I think that must have been sarcasm… My vehicle was never vandalized in either the xxxtra x-ian midwest or anywhere else in the country while displaying the darwin fish…
Sarah Palin is a monotreme?
You mistake the athiest point of view. It’s not that they don’t follow your ‘one-and-only-true-God’, but that there are no gods.
Peoples around the world currently believe in hundreds of gods, and there are thousands more that were once worshipped. Of all these gods you disbelieve in all but one. Atheists merely disbelieve in one more than you do.
And, since I believe in both The Flying Spaghetti Monster and The Invisible Pink Unicorn, you disbelieve in one more than I do–making you the heathen atheist!
And how much farther would they have gone without being crippled by religion and other superstitions ?
The “reality” of God ? So, you have actual proof then ? Oh, that’s right. When believers say “reality”, they mean “stuff we made up”. There is NO evidence for your side being right.
Atheists have no trouble understanding the “reality” of God. He’s imaginary; that’s all there is to know about his “reality”. Pretty easy to understand.
I can’t imagine any bus company in the US agreeing to show those ads.
I have never understood this line of discussion. How can there be more than one first cause? If there are several, then they are not God, but a creation of Him, it merely moves the idea of a first cause one step further back.
There is no God but God. No matter what pet name you have for Him or how many arms you imagine Him to have.
You do realize that some of those you mentioned lived in a time where if you didnt act appropriately no matter what your actual belief, you could end up very dead, in jail or shunned by the rest of society and unable to support yourself and your family?
Thomas Aquinas could have deep in his heart been an atheist or agnostic, but do you really think he would come out and admit it? Hell, if your version of christianity was even slightly off, you could end up very dead. The difference in crossing left to right or right to left, and blessing with 2 fingers or 3 fingers killled off a lot of people.
Move it one step further back, who created god? Humans.
Why does atheism having a voiced opinion cause you problems?
No, I just note the rise of militant Atheism. (It is, one would suppose, difficult to get people militant about the belief in nothing in particular.)
Before the first cause there was nothing. Theism holds that time, space, energy and matter are all equally creations of a Creator. So, Theism would contend, there is nothing before the first cause, because there was no time until it itself was created. To ask what there was before God is simply to play a word game.
And why would a “first cause”, assuming there was one have to be a God ? And where did God come from ? You are trying to “explain” the origin of the universe in a way that not only has no evidence for it, but doesn’t actually explain anything.
In other words, you are making assertions you have no evidence of, about a being you have no evidence for.
“Militant” in the context of atheism versus Christianity meaning, “doesn’t grovel properly”.
Ah, the essence of religion. Rip out your brain and stomp on it. Your “explanation” of the beginning of the universe is simply a demand that people not ask, not think about it. “Goddidit, and don’t ask where he came from, or for evidence of any of this, you’re stupid if you ask questions.”
Saying that “god did it” explains nothing.
That’s extremely unlikely in London. The chap from Christian Voice in your link is pretty much a rent-a-quote beloved of some of our scummier newspapers (and boy do we have some scummy papers).
So before there was time there was nothing and from the nothing god decided to exist? In the moments between god not existing then exsiting and god creating time did god note the passage of time, which did not yet exist? :dubious:
How is it a word game to define “before god”?
Of course if you have a better answer to the first causes, I would welcome to hear them. Science simply does not handle this little corner of knowledge well.
The idea that before there was anything there was nothing seems counterintuitive. (I particularly like Big Bang Theory which holds that before there was anything, there was nothing, which then exploded.)
Go read up on the COBE experiment, which basically proved that yes, there was a big bang, and get back to me. The data it provided on background cosmic radiation perfectly fit the curve that was predicted.
Oh, that’s right…God did that just to “fool us” and “test our faith,” right?
And besides, how is that different from God? Before there was God, there was…not-God? But then God appeared and made everything?
I’m sorry mate, but that’s a bit much. The few people I know who are actively religious use it as a template for how to behave towards others - charity, comfort and kindness basically - it works for them (the Church of Scotland and the Church of England are largely social hubs at this point in time). They are not stupid people, they aren’t moonbat creationists or anything. My old man has become an elder in the CoS and I’m not even sure that he really believes in any kind of God, being an old lefty trade unionist. He spends most of his church time at the moment helping to raise money for various AIDS charities aimed at sub-Saharan Africa. He phoned me a while ago asking “Where on earth would I go if I wanted to buy a lorry load of condoms?”. I had no answer - I rarely use the things in such large quantities these days - but at least the group are trying to help out people who live in Malawi and Botswana. They also sponsor students from those countries to come to Scottish Universities.
The point is that you always tar everyone religious with the same gigantic broad brush. Personally I’m on the military wing of atheism, but I do acknowledge the good things that come from people getting together under, y’know, the message that people of good heart can draw from the New Testament - do as you would be done by, love thy neighbour etc.
I’m sorry that the everyday nature of church people where you are is so different, or that your experience with religious people has left you so bitter. But please consider wielding your brush in a little more focused fashion.
A few : That there wasn’t one; quantum mechanics demonstrates that you don’t need causes for effects. Or, that the universe or some precursor always existed ( better than assuming that God did, because that involves fewer, simpler assumptions - we know universes can exist, for example; we don’t have any reason to think God can exist ). Or, that without any sort of physical laws there simply wasn’t anything to stop the universe or any number of things from appearing, and the universe happened to be stable.
Or, for that matter, that a mad scientist and a lab spontaneously appeared in it’s own micro-universe and he manufactured our universe; that’s STILL more plausible than God creating the universe. Essentially, nearly any explanation is more plausible than God, because God is such an extreme and evidence free and physics-violating assertion.
As opposed to religion, which doesn’t handle ANY corner of knowledge well. You claim that science can’t explain how the universe came about ? By what evidence can you demonstrate religion’s greater ability to do so ? Religion has a long, long history of being relentlessly wrong. If you won’t accept science, why not decide by writing some idea down on a dart board and choosing the idea the darts hit; judging from the history of religion you have a better chance of being right that way than relying on religion. Religion is WORSE than wild guesses.
Good point. It is so obvious. Once of course you accept that nature is hiding 90% of the stuff of the universe. But then again, belief in things not seen is the very definition of faith, is it not?
Quite right, so you accept the existence of God then? Always nice to win a convert.
No, believing in things without evidence or against evidence is. And scientists theorize that most of what’s out there is invisible because they can see the effects. Whereas you can produce no evidence whatsoever for your imaginary God. Or, as I’ve said, for him even being possible.
That’s a really obnoxious habit you believers have. No, he/she’s not a convert, and nothing said implies it.
This Steven Green from Christian Voice’s statement that “I would’nt be surprised if this advert attracted graffitti” could well be interpreted as a self fulfilling prophecy.
As in" Christianity is a religion of forgiveness,love and turning the other cheek so I most definitely am NOT encouraging people to commit a criminal offence(Vandalism ) in a deniable manner because that in itself is a criminal act too."
Personally I would’nt be surprised if enraged bus cleaners working for London Transport and equally enraged Council tax payers went round his house and punched him in the face a few times.
Something which I of course would find particulary reprehensible and I just want to make it completely clear that this is NOT a veiled(and totally deniable)attempt to encourage such actions.