific theories” are believed by faith, since there is no more proof for them, than for the Biblical account.

Kjeil on January 7, 2009 at 1:33 AM

Yet more evidence that Atheists are horrific liars and delusional.

Thanks for keeping the truth about atheists in front of us Allahpundit.

TheMightyQuinn on January 7, 2009 at 1:35 AM

I have this bad feeling……………

………….. “it” is about to begin.

Seven Percent Solution on January 7, 2009 at 1:38 AM

The people that put together these adverts on the Brit buses aren’t atheists. What they are doing amounts to proselytizing. When an “atheist” proselytizes they cease to be an atheist and instead are merely a member of an anti-religion religion. An inverted god-construct if you will. Praising and lauding your lack of faith in a god-construct doesn’t make you an atheist; because your lack of faith in and of itself becomes it’s own religion.

A true atheist recognizes and accepts that religion and the belief in a god-construct is a natural part of the human condition, choosing to examine and then ultimately reject the various religions (and the very construct of a god or gods) is what makes one an atheist, not just screaming “there is no god, please believe what I believe”.

A MAJOR part of being an atheist is recognizing that you could be wrong. Not that you doubt your decision, you simply recognize that you are not in possession of all the facts and you might be wrong in your analysis. Once you proselytize your atheism, you simply cease to be an atheist because in reality you’ve accepted something on faith as truth. As much as it would suck to be wrong about the existence of a god or god-construct, the real atheist must always recognize that they may indeed be wrong and take nothing on faith as truth.

These buffoons are merely an anti-establishment anti-religion cult of their own.

**Please don’t tell me what I described above is agnosticism, because that’s a whole different thing altogether.**

Jason Coleman on January 7, 2009 at 1:47 AM

One of these days, one of these religion threads is going to just keep going and going until it reaches infinity and beyond, thus disproving centuries of mathematical theory…

hillbillyjim on January 7, 2009 at 1:53 AM

Maybe they could buy that blimp off of Ron Paul.

- The Cat

MirCat on January 7, 2009 at 1:55 AM

Maybe they could buy that blimp off of Ron Paul.

- The Cat

Heh.

hillbillyjim on January 7, 2009 at 2:00 AM

God does not exist. God is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny God.

Tav on January 7, 2009 at 2:02 AM

In response to the sign: I believe there IS a God, I’m not worried and I AM enjoying life. Get over it. Maybe find a hobby that doesn’t involve making yourself a public spectacle producing, attention seeking whore.

SuperCool on January 7, 2009 at 2:02 AM

One of these days, one of these religion threads is going to just keep going and going until it reaches infinity and beyond, thus disproving centuries of mathematical theory…

hillbillyjim on January 7, 2009 at 1:53 AM

If one does not know where one is going then any route will get one there.

Cheshire Cat on January 7, 2009 at 2:05 AM

These “scientific theories” are believed by faith, since there is no more proof for them, than for the Biblical account.

Kjeil on January 7, 2009 at 1:33 AM

Actually they are accepted as fact because our scientific data strongly supports their conclusions. For instance we once thought the universe was ‘always there’ and unchanging (the ‘steady state’ theory).

However astronomical observations led us to realize that the universe is expanding rapidly, run the clock backwards and you get your big bang about 14 billion years ago. Often times the truth runs counter to our intuitions.

To say there’s “no proof” for these scientific theories is to argue from ignorance. You can deny that proof exists, but that’s simply untrue, the evidence is available for anyone to check and verify for themselves.

Meanwhile religion hasn’t provided one shred of evidence for their superstitious beliefs and their theoretical god as well as the imaginary entities that come with it-angels, heaven, hell, demons and so on.

And if-as you argue, there is no proof for either science or religion, then why believe any of it? They could be both equally right or wrong-why put blind faith into something that cannot be trusted?

While we’re at it, why not believe in Islam or Hinduism? Those religions could be right too. How do you know your religion is the right one that god wants everyone to follow?

The key difference between theists and atheists is that while we can both acknowledge that there *could* be a God, atheists want evidence first.

Theists meanwhile charge headlong into believing in this theorized being, but not just that-they think they can read his thoughts and know that he wants us to pray, sing and dance to him so we’ll be rewarded and avoid punishment like lab rats in an experiment.

And apparently this god gave us his divine word for all of mankind to mideast desert shepherds. Meanwhile most of the world will live and die never once hearing about this Jesus who’s come to save them. In fact, they will worship and believe entirely different gods. Why did your god not hand out the same bible to all cultures? Thinking must hurt you theists’ heads so I’m sure you do very little of it.

thinkagain on January 7, 2009 at 2:52 AM

Thinking must hurt you theists’ heads so I’m sure you do very little of it.

thinkagain on January 7, 2009 at 2:52 AM

And yet another athiest’s argument distilled to every atheist’s argument:

“There’s no such thing as God, Stupidhead!”

You’ve got your religion, we’ve got our religion, why not live and let live?

Or do you atheists object to coexistence because keeping your ever roaring, self agrandizing, pieholes shut for five seconds hurt too much?

That’s a rhetorical question, by the way.

SuperCool on January 7, 2009 at 4:39 AM

SuperCool on January 7, 2009 at 4:39 AM

I believe the atheists defensiveness is a result of their own doubt about their beliefs. By disparaging us, the atheist seeks to boost his own confidence in his position. The more he puts us down, the better he feels about himself, temporarily. Believers stand confidently with God because we know God is there for us and the great unknown, beyond this life, is not to be feared. Atheists have no such rock upon which to stand. They stand alone and a human being standing alone is weak and frail. They profess that it’s OK that life will end and there is nothing beyond, but I’ve never been convinced that they really do think it’s OK and they fear the very possibility. I think that many of them are just refusing to acknowledge the light they know is there, for whatever reason. Many of them are pissed off at God and, like petulant children, deny Him in a “there, I’ll show you” kind of defiance.
Faith in God: unscientific, superstitious nonsense to the athiest. Everything to the believer.
Pick the one that lights your way.

SKYFOX on January 7, 2009 at 6:01 AM

There probably isn’t an Allahpundit. After all, I’ve never seen him or her, all I have is circumstantial evidence that could be the result of random typings at a keyboard by chance.

eaglewingz08 on January 7, 2009 at 6:50 AM

As a Christian, I find this advertisement baffling. What exactly am I supposed to do that I would enjoy my life more if I were somehow convinced that there is no God? Stop honoring my father and mother? Lie? Steal? Kill? Commit Adultery? What?
MikeA on January 7, 2009 at 12:10 AM

Philosophy was discovered long before Christianity was invented, and it will be around long after Christianity is forgotten. There are many ethics systems to choose from. Pick one, and be prepared to be judged by your fellow man (and the legal system, if it comes to that) on the quality of your choice.

If you were to stop using your religion as an excuse for your own amorality, you would discover that there exist many good reasons not to lie, steal, or kill. For example,

But not every action nor every passion admits of a mean; for some have names that already imply badness, e.g. spite, shamelessness, envy, and in the case of actions adultery, theft, murder; for all of these and suchlike things imply by their names that they are themselves bad, and not the excesses or deficiencies of them. It is not possible, then, ever to be right with regard to them; one must always be wrong. Nor does goodness or badness with regard to such things depend on committing adultery with the right woman, at the right time, and in the right way, but simply to do any of them is to go wrong.

-Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book II

hicsuget on January 7, 2009 at 7:19 AM

This guy must have missed the recent studies that show churchgoers are generally more happy and enjoying thier lives more than non-churchgoers. And they have happier marriages and better sex lives. So, I think there is a false assumption somewhere within this message.

Here’s my slogan. Believe in God and go to church; you’ll get better sex.

Now that would sell.

RedSoxNation on January 7, 2009 at 7:26 AM

allahpundit: clueless as usual.

Your name is still dumb.

TTheoLogan on January 7, 2009 at 7:26 AM

Where’s right4life?

DarkCurrent on January 7, 2009 at 7:39 AM

At this point in history your “Gods” are thirsty and the only way to satisfy this thirst is with blood. Jihadists are in a tizzy, bloodthirsty IDF officers are filling up the Gaza hospitals with women and children as we speak, and the Christian Zionists can’t wait for the blood to flow so the end of the world can come. You people are savages. LevStrauss on January 6, 2009 at 10:18 PM

It never fails. You atheists bozos always use Judeo/Christian standards and morals to judge people’s behavior. If there’s no God then there’s no such thing as right or wrong. In the animal kingdom, there’s no morality just survival. If there’s no God, then judging people’s behavior is a meaningless exercise in futility.

You need to buy a vowel.

Mojave Mark on January 7, 2009 at 7:40 AM

“As a Christian, I find this advertisement baffling. What exactly am I supposed to do that I would enjoy my life more if I were somehow convinced that there is no God? Stop honoring my father and mother? Lie? Steal? Kill? Commit Adultery? What?”

…Mike A

Are you insinuating because you aren’t a Christian or don’t believe in the Bible you will automatically lose all moral fiber and start doing these things? I’m sure you aren’t insinuating self proclaimed Christians aren’t doing these things either or are you?

Why is it people need some sort of bearded man in the sky in order to tell them how to live and if you don’t do what he says…well he’s gonna get you? There are cultures who don’t share Christian values yet somehow manage to live in the same amount of peace and harmony as we do.

For my thoughts on the article, I think these people are nuts. As someone who isn’t religous, I don’t see a problem with people having their faith as long as it doesn’t dictate their life. In this case, these people’s anti-religion is dictating their lives.

bentman78 on January 7, 2009 at 7:41 AM

“Here’s my slogan. Believe in God and go to church; you’ll get better sex”

Except if it’s before marriage. Because if you do that you go to hell.

bentman78 on January 7, 2009 at 7:43 AM

It never fails. You atheists bozos always use Judeo/Christian standards and morals to judge people’s behavior. If there’s no God then there’s no such thing as right or wrong. In the animal kingdom, there’s no morality just survival. If there’s no God, then judging people’s behavior is a meaningless exercise in futility.

You need to buy a vowel.

Mojave Mark on January 7, 2009 at 7:40 AM

Most secular philosophy reaches similar conclusions as Christianity on the immorality of murder, but that does not mean that those philosophies are “using” Judeo/Christian standards–the conclusions are reached independently. Hitler walked on his feet instead of on his hands, but walking on your feet does not make you a Nazi.

As for the second part of your post, you demonstrate more clearly than I could Christianity’s amorality and hatred for human life.

hicsuget on January 7, 2009 at 7:53 AM

To the sign makers…

I’d only worry if I thought there wasn’t a God.
I know there’s a demonic spirit. I rest easy in knowing there’s a God.
Have fun on your bus ride.

bridgetown on January 7, 2009 at 8:12 AM

There’s a HUGE difference between
being RELIGIOUS and believing in God & The Word.

bridgetown on January 7, 2009 at 8:14 AM

bentman78 on January 7, 2009 at 7:41 AM

It was not my intent to insinuate anything. But one only need look at a few realities to see that there is some correlation between societies who believe in God and those who do not. Right here in America, for example, if you establish timelines for societal shifts, you can see a pattern. You can reject that the pattern means anything, but it does exist. Sometime near the middle of the 20th century, Atheist activists succeeded in beginning the removal of God and God oriented ideas from public life. That trend has grown and the vitriol and venom of Atheists against Theists caught on in the liberal political realm. If one maps those changes on a timeline and then does the same with things like drug use, child abuse, teen pregnancies, crime rates, etc., etc.; and then overlay those timelines, the picture begins to clear some. You can deny all you want that lack a lack of God in people’s lives is the cause of this, but since the facts are visible, your denial is only a belief, much as mine to the contrary. To ignore the implications of this is in and of itself a form of faith. Just a faith in something else.

MikeA on January 7, 2009 at 8:21 AM

I’m losing faith. Or non-faith, rather.

AP, you have a religion. Everyone who has a mind has a religion.
P.S. I, as an evangelical Christian, don’t have as much faith as the average atheist.

jgapinoy on January 7, 2009 at 8:22 AM

There’s a HUGE difference between
being RELIGIOUS and believing in God & The Word.

bridgetown on January 7, 2009 at 8:14 AM

Absolutly! Thanks for pointing that out. If one understnads that difference one sees that Atheists are becoming more religious over time.

MikeA on January 7, 2009 at 8:24 AM

Change that “God” to “Allah” and watch the shit hit the fan!

Bicyea on January 7, 2009 at 8:36 AM

-heh-

Allah must be a bit hard up for page hits.

FWIW – many devout Christians, myself included, would state that they KNOW that God exists.

Religious_Zealot on January 7, 2009 at 8:45 AM

The good news: They exceeded their fundraising target by 2,700 percent. The bad news: They totally wussed out by tossing “probably” in the slogan.

The only reason they did that is because increasingly people are seeing how it is in fact the Darwinists, Atheists, and while we’re at at it, Global Warmists, who operate religiously and often on blind faith. If they hadn’t put “probably” in there, they’d leave themselves open to that same criticism, so they’re trying to pretend they’re open to any evidence that might be revealed… when in reality, their entire lives are devoted to ignoring the evidence before them.

That said, apropos of the “stop worrying and have fun” message, this is what I’ve always wondered about atheists. If you believe we’re just animals, operating on animal urges, etc. why don’t you “true non-believers” just rape and pillage until someone bigger kills you? You aren’t going anywhere after this, and won’t be accountable to anyone, right? Why not have the wildest ride ever, then? Don’t you desire to build up all kinds of credit card debt buying extravagant things and taking awesome vacations? Don’t you want to eat what you want when you want? Take advantage of everything and every one you can, etc. etc.

Anyway, at least an atheist group is finally seeing my point and ceasing the day. Abandon all responsibility athiests, it’s time for the best f-ing party EVAH!

RightWinged on January 7, 2009 at 8:50 AM

There is absolutely no evidence of your god, or any of the fables recounted in the bible. There is no way to test any claims made by Christians, which is why it must be taken on faith. You believe it because it sounds reasonable to you-not because it is factual.
thinkagain on January 7, 2009 at 1:23 AM

That was my point. Faith goes both ways… It simply depends on what you choose to put your faith in. I choose a creator God who dwells in all of us to the degree we allow Him to.

katy on January 7, 2009 at 9:01 AM

That said, apropos of the “stop worrying and have fun” message, this is what I’ve always wondered about atheists. If you believe we’re just animals, operating on animal urges, etc. why don’t you “true non-believers” just rape and pillage until someone bigger kills you? You aren’t going anywhere after this, and won’t be accountable to anyone, right?

This straw man AGAIN? So, what YOU are saying is that the only reason YOU do not let it all hang out is because God would be mad, and without God YOU have no self control.

Why not have the wildest ride ever, then? Don’t you desire to build up all kinds of credit card debt buying extravagant things and taking awesome vacations? Don’t you want to eat what you want when you want? Take advantage of everything and every one you can, etc. etc.

Project much? If the only thing that keeps you from not being a giant dick is your belief in the afterlife and a magical guy with a flowing white beard, then by all means, go to church and pray. Keeps the rest of us safe from the evil that lurks in your dark heart, y’see.

Anyway, at least an atheist group is finally seeing my point and ceasing the day. Abandon all responsibility athiests, it’s time for the best f-ing party EVAH!

I’m pretty sure the 13th step is getting off your high horse. If you aren’t a recovering addict of something, I’ll be amazed.

RightWinged on January 7, 2009 at 8:50 AM

Krydor on January 7, 2009 at 9:04 AM

Directly to Allahpundit

You are not an Atheist, much as you wish to proclaim otherwise. A true Atheiest would not pursue the confirmation of others to assue him or her self his views were correct. You are a Christian who is trying like crazy to convince yourself that the sins you have committed don’t really matter. One day, and I really hope is it a long long time from now, you will come to the end of your life. Likely a Doctor will tell you that mecidal science has done all it is able to do, and that you should go home and get your affairs on order. When that time comes sir, you will almost instanty shed your Atheists cloak and you will wish you had done otherwise with your life. But I believe that you too will have an opportunity even then to make ammends; because beleive it or not, Jesus really does love you. And His promises will still aplly to you as much as they do to me. The good news of Christ is not that you can be saved because of how you lived, but in spite of it.

Shalom

MikeA on January 7, 2009 at 9:12 AM

Krydor, I suspected it wouldn’t be long before your or one of your buddies would throw out this predictable response. In fact I began to preempt it in my initial post, but figured I’d test my prescience instead.

I don’t claim to desire those things at all… but certainly, if we’re just animals, that’s all we want is to eat and f**k, right? Self gratification.

But setting that aside, why wouldn’t you just go wild with credit cards… buying awesome stuff and taking great vacations, and then killing yourself as you age and the body breaks down, making every day tasks painful or difficult?

I believe, that we are a unique species created by God with consciences and a desire to care for others, etc. etc. It’s not just a self preservation thing for humans (though I’m sure you’d claim that it is self preservation that drove us to create societies and governments, among other things). But again, as humans I don’t believe we’re created just to eat and f***, which is why there is advanced order within our species… because we aren’t “animals”. But I still jump back to the debt thing. If I didn’t, in my human consciousness, recognize why it is wrong to run up debt having fun until I die, I would do it. But luckily I have that consciousness and awareness, because I was created this way. I still do desire to just have fun and not work though. I’d love to travel to so many places and do so many things. If I’m an atheist, I just view myself as a tiny ant in an infinite universe full of other alien life. But even on this little planet, I’m just a blink of an eye over billions of years, and nothing I do matters, because nothing matters. We’re all just nothing that exploded in to everything billions of years ago. So as an atheist, I’d just go nuts with credit cards, then slit my wrists when it was time to pay the piper…. That is, if I was a true non-believer.

RightWinged on January 7, 2009 at 9:17 AM

What MikeA said.

Jesus rocks. I love my God. He’s given me strength in the toughest of times. His burden is light.

As for my atheist friends. It’s interesting that your belief in “nothing” manifests itself in the same way that anothers belief in something does, that is proselytizing it. Yet when I or other religions do it you get pissed off and say that people are pushing their religion on you, yet you are doing the same thing.

There probably is a God, so talk to him, you and the world would be better for it

And a sidenote. I know alot of Atheists and though they will protest a great deal about the next statement, I’ve always seen it to be true. I’ve never met a happy atheist. Never.
Usually it’s just cynical grumblers looking for everything wrong in well…everything.

There is a God

spacekicker on January 7, 2009 at 9:21 AM

MikeA on January 7, 2009 at 9:12 AM

Mike, I understand this was directed specifically to Allah, but do you believe this late conversion is common to atheists and agnostics? If so, do you have anything but anecdotal evidence to back it up, or is it just more wishful thinking?

DarkCurrent on January 7, 2009 at 9:27 AM

There is “probably” no God?

He doesn’t sound too sure of himself.

hawkdriver on January 7, 2009 at 9:27 AM

hawkdriver on January 7, 2009 at 9:27 AM

He’s “probably” worried that he’s wrong.

God is good. All the time.

kingsjester on January 7, 2009 at 9:29 AM

Leviticus 2:13 And every oblation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.

Don’t forget the salt.

DarkCurrent on January 7, 2009 at 9:38 AM

I don’t claim to desire those things at all… but certainly, if we’re just animals, that’s all we want is to eat and f**k, right? Self gratification.

Certainly, we are just animals. My two dogs do more than just eat and reproduce. Canine society is amazingly similar to human society. Actually, wolves are kinda socialist. It makes sense to operate as a group with understood rules.


But setting that aside, why wouldn’t you just go wild with credit cards… buying awesome stuff and taking great vacations, and then killing yourself as you age and the body breaks down, making every day tasks painful or difficult?

I have no problem with ending my life early, if my body becomes unable to function. Why would I want to burden my children with my care? I don’t go wild with all kinds of things because I have a family to look after.

I believe, that we are a unique species created by God with consciences and a desire to care for others, etc. etc. It’s not just a self preservation thing for humans (though I’m sure you’d claim that it is self preservation that drove us to create societies and governments, among other things).

Excepting for a second that we share 98% of our DNA with Chimpanzees, none of that (and I mean none of it) is unique to our species.


But again, as humans I don’t believe we’re created just to eat and f***, which is why there is advanced order within our species… because we aren’t “animals”. But I still jump back to the debt thing. If I didn’t, in my human consciousness, recognize why it is wrong to run up debt having fun until I die, I would do it.

I really don’t understand that argument. Plenty of people DO run up debt, and plenty of those people are Christians. Are you saying that Christians are fundamentally better at money handling or something? (based on the housing collapse in the largest Christian nation on the planet, I would have to question the reasoning behind that statement, if that is the implication) Depends, also, on what you mean by fun, doesn’t it? I enjoy reading, and I find it fun and I fully intend to do that until I die. My personal library is insane.

But luckily I have that consciousness and awareness, because I was created this way. I still do desire to just have fun and not work though. I’d love to travel to so many places and do so many things.

So, why were so many people NOT created that way? From televangelists, to sports stars, to business leaders, greed happens. Were you singled out by God? What of all the religious fatties?

If I’m an atheist, I just view myself as a tiny ant in an infinite universe full of other alien life. But even on this little planet, I’m just a blink of an eye over billions of years, and nothing I do matters, because nothing matters. We’re all just nothing that exploded in to everything billions of years ago. So as an atheist, I’d just go nuts with credit cards, then slit my wrists when it was time to pay the piper…. That is, if I was a true non-believer.

Well, I’m an Atheist, sir. I find your depiction of me insulting. I still call it projection, because I don’t live a life of excess with no regard for the well being of my fellow man. Once again, the ONLY thing keeping you from being what you think I am is a belief in God. You would be an amoral sponge if not for religion, and that’s sad.


RightWinged on January 7, 2009 at 9:17 AM

Krydor on January 7, 2009 at 9:41 AM

“Best of all, there were hardly any beautiful women at the [Housing Now!] rally. I saw a journalist friend of mine in the Mall, and he and I pursued this line of inquiry as assiduously as our happy private lives allow. Practically every female at the march was a bowser. “We’re not being sexist here,” my friend insisted. “It’s not that looks matter per se. It’s just that beautiful women are always on the cutting edge of social trends. Remember how many beautiful women were in the anti-war movement twenty years ago? In the yoga classes fifteen years ago? At the discos ten years ago? On Wall Street five years ago? Where the beautiful women are is where the country is headed,” said my friend. “And this,” he looked around him, “isn’t it.”

Well, partially true, but in the 60′s, if you were young and on the “hunt”, you just showed up at a couple of rally’s, threw a couple of bricks, and you had your date for the night (it was easy to give up my conservative values a day at a time)…the great part is that liberal women are just easy, hence, I suspect, the ever growing numbers of liberal men taking up the cause.

right2bright on January 7, 2009 at 9:45 AM

Certainly, we are just animals. My two dogs do more than just eat and reproduce. Canine society is amazingly similar to human society. Actually, wolves are kinda socialist. It makes sense to operate as a group with understood rules.

Krydor on January 7, 2009 at 9:41 AM

Come on, wolves are nothing like socialists when it comes to sex.

DarkCurrent on January 7, 2009 at 9:46 AM

the great part is that liberal women are just easy, hence, I suspect, the ever growing numbers of liberal men taking up the cause.

right2bright on January 7, 2009 at 9:45 AM

That might also explain why liberal men tend to be less masculine than their conservative counterparts. Liberalism attracts those who can’t get laid otherwise.

DarkCurrent on January 7, 2009 at 9:51 AM

“There is probably no God”? What’s the probability, and how was it calculated?

Meanwhile, some of us aren’t afraid to question our beliefs in order to reinforce them. MadisonConservative on January 7, 2009 at 12:15 AM

Lots of people question your beliefs, such as they are.

Akzed on January 7, 2009 at 9:55 AM

DarkCurrent on January 7, 2009 at 9:27 AM

I’m sorry you misunderstood what I wrote to Allahpundit, but I was not speak of late conversion, or any conversion. It is by belief that people like Allahpundit who have been taught about Christ but who try to deny Him, need no conversion. He is already a Christian who is seeking some confirmation from others humans that his denial of Christ is OK. Inside he knows better.

I have no idea what goes on in the hearts and minds of real Atheists in their final moments. I would imagine those could be some very difficult and sad times. In any case, that does not include the majority of Atheist proselytes. Most of them really do believe in God. They simply don’t like that about themselves and their activism is a way to try to make themselves feel like maybe their sins are not important.

MikeA on January 7, 2009 at 9:56 AM

Lots of people question your beliefs, such as they are.

Akzed on January 7, 2009 at 9:55 AM

Come into the post to do something other than your old, tired, worthless shtick, douchebag.

MadisonConservative on January 7, 2009 at 10:00 AM

MikeA on January 7, 2009 at 9:56 AM

I’m an agnostic who was raised in a Christian home. I mostly believed the Sunday school lessons until the age of 6 or 7.

A few years ago I was in a situation where I was certain death was imminent (I really believed it physically impossible to avoid). I remember the calm thought going through my head was “Huh, this is what it’s like when you’re about to die. I thought I’d be scared”. I was expecting several seconds of severe pain and then nothing. At no point was I expecting to emerge in heaven or hell. Just an anecdotal data point that suggests to me that agnosticism or atheism can remain intact through such experiences.

DarkCurrent on January 7, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Well, I’m an Atheist, sir. I find your depiction of me insulting. I still call it projection, because I don’t live a life of excess with no regard for the well being of my fellow man. Once again, the ONLY thing keeping you from being what you think I am is a belief in God. You would be an amoral sponge if not for religion, and that’s sad.

Krydor on January 7, 2009 at 9:41 AM

Well, I can see that we’re only going to go around in circles… but I just have to say a couple of things. First, I don’t consider myself part of any “religion”, I interpret evidence and it tells me there is a God, and work forward from there. But “religion” is not something I practice.

That said, I also just wanted to point out that this:

Excepting for a second that we share 98% of our DNA with Chimpanzees, none of that (and I mean none of it) is unique to our species.

Is not accurate. In recent years, study have shown this percentage to be lower… I’ve read 93%, 94% and 95%. The point being that the evolutionists pound their claims in to our heads religiously because the old “say it enough times” routine works… then, just like the MSM, when corrections are made (which happens constantly), the reporting is shockingly minimal. Like when they shift something from supposedly billions of years old to just thousands, after teaching incorrect, and assumed (not scientific) information for decades.

At any rate, don’t complain about the sources, they’re citing evolutionists:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/DNA.asp

That one is talking about a PNAS study, for example… but they raise a lot of interesting points about how simply saying “DNA similarity” doesn’t paint the whole picture.

Then there’s this…

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5111

I specifically remember reading a bunch about what this only briefly gets in to, but it’s interesting:

The 2006 study claiming a 94% similarity creates a big problem for evolutionary geneticists who just sequenced the Rhesus macaque genome and declared a 93% DNA similarity between these monkeys and human beings.7 It is highly problematic because these monkeys supposedly branched off from our common ancestor about 25 million years ago, while chimpanzees supposedly diverged about 6 million years ago. So we have supposedly diverged from chimps some four times faster than we have diverged from Rhesus monkeys. Simply stated, there should be a more significant gap between humans and the monkeys if evolution and its dating were true.

Add to that the fact that the evolutionist community has slowly come over to the creationist side of the fence, as it pertains to neanderthals. They’re increasingly accepting that not only did they live alongside us, but that we interacted and probably mated. Soon, I suspect, we’ll have a full admission that they were not a separate species from us at all… We’re not far off from seeing this position taken now.

RightWinged on January 7, 2009 at 10:20 AM

However your explanation of the Big Bang and Evolution is a shoddy caricature and gross reductionism of two very well established scientific theories.

thinkagain on January 7, 2009 at 1:23 AM

As is zombie Jew Jesus. But that was the point wasn’t it?

“There’s no such thing as God, Stupidhead!”

SuperCool on January 7, 2009 at 4:39 AM

Yes, for people who seem to think they’re so much smarter than we are, their arguments are somewhat lacking.

hicsuget on January 7, 2009 at 7:19 AM
bentman78 on January 7, 2009 at 7:41 AM

You’re both projecting here. It’s not that without Christianity everyone would murder and steal. The point is that Christianity isn’t holding any of us back. Even you both claim that atheists can have these morals as well, further proving the point made by the poster.

So again, what’s so much more enjoyable about life without God? I’m just not seeing it. Yeah, I’ve seen plenty of people who are messed up on religion and who are completely miserable. But I’ve seen far more miserable atheists than miserable Christians.

Except if it’s before marriage. Because if you do that you go to hell.

bentman78 on January 7, 2009 at 7:43 AM

I’m sorry, but you’re confusing Christianity with legalism. It’s a common mistake. No one thinks less of you.

Christians are free to do as they want, even if what they want is to have sex outside of marriage. Their best sex, however, will come within marriage. I know the common joke is that the opposite is true, but that’s because we as a society do not value marriage.

Esthier on January 7, 2009 at 10:20 AM

Just wondering, who has higher stress levels, athiests or believers?

At least one study says the athiests suffer more – which would debunk the whole “stop worrying” part of the sign accompanying this story.

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/healthier.html

http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/2008/12/22/health-prayer-should-religion-and-faith-have-roles-in-medicine.html

hawksruleva on January 7, 2009 at 10:33 AM

Esthier on January 7, 2009 at 10:20 AM

Every time AP does an Atheist thread, a bunch of miserable people state their opinion. Don’t get me wrong, I have met good people who are non-believers. Just as there are some among our gang here at HotAir. But there are others who are truly miserable, just as Madolyn Murray O’ Hair was.
I feel sorry for them and pray for them in hopes that one day they will know Him and experience His joy. Or course, being human, that doesn’t stop me for getting aggravated at them. Oh, well.

kingsjester on January 7, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Or course, being human, that doesn’t stop me for getting aggravated at them. Oh, well.

kingsjester on January 7, 2009 at 10:35 AM

I completely understand (more than I wish) but try not to let it get to you. If you’re confident in your beliefs, then you know exactly what you’ve been given and that it’s worth so much more than can ever be explained with words.

These bus campaign atheists think we aren’t happy with life, so the best “revenge” is proving the opposite is true and showing them what’s so great about what we’ve got. It’s our best witness and the most enjoyable way to live.

They can hate us or condescend to us, but they’re the only ones truly being hurt by that.

Esthier on January 7, 2009 at 10:42 AM

Add to that the fact that the evolutionist community has slowly come over to the creationist side of the fence, as it pertains to neanderthals. They’re increasingly accepting that not only did they live alongside us, but that we interacted and probably mated. Soon, I suspect, we’ll have a full admission that they were not a separate species from us at all… We’re not far off from seeing this position taken now.

RightWinged on January 7, 2009 at 10:20 AM

I think you’re providing evidence that science tends to correct itself over time (as intended). Homo sapiens coexisting and possibly interbreeding with another closely related but now extinct Homo species doesn’t undermine the theory of human evolution, it refines it.

By the way, the currently dominant view based on DNA studies (we have some fragmentary Neanderthal samples) seems to be that while Sapiens and Neanderthals apparently coexisted for a period of several tens of millennia in overlapping ranges in Europe and the middle east, interbreeding was rare if it occurred at all.

DarkCurrent on January 7, 2009 at 10:42 AM

DarkCurrent on January 7, 2009 at 10:12 AM

I do not say that real Atheists, and/or agnostics, do not exist. I am quite sure they do. My contention to AP is that he, like most of those who claim to be such and who also spend a great deal of time and energy making the claim and trying to elicit feedback from other people about the subject, is in another category. Perhaps you are the real thing; I have no idea. Most are not.

I see it as similar to the gay activists of our time who are not content with being gay and doing their own thing. Many of them cannot rest with their life unless others of us tell them it is not a sin. I have one on my own family, and he becomes furious when I tell him that it is Ok with me whatever he does, and I don’t care one way or the other; but I can’t say it is not a sin. And even if I did say that, what I say makes no difference to the fact. If it is sin it is because God says it is sin and it will remain so even if 100% of humans say it is not. Convincing me to say something he wants to hear is his way of seeking confirmation that he is right, because he is not sure.

MikeA on January 7, 2009 at 10:44 AM

Homo sapiens coexisting and possibly interbreeding with another closely related but now extinct Homo species doesn’t undermine the theory of human evolution, it refines it.

What doesn’t? I mean isn’t every “new theory” that disagrees with an old one suddenly refining it as well?

Every scandal, every miscalculation, it’s all simply refined the theory of evolution.

Esthier on January 7, 2009 at 10:46 AM

Great advice!

“There probably is no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life. (of course there’ll be Hell to pay if we’re wrong, but stop worrying anyway.)”

The Ritz on January 7, 2009 at 10:46 AM

Convincing me to say something he wants to hear is his way of seeking confirmation that he is right, because he is not sure.

MikeA on January 7, 2009 at 10:44 AM

Alternatively, he may be interested to see it there are better arguments than he’s heard before. I understand and concur with your observations regarding activist gays and atheists, but I don’t get the impression Allah is on an atheist Jihad. My impression is he’s open minded and simply trying to stimulate discussion.

DarkCurrent on January 7, 2009 at 10:55 AM

“Atheism is the opiate of the morally corrupt.” -Czeslaw Milosz

DrewVT6 on January 7, 2009 at 11:00 AM

“Atheism is the opiate of the morally corrupt.” -Czeslaw Milosz

DrewVT6 on January 7, 2009 at 11:00 AM

There is no such thing as an immoral atheist.

spmat on January 7, 2009 at 11:01 AM

I think you’re providing evidence that science tends to correct itself over time (as intended)
DarkCurrent on January 7, 2009 at 10:42 AM

Science doesn’t correct itself over time, people do. To say that science is “self-correcting” is erroneous. All people can do is make predictions based on what they think that real science supports but unless the science of it can be proven or demonstrated then there is no way of knowing whether true science supports a particular theory at all. To say “science” (and I use that term loosely) is self-correcting then just how many times has it corrected itself, how do we know that the new corrections are indeed correct and how many things that are still accepted as science need corrected? With a self-correcting “science” such as that there is no way of ever knowing if is correct and therefore you can never know for sure if the self-correcting mechanism even works.

NeverLiberal on January 7, 2009 at 11:01 AM

DarkCurrent on January 7, 2009 at 10:12 AM said:
A few years ago I was in a situation where I was certain death was imminent (I really believed it physically impossible to avoid).

You “really believed certain death was imminent” … Presumably you were wrong in this firm belief of yours? Then you must admit that you could also be wrong about your firm belief there is no God….

max1 on January 7, 2009 at 11:09 AM

What doesn’t? I mean isn’t every “new theory” that disagrees with an old one suddenly refining it as well?

Every scandal, every miscalculation, it’s all simply refined the theory of evolution.

Esthier on January 7, 2009 at 10:46 AM

Well, finding that Homo Neaderthalis DNA was either totally unlike homo Sapiens DNA or was exactly the same would certainly throw a big monkey wrench into the theory.

Science works by making hypothesis and then trying to disprove them. Scientists don’t agree on every detail of any theory in any field. That’s how it’s supposed to work, through a competition of ideas and evidence. Constant adjustment and refinement are the mechanism, so having new findings overturn theories or details of theories that previously seemed well supported is exactly what you should expect. Today there’s a vigorous debate among anthropologists regarding Homo Neanderthals’ exact relationship to Homo Sapiens. Views differ and evidence is collected, analyzed and presented to support the different views. In the process certain positions gain support, others lose support. Sometimes all existing theories are undermined and new ones need to be developed. Through this process science works to come to closer and closer approximations of the truth, but dead-ends also occur and sometimes steps need to be retraced. This is what makes it fundamentally different from dogma. If you understand anything about the scientific process you’d have to be surprised if every new piece of evidence fit perfectly with a currently fashionable theory.

DarkCurrent on January 7, 2009 at 11:12 AM

You “really believed certain death was imminent” … Presumably you were wrong in this firm belief of yours? Then you must admit that you could also be wrong about your firm belief there is no God….

max1 on January 7, 2009 at 11:09 AM

I don’t have a firm belief there is no God. As stated, I’m agnostic.

DarkCurrent on January 7, 2009 at 11:14 AM

If you understand anything about the scientific process you’d have to be surprised if every new piece of evidence fit perfectly with a currently fashionable theory.

DarkCurrent on January 7, 2009 at 11:12 AM

Naturally, but then, everything is suspect.

Esthier on January 7, 2009 at 11:15 AM

NeverLiberal on January 7, 2009 at 11:01 AM

By “science” I mean the process of science. Certainly the implementation can be flawed. The process itself may be flawed, but seems to be the best we have at the moment.

If you’ve got a better process for approaching truth which doesn’t involve transcendental meditation or uncritical adherence to ancient texts I’d love to hear about it.

DarkCurrent on January 7, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Naturally, but then, everything is suspect.

Esthier on January 7, 2009 at 11:15 AM

I learned long ago that evolution debates just go in circles and nothing ever gets solved, so I’m not going to waste any more time on it… I do however want to point out something to our conservative evolutionist friends… I’m assuming most of you recognize how completely bogus and debunked man made global warming is, yes? And setting aside the bogusness of “consensus”, the mainstream “scientific community” all sells this nonsense. The same people who sell evolution.

Now, for those of you who recognize how the “science community” has pushed and continues to push the climate change lie, don’t you think for even a second, they could be doing the same with evolution? Don’t mistake me, I’m not attempting to make a scientific argument here (as I said, that winds up being a waste of time), I’m simply raising an issue I find interesting. People recognize the dishonesty of the “scientific community” in one area, but refuse to even consider the possibility that it’s happening in another.

RightWinged on January 7, 2009 at 11:24 AM

Naturally, but then, everything is suspect.

Esthier on January 7, 2009 at 11:15 AM

In science everything is suspect. That’s exactly the point. No science is ever final. Even the currently dominant theory of gravitation (general relativity) is suspect; in fact actually know to have flaws that haven’t been addressed yet.

DarkCurrent on January 7, 2009 at 11:28 AM

I’m assuming most of you recognize how completely bogus and debunked man made global warming is, yes?

RightWinged on January 7, 2009 at 11:24 AM

I for one agree, man-made global warming appears to be politically motivated bunk.

However, it’s nowhere nearly as well supported by evidence as the theory of biological evolution (off by several orders of magnitude at least). Man-made global warming also has alternative theories which don’t require invoking the supernatural or relying on literal interpretations of bronze-ages texts. Here is where your analogy breaks down.

DarkCurrent on January 7, 2009 at 11:34 AM

In science everything is suspect. That’s exactly the point. No science is ever final. Even the currently dominant theory of gravitation (general relativity) is suspect; in fact actually know to have flaws that haven’t been addressed yet.

DarkCurrent on January 7, 2009 at 11:28 AM

So why spend time arguing on this, just because it’s the current best explanation we have? Maybe a hundred years from now we’ll be viewed as complete mental midgets for “falling” for theory x, and the time wasted here, will be just that, wasted.

I know we get into these arguments because of what should be taught in school, and naturally science should reign over religion even though we both agree that science is suspect. Maybe we could end the bs by simply pushing that aspect of science and get away from the idea that we actually know how the world works when in fact we’re constantly proving that the “knowledge” we had before was complete crap.

It’s the absolute assurance of scientists, especially in areas like global warming, that are the real harm, not study in general.

Esthier on January 7, 2009 at 11:35 AM

However, it’s nowhere nearly as well supported by evidence as the theory of biological evolution (off by several orders of magnitude at least).

Well, it’s only had about a decade or so (with the decades before switching back and forth between the idea that the earth is warming or cooling). Give it time.

Man-made global warming also has alternative theories which don’t require invoking the supernatural or relying on literal interpretations of bronze-ages texts. Here is where your analogy breaks down.

DarkCurrent on January 7, 2009 at 11:34 AM

There are other theories that counter evolution without relying on the Bible or God.

Esthier on January 7, 2009 at 11:39 AM

However, it’s nowhere nearly as well supported by evidence as the theory of biological evolution (off by several orders of magnitude at least).

If you believe yourself to be open-minded, try reading an article I wrote on the impossibility of biological evolution and refuting my assertions scientifically. I would be interested to hear what you have to say. The article took me months to research and write.

Part 1- http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/topic3.asp?Cat1=81&Cat2=244&ItemId=997

Part 2- http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/topic3.asp?Cat1=81&Cat2=244&ItemId=999

NeverLiberal on January 7, 2009 at 11:42 AM

Esthier on January 7, 2009 at 11:35 AM

I see it as a discussion, not an argument. I tend to agree with you on many of your posts on threads I see, and I do agree that when “science” (as a result, not a process) crosses over into the political realm we need to be very careful. The same goes for religion. We should attempt to be rational in all things.

DarkCurrent on January 7, 2009 at 11:46 AM

NeverLiberal on January 7, 2009 at 11:42 AM

Ok, but understand my response could takes months as well :-)

DarkCurrent on January 7, 2009 at 11:48 AM

PJ O’Rourke said that babes were on the forefront of Liberty–he is vindicated anyway, but not because a hot outlier makes it to a talk show. Though, I’ll recant if I see a legitimate trend.

What I don’t get is this: how does an activist, deicated to actively not believeing in something keep up the pace? Me, I’d rather just call it a day. I can sleep, and simultaneoulsy not believe in Santa, the Yeti, or the enitre Roswell/Art Bell charade without burning a single calorie or dime.

-T

The Therapist on January 7, 2009 at 11:48 AM

We should attempt to be rational in all things.

DarkCurrent on January 7, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Very much agree, especially with religion. I’m not a big fan of people who grew up religious and have no idea what it means to think for themselves. I’d much prefer to talk to atheists who’ve actually spent time on the subject, even ones like Dawkins who hate me (probably).

Esthier on January 7, 2009 at 11:48 AM

NeverLiberal on January 7, 2009 at 11:42 AM

I’ll definitely look at it. It appears substantial and I’ll give it serious consideration. I’ll post my response here, and have sent my email address to the ‘Contact Us’ form, c/o NeverLiberal.

DarkCurrent on January 7, 2009 at 11:57 AM

What exactly is he suggesting us to do..

“there’s no god so now you can enjoy your life by doing all the things that god says is wrong”…

Is he suggesting we all beome murderers,thieves, homosexuals, liars and adulterers?

Any person with a healthy mind would obviously see that those things are not healthy things for one to do and that they cause more pain as opposed to enjoyment.

These atheists always shoot theirselves in the foot with some obviously illogical statement.

This sign surely hurts their cause more than it helps.

SaintOlaf on January 7, 2009 at 11:58 AM

/Ok, but understand my response could takes months as well :-)

DarkCurrent on January 7, 2009 at 11:48 AM

Fair enough. Now I’m not asking you to debate it from a religious perspective but merely on scientific grounds, because I do present the evidence from a Christian perspective, but that doesn’t make the scientific points any less valid. If you have a hard time finding me on the forums somewhere, and you want to e-mail me your response my e-mail is goldencity144@yahoo.com

NeverLiberal on January 7, 2009 at 12:00 PM

NeverLiberal on January 7, 2009 at 12:00 PM

Just sent you my email as well.

DarkCurrent on January 7, 2009 at 12:06 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4