Man refuses to drive 'No God' bus

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

I don't know, I think that the outrage that a group is advertising that there is no god when they are quite happy advertising for their own religion seems like they're holding themselves to a lower standard than the agnostics/atheists. The whole thing about Christmas is IMHO stupid, there is no war on christmas (like FoxNews is always trying to point out), just the fact that more people celebrate things around December than Christians.

 

Also didn't the Catholic Church steal Jesus's birthday from a pagan god so that those pagans would worship him as their primary deity?

 

And something that I want to ask Catholics, Why do you sprawl so much belief and worship on the feet of Jesus and Mary instead of on your God?

From the few times I've gone to church, they seem to get equal shares.

[Walsingham]

I'm more humanist than anything else, but I got embarassed by these bloody buses. They spent something like

[Humodour]

I find it hypocritical that people are offended by the message. You see similar ones for religion all the time.

[Volourn]

"Jesus and Mary instead of on your God?"

 

Um.. Jesus is God, and Mary from I've seen is not held up as high as Jesus. She's the Mother of God in a sense so of course she's held in high esteem.

 

Remember God is Jesus (Son), The Father, and the Holy Spirit all in one.

[Hiro Protagonist]

Um.. Jesus is God, and Mary from I've seen is not held up as high as Jesus. She's the Mother of God in a sense so of course she's held in high esteem.

 

Remember God is Jesus (Son), The Father, and the Holy Spirit all in one.

 

No, in some Christian denominations, Jesus is not God. Jesus and God are two seperate people and therefore Mary is not the mother of God. Depends on which denomination you are in.

Edited January 17, 2009 by Hiro Protagonist

[Volourn]

How is that a 'no' instea dof simply 'it varies on which sect you ask'. Which isn't the same as no. Not that it matters to me as my opinion on 'God' isn't nice, anyways.

[Gorgon]

A church is only as strong as its congregation. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you make it sound like churches just get free money from he government. They get serious tax breaks, but they have to raise money in order to get the tax break on it. The state doesn't just give money to every guy with a bible and a pulpit.

 

That's exactly how it works here, priests, bishops, the works, they are all public servants. Of course you don't get to be a priest without a 6 year degree. Everyone is a member of the church per default, you could save 0,5% or something on your taxes if you bothered to withdraw from church membership, but few people do.

 

I don't know exactly how the Church of England is financed, but I don't think priests have to pack them in to guarantee their own salaries like in the US.

Edited January 17, 2009 by Gorgon

[Walsingham]

I don't know either, but I'm fairly sure it's not some sort of pay-as-they-pray system. Sounds bloody awful!

[Hurlshort]

I'm still confused what, exactly, atheists are advertising for. Are there going to be atheist meetings and they want people to attend? What services does this group offer?

 

Whatever your opinion on God and religion, you should be able to see that churches provide a service to a community. If you had an atheist organization getting together and running soup kitchens, clothing drives for the homeless, day care for children, and numerous other community services, I might be a bit more understanding about an advertising campaign.

[I want teh kotor 3]

Hopefully CERN's death-science-tube will do what its suppossed to do, so all this nonsense will end.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Hopefully CERN's death-science-tube will do what its suppossed to do, so all this nonsense will end.

Or get worse?

[Walsingham]

I am still confused by the notion that the absence of God means I can enjoy my life. God wasn't sopping me before, and in any case, how can teh absence of something which never existed improve anything? In fact, if God doesn't exist then a priori can my life have any meaning? And without meaning how can I enjoy it? Help! Save me Jebus!

[I want teh kotor 3]

Hopefully CERN's death-science-tube will do what its suppossed to do, so all this nonsense will end.

Or get worse?

 

Logically, if theoretical physics (standard model, etc.) is proved, then it should be obvious that somewhere along the line, religion was wrong.

 

Wishful thinking, huh?

[Oerwinde]

I am still confused by the notion that the absence of God means I can enjoy my life. God wasn't sopping me before, and in any case, how can teh absence of something which never existed improve anything? In fact, if God doesn't exist then a priori can my life have any meaning? And without meaning how can I enjoy it? Help! Save me Jebus!

 

The ads were a response to a religious ad campaign that basically said that if you didn't believe in god you were going to burn in hell for eternity.

[SteveThaiBinh]

I contributed to this campaign, and while I can only speak for myself, I was not motivated by hatred of religion or the religious. Secularists, humanists and atheists are from time to time blamed in the British press by commentators and religious leaders for a variety of ills with little or no opportunity to reply, and I think this was a reasonable effort to get a dissenting voice into the public arena.

I'm still confused what, exactly, atheists are advertising for. Are there going to be atheist meetings and they want people to attend? What services does this group offer?

There are no services to advertise, though the BHA is getting some publicity and welcomes new members. It's asking people to think, that's all. Call it an awareness-raising campaign rather than an advertising campaign, if you like, but legally it has to go through the same systems and procedures.

Whatever your opinion on God and religion, you should be able to see that churches provide a service to a community. If you had an atheist organization getting together and running soup kitchens, clothing drives for the homeless, day care for children, and numerous other community services, I might be a bit more understanding about an advertising campaign.

Encouraging people to reflect on the nature of life, the universe and everything is a service to the community. The campaign wasn't asking for money. It wasn't doing anything other than asking people to think.

I am still confused by the notion that the absence of God means I can enjoy my life. God wasn't sopping me before, and in any case, how can teh absence of something which never existed improve anything? In fact, if God doesn't exist then a priori can my life have any meaning? And without meaning how can I enjoy it? Help! Save me Jebus!

The choice of wording for the campaign was tricky, I gather. "There isn't a God." would have gone beyond what humanists believe, and "There almost certainly isn't a God" would probably come up against advertising standards regulations. I would rather have seen something like "There probably isn't a God to help us, so let's help each other.", but perhaps that's a bit preachy.

[Darth InSidious]

While I agree in principle, in practice terms like "Happy Holidays" I find annoyingly sickly and part of this rather bizarre move, at least over here, to attempt to make out that all religions preach basically the same thing. Personally, I'd far rather go through the lengthy process of wishing people "Happy Ramadan", or Chanukah, or Kwanzaa, or Sol Invictus and get the actual date right than lump them all together in this way, but that's just me.

When addressing individuals, I agree. But often when these phrases are spoken or printed, they are addressing larger sections of the populace. In an effort to be inclusive (at least in the US) many people will say or print "Happy Holidays". E.g. a business manager sending out warm wishes before a "late-December" break. The US backlash attempts to say, "No, it's Christmas booyah!" which is factually incorrect in its exclusivity and has the side-effect of being very obnoxious for people celebrating other things (or not).

Well, yes, if you have to have giant signs etc., I agree - although again, I find the huge signs, giant snowmen and "Santa Claus"es (that ghastly, castrated form of Fr. Christmas) and naff Christmas pop songs trying at best and at worst enough to push me to the brink of throttling someone, but that's just me.

 

I also hate most 'cheery' Christmas carols. Again, not remotely relevant, but thought I'd say it anyway.

First, I don't get what this has to do with my point about the Mithraic cults; I was contrasting the vague way in which Mithras was represented and worshipped with the way in which Jesus was understood - and by many still understood - as a historical figure. Second, whether or not it is a man-selected date, that seems to ignore the reason that they selected it for.

All of these dates (with the exception of Winter Solstice, I guess) are man-selected. Christians have no special claim over this time of year because the historical Jesus almost certainly wasn't born in December -- that's ultimately all I'm trying to say: many people have well-founded reasons to celebrate things in December! Aggressively suggesting otherwise is obnoxious.

OK, fair enough. I just wasn't certain what you were driving at.

 

It's also hard to know what exactly the early Christian church was thinking when they set 'Christmas' on December 25th. If you think of it from one point of view, they were trying to take over the season to oust the 'pagans', but from another point of view, what do you expect people who are trying to be righteous to do? Should they not provide fellow Christians with a 'righteous' celebration of their own to give an alternative to the 'pagan' holidays? I don't suggest Christ was born in December, but it makes sense for Christians to have a holiday of their own instead of being party poopers for a whole season while others are out doing whatever it is people did for the winter holidays.

Yes and no. It's fairly well attested that first-century Judaism and Early Christianity both shared a belief in the 'integral age' of the prophets (and for the Christians, Jesus - presumably he was thought to be the greatest/final prophet as well as Son of God etc.). What this meant was that it was believed that they lived an exact number of years on earth - i.e., they were born (or in some cases, conceived - importantly for this) and died on the same day, separated by X number of years. By various methods of dating, and following John's Gospel, they tried to convert the precise date of Jesus' death (and, consequently, resurrection); it was thought to be 14 Nisan in the Jewish calendar; but what was that in new money (so to speak)? For some reason, they appear to have settled on Friday, 25th of March, 29 [n.b.; this date is actually unlikely, since the 25th of March in AD 29 wasn't a Friday, and nor was Passover Eve on that day - it is so, however, in AD 30 or 33]. Since he was thought to have died on this date, he was also thought to have been conceived, too. The belief in March 25th as the date of Jesus' birth does seem to have existed for a while, but the belief in it as the date of conception also seems to have taken over relatively quickly, judging by the (few) references in the sources available.

 

Also didn't the Catholic Church steal Jesus's birthday from a pagan god so that those pagans would worship him as their primary deity?

Well, first off, terms like "Catholic Church", "Orthodox", "Protestant" etc. aren't really valid for the period we're dealing with - at this point, Christianity is still a pretty unified religious belief. Second, please see above; third, I'm not really seeing how having your holy day on the same day as another religion really encourages that...

 

And something that I want to ask Catholics, Why do you sprawl so much belief and worship on the feet of Jesus and Mary instead of on your God?

Volourn already answered this pretty well, but I thought I'd just reiterate that Catholics believe Jesus to be the second person of the triune God. So, worship of him equals worship of God. Also, Mary is categorically not worshipped. Honoured, yes; asked to intercede, yes (although that's another topic entirely), worshipped? Nope. Hope that helps.

 

I find it hypocritical that people are offended by the message. You see similar ones for religion all the time.

Funny, I was going to say the opposite: I find it... ironic that the same people who often bewail being preached to or evangelised by religious groups then go out and... erm, attempt the same, as far as I can see.

 

That's exactly how it works here, priests, bishops, the works, they are all public servants. Of course you don't get to be a priest without a 6 year degree. Everyone is a member of the church per default, you could save 0,5% or something on your taxes if you bothered to withdraw from church membership, but few people do.

 

I don't know exactly how the Church of England is financed, but I don't think priests have to pack them in to guarantee their own salaries like in the US.

Not certain, but I'm pretty sure the ABC gets a high-powered salary and pension. Although his role as one of the Great Officers of State (IIRC) may have something to do with that. Not sure. Others not falling under the Anglican umbrella I think operate on donations, charitable status and what they produce (pamphlets, books etc.).

 

I don't know either, but I'm fairly sure it's not some sort of pay-as-they-pray system. Sounds bloody awful!

Come daily for three weeks and you could win the entire Norwich City Council!

[Killian Kalthorne]

There is no god... Only Zuul!

[Volourn]

"The ads were a response to a religious ad campaign that basically said that if you didn't believe in god you were going to burn in hell for eternity."

 

But, if God doesn't exist then why worry about it? Afterall, no God no hell, right? So, athiests are offended by soemthing that doesn't exist? That would be like someone being offending if someone says the boogeyman will kill them in their sleep...

 

Athiests take a lot of offense over soemthing they don't believe in. L0L

Edited January 17, 2009 by Volourn

[Hurlshort]

Surprisingly agreeing with Volourn here. Seems the only point of bringing up God is to offend those who do believe in him.

[Gorgon]

So in answering perhaps the most significant question of them all you can either go with 'yes' in which case all is well, or with 'no', in which case you are merely being contrary and hurtful towards believers.

 

In other words, believers are allowed to use the word 'god' when answering the question of whether he exists, but non believers are not.

 

Good to know.

Edited January 18, 2009 by Gorgon

[~Di]

Ye olde double standard. Religious folks should be allowed to pepper public places with "Jesus Saves!" and "God is great!" but non-religious folks should be forbidden from peppering public places with "There is no God!" The former is an example of religious freedom of expression; the latter is clearly a malicious attempt to offend. Gotcha.

 

...Folks with strong religious beliefs often vote and consequently legislate according to their beliefs. Anyone who lived in California during the Prop 8 ballot understands just how much of an effect someone else's beliefs can negatively impact another person's life.

 

Isn't that the truth? I'm still livid over the deceitful manner the pro-prop 8 fearmongers conducted themselves, and disgusted that so many voters actually fell for it.

 

Non-religious or anti-religious people have to deal with faux-persecution complexes thrown in their faces by religious folks all the time (please see the previously listed statements which are used un-ironically all over the U.S.). If anyone is so enraged by a statement as mild as, "There's probably no god," that they are filled with hatred, they should not be interacting with other human beings in 21st century societies. Anyone who reacts to a benign pro-religious message in such a manner is similarly unfit. ...It's only considered audacious because atheists/agnostics/humanists aren't expected to come out and publicly say the fundamental thing they believe/don't believe...

 

Exactly. A non-religious individual wishing for a career in public service has to either lie about his/her beliefs or simply accept that only religious folks are considered "qualified" to run this country, and come up with an alternative career path. That absolutely boggles the mind, that people who simply do not believe in heavenly dieties are reviled, treated with contempt, and denied even the right to verbalize their belief/nonbelief without being demonized, ostracized and publicly attacked. Freedom of speech? Not when it comes to this topic.

[Volourn]

"That absolutely boggles the mind, that people who simply do not believe in heavenly dieties are reviled, treated with contempt, and denied even the right to verbalize their belief/nonbelief without being demonized, ostracized and publicly attacked. Freedom of speech? Not when it comes to this topic."

 

You mean the same way religious folks are often demonized, and publicly attack? WOW!

 

 

To me, this is akin for someone who doens't believe in the tooth fairy to run a full page ad about it. It's ridiculous, and the only thing its gonna accomplish is to attack otehrs.

 

A Christian telling a non believer he's gonna to hell should be akin toe you telling me that santa claus isn't bringing me a gift because I've been a bad boy. It's irrelevant because I don't believe in Santa anyways so why would I care if the non existent one isn't giving me a gift?

 

Why are athiests so offended when Christians tell them they're going to hell when they don't even believe it exists? It's ridiculous.

 

But, don't worry athiests, I - Volourn - will be in Hell with you so you got good company.

[Humodour]

Well said, Steve. If I may say so.

[Humodour]

A Christian telling a non believer he's gonna to hell should be akin toe you telling me that santa claus isn't bringing me a gift because I've been a bad boy. It's irrelevant because I don't believe in Santa anyways so why would I care if the non existent one isn't giving me a gift?

 

Why are athiests so offended when Christians tell them they're going to hell when they don't even believe it exists? It's ridiculous.

 

It preys not on atheists, but on the weak-minded, hopeless, and depressed. Look at Scientology for an amplified example of this cult-like tactic in action,

 

As a human I feel a need to fight such behaviour, even if it doesn't harm me directly. It's a fool that thinks I gave up morals along with religion.

 

Note: I'm clearly not talking about religious folk in general, rather the evangelical types that try to convince others they'll burn in hell for not worshiping god.

[Stephen Amber]

Occasionally I'll read something academic, usually military history or theology, and one of those a few years ago was God: a biography by Jack Miles. In it he explains how "God" is actually an amalgam of several ancient Canaanite deities the Hebrew tribes encountered in their travels. The burning bush was a symbol of Baal, for instance, god of fire on the mountain. The water serpent, Tiamat, could have been the serpent in the garden of eden and, ultimately, is just another facet of god's "personality". Was an interesting read.