Man refuses to drive 'No God' bus

[Tigranes]

Well. I always liked a quote from some 17th century philosopher: I bet on God because if I win the bet I get eternal life; and if I lose the bet, I lose nothing.

 

I wonder where that got Pascal...

 

The curious bit has to be that proselytising is fundamental to certain religions, i.e. Christianity. That religion was never about "save myself and bugger to you if you won't". It was always about spreading the word and demonstrating faith to encourage belief (which is, yes, different from coercion). Besides which, if you take out the atheist side for a second, prohibiting advertisement of Christian belief is farcical and has no basis on the current logic of advertising. If you're allowed to advertise that KFC chicken tastes finger-linkin' good, or that election of Joob Woogle will make your life better, why wouldn't you be allowed to advertise that God exists and is t3h awesome? The argument that the promotion of religion is dangerous and detrimental to the health of society holds the same position, for the time being, as arguments that, say, consumerism is too widespread; it does not have the widespread acceptance and traction to actually affect change democratically. Thus, advertisement of God or Christianity, to continue the example using that religion, can't be an issue - unless it goes over the top, like "Do you want your little adorable son Timmy to become a homosexual drug-addicted prostitute murderer THEN GO TO HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY? BECAUSE HE WILL UNLESS YOU PRAY REALLY LOUD EVERY SUNDAY AT OUR CHURCH AND PAY LOTS OF TRIBUTE!".

 

So once we establish that, we can bring in the atheist side of things. ~Di's point should start us off, I think - that the same rights, in turn, should be granted to atheists when they attempt to advertise their beliefs. People think it's somehow different because it's negative, but denial or rejection of a particular idea is just as proactive as its affirmation. Atheism, last time I checked, is marked by an active rejection of a God, not a flat noncommittal 'eh'. Besides which, unlike smear campaigns in politics, "God does not exist" is not a simply destructive remark with no positive substance like "Candidate X is an ugly corpulent wife beater" would be; it is a proactive message on its own. So I see no reason why it shouldn't be allowed, or why it should be seen with any different a light than its Christian counterparts.

[~Di]

- unless it goes over the top, like "Do you want your little adorable son Timmy to become a homosexual drug-addicted prostitute murderer THEN GO TO HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY? BECAUSE HE WILL UNLESS YOU PRAY REALLY LOUD EVERY SUNDAY AT OUR CHURCH AND PAY LOTS OF TRIBUTE!". ..

 

Honestly, you must have been a member of the Southern Baptist congregation I attended as a kid. If you think that's over-the-top, you should have heard my old preacher! That would have been tame from him!

 

So once we establish that, we can bring in the atheist side of things. ~Di's point should start us off, I think - that the same rights, in turn, should be granted to atheists when they attempt to advertise their beliefs. People think it's somehow different because it's negative, but denial or rejection of a particular idea is just as proactive as its affirmation. Atheism, last time I checked, is marked by an active rejection of a God, not a flat noncommittal 'eh'. Besides which, unlike smear campaigns in politics, "God does not exist" is not a simply destructive remark with no positive substance like "Candidate X is an ugly corpulent wife beater" would be; it is a proactive message on its own. So I see no reason why it shouldn't be allowed, or why it should be seen with any different a light than its Christian counterparts.

 

Exactly my point, thank you! Expressions of belief by the religious are freely allowed, and should be. Expressions of non-belief by the non-religious should also be freely allowed. Anything short of that is censorship and discrimination, two things most free societies should scrupulously prevent.

 

And I honestly don't know what the proper definition of "atheism" is... I simply thought it was a title hung around the neck of a non-religious individual who didn't believe in an all-knowing diety in the sky. They may have other spiritual beliefs; just not that one. Then again, I've never been interested in dissecting all the contradictions and definitions inherent in most religious discussions, so I'm not the most informed person about this topic.

[Maria Caliban]

But you have atheists getting into the argument, saying "There is no God" when they really don't need to bring it up at all. It doesn't affect them that the other person believes in a God, so why bother?

 

Yes, but what percentage of atheists do so? It's one thing to say that some atheists show the same behavior and mindset as some fundamental and/or evangelical religious people - which I agree with - and another thing to say that atheism qualifies as a religion and that all atheists manifest faith.

 

For me, there

[Walsingham]

Tigs has a point. If you can put up signs saying that Calvin Klein will make your life better, then why not atheism or God?

[Hurlshort]

Yes, but CK typically has hot people in their underwear in the ads. That's always ok.

[julianw]

Tigs has a point. If you can put up signs saying that Calvin Klein will make your life better, then why not atheism or God?

I think a lack of an open mind is a big reason why people can't stand views in contrast to their deepest beliefs. People just have too much pride sometimes. It's no big wonder when a person is deeply humbled by some unforeseen event, suddenly he/she has some new revelation about life.

 

If God really wants man to achieve greater wisdom, he should employ the strategy of 'shock and awe'. Maybe sending a few avenging angels could help.

Edited January 20, 2009 by julianw

[Wrath of Dagon]

If you want proof, study history. Germans should've won WW2, Dunkirk should've never happened, Confederates should've won at Gettysburg and the Civil War. Is history random or does it follow a pattern, is your life random or is there a pattern? You'll never get absolute proof, that's the point.

[Gorgon]

The loss of the expeditionary force would not have affected British naval superiority.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Churchill would most likely be removed and Britain would reach an accomodation with Germany if they lost the entire expeditionary force.

[Gorgon]

I disagree.

[Wrath of Dagon]

What an excellent argument you make.

Moreover, the saving of more than 300,000 British and French soldiers had other historic consequences. Foremost, it undoubtedly saved Churchill his job. There was a strong element within the British government that believed the war was already lost and that Britain ought to discuss peace terms with Hitler. Only Churchill stood defiantly in their way. Thus, had the BEF been lost, he would have been ousted as prime minister and it cannot be ruled out that the hated swastika might eventually have flown over Parliament. Instead, Churchill survived to lead Britain to victory.

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/the-day-hitler-blinked.htm

[Blank]

Now I'd agree to that, since I've no wish to have "There is no god" signboards plastered in public areas any more than I appreciate seeing "Jesus Saves" signboards plastered in public areas. The problem comes in when one is allowed and accepted, and the other one isn't.

I agree.

[Stephen Amber]

Germans should've won WW2

 

Don't know how this swayed to WWII, but that's interesting. Dunkirk was just one of the great what if's. Not a huge fan, but, in light of the movie, I read one of George F Wills recent columns on the subject of project Valkrie. Turns out that was one of 15 plots at Hitler's life by german officers. What if they'd of got em... And, military outcomes aside, not all Germans were mindless automatons in lockstep with Hitler/Nazi ideology.

[Hell Kitty]

Yes, but CK typically has hot people in their underwear in the ads. That's always ok.

 

[Hurlshort]

Yep, I didn't even notice the text over the bulge. Sweet.

[Humodour]

Fanataics should scare everyone. I've seen some pretty scary fanatical Libertarians recently. Thumping on about how government regulation is the cause of all the World's ills, and should be ruthlessly stamped out...

[Blank]

lolz

[Meshugger]

As an atheist, if i would become the president of the United States, i would demand to swear my oath on the tenents of the Bushido Code, since they are holy to me, while the bible is not.

 

Is that possible?

[Humodour]

As an atheist, if i would become the president of the United States, i would demand to swear my oath on the tenents of the Bushido Code, since they are holy to me, while the bible is not.

 

Is that possible?

 

It's quite possible. Swearing the oath on the Bible was actually introduced in the 1950's, I believe. A flagrant violation of separation of church and state, but nobody did anything about it because they were too busy preventing black people from eating at the same restaurants as white people.

[Meshugger]

As an atheist, if i would become the president of the United States, i would demand to swear my oath on the tenents of the Bushido Code, since they are holy to me, while the bible is not.

 

Is that possible?

 

It's quite possible. Swearing the oath on the Bible was actually introduced in the 1950's, I believe. A flagrant violation of separation of church and state, but nobody did anything about it because they were too busy preventing black people from eating at the same restaurants as white people.

 

Where can i find this law concerning the bible under oath? Or is it just tradition/policy?

[Killian Kalthorne]

As an atheist, if i would become the president of the United States, i would demand to swear my oath on the tenents of the Bushido Code, since they are holy to me, while the bible is not.

 

Is that possible?

 

I would use the first edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Player's Handbook.

[Humodour]

As an atheist, if i would become the president of the United States, i would demand to swear my oath on the tenents of the Bushido Code, since they are holy to me, while the bible is not.

 

Is that possible?

 

It's quite possible. Swearing the oath on the Bible was actually introduced in the 1950's, I believe. A flagrant violation of separation of church and state, but nobody did anything about it because they were too busy preventing black people from eating at the same restaurants as white people.

 

Where can i find this law concerning the bible under oath? Or is it just tradition/policy?

 

It's a recent 'tradition' which Obama continued.

 

I guess if he'd have done otherwise, he would've been accused of being a closet Muslim/socialist even more, so can't blame the old chap too much.

[Gfted1]

Um, how was it introduced in the 1950's when he swore oath on the same bible that Lincoln was sworn in on? Do you just make this crap up on the fly?

[Humodour]

Um, how was it introduced in the 1950's when he swore oath on the same bible that Lincoln was sworn in on? Do you just make this crap up on the fly?

 

I'm disappointed in how quickly you jump to conclusions. "This crap" you refer to is the fact that every President since FDR has added the words "so help me god" to the oath they swear on the Bible; where previously it was a strictly optional commodity, it has become a de facto standard response at inauguration.

 

Still, surely you picked up on my facetious tone when I referred to it as a 'flagrant violation of separation of church and state', or the strange anecdote about racial oppression following it? If not, I suppose I can't fault you too much, the Internet being a largely monotone communication medium and all.

[Gfted1]

Um, how was it introduced in the 1950's when he swore oath on the same bible that Lincoln was sworn in on? Do you just make this crap up on the fly?

 

I'm disappointed in how quickly you jump to conclusions. "This crap" you refer to is the fact that every President since FDR has added the words "so help me god" to the oath they swear on the Bible; where previously it was a strictly optional commodity, it has become a de facto standard response at inauguration.

 

Still, surely you picked up on my facetious tone when I referred to it as a 'flagrant violation of separation of church and state', or the strange anecdote about racial oppression following it? If not, I suppose I can't fault you too much, the Internet being a largely monotone communication medium and all.

 

 

What? You said:

 

Swearing the oath on the Bible was actually introduced in the 1950's, I believe.

 

Which is obviously false but then somehow I didnt catch the hidden meaning of your post and you REALLY meant the addition of "so help me god"? Whatever. Im curious, does the addition of "so help me god" in some way make it more significant then merely swearing on the bible?