God adverts on busses - how to complain

mathias · Post by **mathias** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 2:39 pm

Dubya is a cokehead, an alcoholic, an enron puppet, an arms industry puppet, a saudi puppet, cheney's puppet, a bad imitation of his father, an idiot, and most likely, a mostly fabricated personality.

spookmineer · Post by **spookmineer** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:15 pm

andyb wrote:
Religions are doomed... maybe Christian church is diminishing, but Islam is surely progressing.
Define progression.

I meant progression as in gaining a following in absolute numbers (not by percentage).
You were wrong in assuming religious people have diminished, and I was wrong in assuming Islam was growing more rapidly than Christianity. Christianity is still the fastest growing religion [note: this topic seems debatable, there are different answers to this question].

andyb wrote:
Education has little effect on what people believe
That is so far from the truth my stomach hurts from the laughing.

If education means learning about science, it has little effect on what people believe. As I said, our prime minister is very religious, as are a lot of other people who are highly educated. All the facts they have been exposed to, had little effect on whether they believe or not.

andyb wrote:
religion has more to do with environment.
Where we live has more to do with the environment, religion and environment - that I cant get my head around.

Environment: the "milieu" you grow up in, or the social environment. It's more than the landscape you see around you.
It's a pretty safe bet I would've been a Muslim if I were born in Morocco, or a Hindu if I were born in India.

andyb wrote:
Christianity is so much rooted in Western culture, I can't think of how life would be if this religion never existed.
Another religion would be dominant instead, the average person might be worshipping "Thor" instead. But this is a moot point, as we are already here at this moment in time and we cant go back, there really isnt much point considering it.

The point I was trying to make is, religion is here to stay. A different religion would make no difference - if most people would worship Thor, it would still have the same stamp on culture. Religion will always be part of our culture, in any form, and isn't doomed at all.

andyb wrote:
Religion, science, and politics all happen to exist next to eachother just nicely... You can have a prime minister who is quite intelligent, knows of science, and also is a very firm believer. Maybe that is the ultimate in achieving harmony.
Some countries fare much better than others. Countries whose populous is highly religious are also less scientific because the religion clouds peoples minds. You only have to look at abortion and religion, whether girls are allowed to be schooled and religion, whether a politicians views dont match with the pope's and whether they get into office, etc etc

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7767192.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3658172.stm

That simply isn't true, for both links. People in the USA are very religious, yet it doesn't stand in the way of how scientific they are.
From your first link:

The US was found to be the most religious country in the survey

They are also the least accepting of nanotechnology, but that doesn't mean they are less scientific. Their moral frame of reference is just more influenced by religion, and in this case there is reluctancy to use the knowledge.
Religion doesn't stand in the way of science, but sometimes stands in the way of using the technology.

Eyedolon · Post by **Eyedolon** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 11:19 pm

Here's my thoughts. Quite an intriguing topic. First, some belief basics so you get where I'm coming from.

1. I live in an extremely educated, liberal area of the 'States
2. I go to school in a fairly uneducated, highly conservative area of the 'States.
3. I wear a cross on my neck.
4. I do not go to church besides holidays and special events.
5. I have read the Bible MANY times through, and the Torah several.
6. I have yet to read a translated Qua'ran. (Is that the proper spelling?) [Wikipedia shows "Qur'an"]

I highly disagree with the externalizing of religion, at least in an intrusive fashion. You cannot just state something to be true - that's not how it works. Back it up with proof. Around here, it's taken as almost a given that the believers are good people and the nonbelievers aren't. There are monthly proselytizing drives on campus, and many different groups with the same goal and beliefs (power hungry is my operating assumption). The only evangelist I've really sat down and debated with was an honestly good guy who really was interested in my position instead of simply telling me what to believe. He also happened to be leadership in one of the bigger and more modest campus entities.

It's my personal belief that religion to most people is a sort of mental crutch for when things are not going well. I mean, people win the lottery and say "Praise the Lord!" but it does always seem a kind of conscious act. Whereas when one is put into a state of danger, risk or unforeseen circumstances, "Help me Jesus" seems a lot more innate, subconscious reaction. To me, this implies a need to shift explanation from the unknown to something that can at least be attributed. It should go without saying not everyone has a firm grasp on their mental stability - nor should they. When something freak and unnatural hits, like say Hurricane Katrina, people are out of their element. Think of all the films and ads that play on the concept of a "fish out of water". It seems to me that the prevailing reaction to such an occurrence is just simply to melt down. When someone who would melt down faced with the unthinkable attributes it to God, they're able to compartmentalize the event and deal with it.

If lightning was to strike your house, you would probably have thoughts such as "Why me?" run through your head. A religious person would be more likely to just say "Well, I guess God wanted this to occur", and move on. So belief in a God, to me of course, serves a very valuable purpose in people's lives as a tool to cope with hardship.

With that out of the way (somewhat, it's an infinitely deep topic), my personal thought is that people who want or need such a tool will seek it out on their own. Evangelizing to me is less a "spread the availability of this beneficial state of being" and more a "come attend my church to increase my personal power". You'd have to live in a cave in the hills to not be aware of the Church's existence. The evangelists are merely there for their own purposes - the benefit to the convert isn't part of the equation.

I do not believe openly and heavily evangelist denominations of Christianity are very righteous. Simply, it's not their right, job, duty or place to tell others what to think - and yet, that's the only thing they do. Having gone from an "open and affirming" denomination (GLBT friendly, pro-women's rights and other civil rights) to occasionally stepping foot in the local evangelist church(es), the difference is stunning. On one side, the pastor leads a thought-provoking debate on the words of Christ and their meaning in today's world. On the other, the pastor mainly serves as a cheerleader, with musical repeating of mantras and dogmas being the primary time.

For the athiests, I don't think it's very nice of you to label all Christians the same. My Christianity is a profound belief in the moral teachings of Jesus Christ and an inner effort to live by those morals. If others ask, I will explain. If they do not ask, I'm not going to go and attack them with my Moral Christianity. It's just the way I live my life. I have never spent a second trying to convert someone, nor will I ever. It shows a profound disrespect for the other person, that you are more qualified then they are to decide what THEY should believe.

Well, that got kind of long. Not really a two line topic. All above are of course personal opinion. Feel more then free to disagree =)

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Sun Feb 08, 2009 11:07 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7876961.stm

Here is yet another example of peoples religious beliefs imposing themselves on politics and science.

This simply should not be allowed to happen. The pope and other religious nutjobs should not be allowed to speak out on matters that have already run their process through the court system. You dont hear about doctors complaing at some of the stupid things that the pope tries to shove down peoples throats.

If lightning was to strike your house, you would probably have thoughts such as "Why me?" run through your head. A religious person would be more likely to just say "Well, I guess God wanted this to occur", and move on. So belief in a God, to me of course, serves a very valuable purpose in people's lives as a tool to cope with hardship.

I am a firm believer in "sods law", but just because shit happens, doesnt mean that "Sod" exists as a higher being, and is constantly trying to annoy us, in exactly the same way that God doesnt exist and is constantly trying to annoy us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy%27s_law

My Christianity is a profound belief in the moral teachings of Jesus Christ and an inner effort to live by those morals.

My Athieism is a profound belief in the moral teachings of My Parents and an inner effort to live by those morals.

Andy

nutball · Post by **nutball** » Sun Feb 08, 2009 12:03 pm

andyb wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7876961.stm

Here is yet another example of peoples religious beliefs imposing themselves on politics and science.

I'd put it more starkly, particularly in the light of the several right-to-die cases here in the UK over the past 12-18 months. I see it as people's religious beliefs imposing themselves on other people at a very personal level, presuming to tell other people how they are allowed to manage the end of their lives. This is utterly regardless of the religious views of those choosing to end their lives. It's not a case of the church telling churchies that they can't take your own life - it's rather that no-one should be allowed to "because my God tells me it's bad".

xan_user · Post by **xan_user** » Sun Feb 08, 2009 12:40 pm

Eyedolon · Post by **Eyedolon** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:01 am

andyb wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7876961.stm

Here is yet another example of peoples religious beliefs imposing themselves on politics and science.

This simply should not be allowed to happen. The pope and other religious nutjobs should not be allowed to speak out on matters that have already run their process through the court system. You dont hear about doctors complaing at some of the stupid things that the pope tries to shove down peoples throats.

If lightning was to strike your house, you would probably have thoughts such as "Why me?" run through your head. A religious person would be more likely to just say "Well, I guess God wanted this to occur", and move on. So belief in a God, to me of course, serves a very valuable purpose in people's lives as a tool to cope with hardship.
I am a firm believer in "sods law", but just because shit happens, doesnt mean that "Sod" exists as a higher being, and is constantly trying to annoy us, in exactly the same way that God doesnt exist and is constantly trying to annoy us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy%27s_law

My Christianity is a profound belief in the moral teachings of Jesus Christ and an inner effort to live by those morals.
My Athieism is a profound belief in the moral teachings of My Parents and an inner effort to live by those morals.

Andy

I do believe you totally missed my point in reference to the house example. For that matter, you're taking my post as an attack on atheists - which it's not. I'm more against militant evangelists because they make us moderates look bad, because they get far more media coverage then the militant atheists.

Just like the Pope issue - he gets airtime bitching. I bitch when I have to change a car battery in the snow, but you don't see CNN following me around (I hope).

In reference to the lightning issue, I'll clarify that. First step is contrary to *most* Christians, I don't really hardcore believe in a God. I don't disbelieve, I just don't care. What happens after I die is not in the sphere of things I control.

I'm not like most, that's why maybe I should just call myself a moralist. The example was brought up in reference to the human psyche. I'm sure you've seen the pictures of war zones, with refugees fleeing with cold, dead looks in their eyes. It's like their brain was a radio signal and they just tuned out in the face of inconceivable horrors. What I mean in the example is that when this situation occurs to these people, instead of simply being overwhelmed by loss/grief/whatnot - or maybe after a time of the aforementioned - they attribute the act to God and in that fashion begin to cope with it.

You seem to have a subconscious aversion to and hatred of the word God, far above and beyond any religious meaning. I think you should point your hatred at a far more reasonable target - the nutjobs who make it so rational people can distrust anything said by a religious figure. If all the church leadership were people like Mother Theresa, I would feel secure in saying your criticisms of the Church(es) are flatly ridiculous. They're not, in fact in my experience once you get above maybe two levels of power most of them are quite repulsive, so your criticisms are valid.

Disrespect the people who aren't worth respect. If you can read a legitimate Bible and say the teachings of Jesus aren't worth half a damn, then I will let you go your own way. And I don't mean go "He calls himself the Son of God, he's a whacko". I mean read the parables. Read the nuts and bolts of true, honest Christianity. It's not nutjob whacko hyper-conservative hate-spewing invective. It's probably very much along the lines of the stuff Your Parents taught you when you were younger. Here's a tip - nowhere does Jesus say to hate. That's the first clue that evangelists aren't connected to the real Christian doctrines. Hate is what they live by, and hate is the very thing Jesus taught against.

blackworx · Post by **blackworx** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:58 am

Not much to add to the debate here, as I tend to avoid religion like the curse that it is. Even Buddhism, the religion that isn't really a religion, founded on a message so pure as to defy words, is weighed down by so many years of accumulated dogma and human clutter that its day-to-day observance seems to me the exact opposite of how you would go about getting closer to understanding that message. Religion is the opposite of silence; religion is noise; religion is sublimation and waste of the life force, energy, whatever you want to call it, that we all have inside us. Religion is denial of the wonder of the universe and our tiny, tiny, microscopic role in its beauty. Religion is the fight over whose lie becomes the truth. In my opinion.

But anyway, I digress. My reason for posting was that there was an advert for the Alpha Course here in the UK recently which asked: "If god did exist, what would you ask him?". I'm thinking a popular question might be: "If you are omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent then why the hell do you need advertising?"

jaganath · Post by **jaganath** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 3:29 am

For the atheists, I don't think it's very nice of you to label all Christians the same. My Christianity is a profound belief in the moral teachings of Jesus Christ and an inner effort to live by those morals. If others ask, I will explain. If they do not ask, I'm not going to go and attack them with my Moral Christianity. It's just the way I live my life. I have never spent a second trying to convert someone, nor will I ever.

you seem like a nice guy so I'm not going to be harsh, but the Bible does tell its followers to go out and convert non-believers (Matthew 21:19), and also if you are a true believer you must also believe that all non-believers will be condemned to an eternity in Hell, which is also not very nice. so it's a wash, basically.

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 3:42 am

But anyway, I digress. My reason for posting was that there was an advert for the Alpha Course here in the UK recently which asked: "If god did exist, what would you ask him?". I'm thinking a popular question might be: "If you are omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent then why the hell do you need advertising?

I saw those busses a while back, but I never got close enough to the back of one to read anything other than "Alpha Course", which I assumed was a beginers course for something or the other.

What I would say to God if it does exist would be very similar to yours.

"If you are omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent then why are you invisible, mute, and couldnt care less about human suffering."

Infact I have a distinct impression that if God does exist, it is actually the devil, and the Devil is actually "good" but has so few followers it cannot work its goodness to help the suffering of humanity."

Andy

blackworx · Post by **blackworx** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 5:14 am

Yes, in my experience I've generally found those who are in touch with their dark side to be kinder, more truthful, less judgmental and more accepting of difference than those who claim to renounce the devil and all of his works. It seems that the more fervently religious a person is, certainly in monotheistic religions, the greater their lack of tolerance can be, and nowhere have the works of satan (by the generally accepted definition) been more prolifically done than in the name of god. Our everyday language is awash with references to light=good, dark=bad. You only need to compare the dictionary definitions for "black" and "white" to see how truly ingrained this mentailty is in our culture.

Eyedolon · Post by **Eyedolon** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:42 am

jaganath wrote:
For the atheists, I don't think it's very nice of you to label all Christians the same. My Christianity is a profound belief in the moral teachings of Jesus Christ and an inner effort to live by those morals. If others ask, I will explain. If they do not ask, I'm not going to go and attack them with my Moral Christianity. It's just the way I live my life. I have never spent a second trying to convert someone, nor will I ever.
you seem like a nice guy so I'm not going to be harsh, but the Bible does tell its followers to go out and convert non-believers (Matthew 21:19), and also if you are a true believer you must also believe that all non-believers will be condemned to an eternity in Hell, which is also not very nice. so it's a wash, basically.

I'll give you that one, salesman.

Stupid disciples and their "fundraising" drives. I greatly prefer the parables, such as the Good Samaritan. There's also the Book of Revelations, which is good for a few belly laughs. Or the Song of Solomon, which is (metaphorically) extremely explicit. It does seem like a lot of the brimstone preachers haven't ever actually read the whole Bible, but rather cherry-pick the few parts written long after Jesus's death and twist them to mean whatever fits the purpose.

Most of the disciples books were written during a period of extreme persecution of the followers of Christ (if not all? It's been a while). Romans, Revelations and a few others (I actually don't have my Bible handy any more - what a sinner I've become) were written as letters to satellite churches trying to "keep the faith alive". If you think about it, there was a very good reason for the church to promote converts at that time, they were fighting for survival. Definitely not legitimate nowadays. I despise the concept of hell. It seems to me that it's used as a hook to "make" people act righteous and good. To me, acting well and respecting others needs no stick, but it seems I'm a little in the minority in that regard.

If God existed, I'd ask him why he lets all of his followers fight each other.

Before the fundamentalists removed it, there was a phrase in the Koran (Qu'ran?) exhorting Muslims to show respect to "People of the Book". The Book in question is actually the Old Testament of the Bible, which is also part of the Hebrew Torah. I find that deliciously ironic, but it figures the Wahhabists would have enough influence to alter the book of their "prophet"'s teachings. (Note, I'm not down on Muhammad, I just think it's shameless that they're allowed to ALTER the book so as to make hatred easier to justify for them) The Wahhabi and the Evangelical Christians and the worst of the Orthodox Jews are shining examples of everything I despise about organized religion - the worst rise to the top.

QuietOC · Post by **QuietOC** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:05 pm

jaganath wrote:you seem like a nice guy so I'm not going to be harsh, but the Bible does tell its followers to go out and convert non-believers (Matthew 21:19), and also if you are a true believer you must also believe that all non-believers will be condemned to an eternity in Hell, which is also not very nice. so it's a wash, basically.

Atheists seem to all be fundamentalist puritans--who have only rejected their idea of god. The Bible rejects this too, so there's hope for some reconcilation there.

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:05 pm

Many years ago when I was about 13ish, I attempted to understand the world of religion, and religious people. Apart from the obvious damage that people have done in the name of religion, the more religious a person is, the less tolerant they are of others and indeed other peoples beliefs, just as blackworx said.

I came up with a quite convincing theory (science at work, rather than religion) with the help of Mr Asimov and a few years later Mr Pratchett, that the following thory ended up making a lot of sense both a religious and a scientific way.

Here we go.

In the struggle between 2 "Powerful Beings", Devil, and God, Devil is good, God is bad. And at some point in the distant past God managed to sway the belief of some people his way, and in doing so did them no harm, only harmed these peoples enemies. And being a "Powerful Being" helped to overwhelm the very people the nice Devil was trying to help. And of course the belief in God increased significantly, and God's power allowed him to distort words such as "Evil" into "Devil", and "God" into "Good". Who then would want to worship Devil, and who wouldnt want to worship God, you only have to look at the names.

Based on what Mr Pratchett came up with in the 1992 novel "Small Gods" and my experience of playing Populous, these 2 "Powerful Beings" entire power is based on belief - the more worshippers the more powerful the "Being". The nice Devil who wants to help makind has nowhere near enough believers to help the poor people God massacres on a regular basis.

Thus I concluded that if there is a Devil and a God, then the reasopn why we never see God is simply because if we saw the bastard we would not want to go to church and give him power and he knows that. The reason why we never see the Devil, is because he is not being worshipped enough to have enough power to even be visible to anyone, and can do nothing at all to thwart the terrible things that God inflicts upon us all.

The reason why we see lots of disasters, carnage, mayhem and murder is simply because we are worshipping God, who is a sadistic malicious evil bastard.

My reasoning was based solely on logic, and thinking out of the box until I came up with something that answered all/most of the unanswered questions from all of the other religions around the world, and as is always the scientific aim, to do so in as simple way as possible.

I would like to hear any questions on my theory from anyone who is interested or just wants to throw their toys out of the pram and prove me right. Also feel free to ask me questions where you think there may be a loophole in my theory (bear in mind I have only given you the briefest of outlines), or just for the fun of finding your true religion if you have searched high and low for something to believe in, and your still searching for it.

Andy

ACook · Post by **ACook** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:52 pm

I hope pterry can fence of the alzheimers long enough to make many more discworld novels. Small Gods is one of my favourites too.

btw if you leave open the possibility of any sort of supernatural being, you're more an agnostic than an atheist afaik.

to me all supernatural things are just things invented by people to explain the unexplainable at the time.
Failing to accept the fact that you just don't know is a good thing, for it can allow you to search for the answer. It's in that search that some people are satisfied with one explanation and then stop searching, whereas science just keeps going until it can't find any argument/evidence against it anymore. And even then after a while someone comes around and says: "Actually.... "

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:10 pm

btw if you leave open the possibility of any sort of supernatural being, you're more an agnostic than an atheist afaik.

I am a scientist first, and an athiest second. I have no need to go looking for something to worship, and obviously dont believe in any higher life forms due to a lack of proof. This does not mean that with proof I wont stay a non-believer, and does not mean that I do/dont believe in inteligent alien life forms either, but lets face the facts - there is a greather liklehood that inteligent alien beings exist than "God" does - science and logic means aliens win over gods every time.

My "Devil being good, God being evil" theory, is just that, a theory to make some sense of religion that also honours sense and reason in a scientific manner. This does not really mean that I believe it, it was simply created by myself so that if I needed to have a religion at some point in the future I have one waiting for me that at least makes a degree of sense and answers many questions.

Andy

Steve_Y · Post by **Steve_Y** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 5:20 pm

I don't see the point in complaining about this kind of thing. It just encourages the existing persecution complex that a lot of religious people seem to have. "Those evil unbelievers are censoring us!" makes good propaganda, like the "Satanic war on Christmas" hyperbole every time a store decides that staff should say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas".

Personally I don't think that either message on the side of a bus is likely to convince many people. I doubt an atheist would be converted into a believer just because a sign saying "There definitely is a God." flashes past.

I do find some of the people behind this campaign rather disturbing, definitely not the best representatives of Christianity.

The Christian Party are a particularly scary bunch for a liberal unbeliever such as myself. Their leader, Reverend George Hargreaves, sometimes comes across as such a nutter that he's almost a parody of a fundamentalist Christian. For example, he's said that my Welsh homeland is cursed by God, because the red dragon on our flag is a symbol of Satan:

We will not allow this evil symbol of the devil to reign over Wales for another moment. Wales is the only country in history to have a red dragon on its national flag. This is the very symbol of the devil described in The Book of Revelation 12:3. This is nothing less than the sign of Satan, the devil, Lucifer that ancient serpent who deceived Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. No other nation has had this red dragon as its ruling symbol. Wales has been under demonic oppression and under many curses because of this unwise choice.

His party wants the state to enforce Sunday as a day of rest, wants Creationism taught in school science classes, has argued that the criminal justice system should be based on the Bible, and is rabidly homophobic.

They're supported by Christian activist group "Christian Voice" who are even more extreme. For example, they've campaigned to overturn the law on marital rape, arguing that it's Biblically impossible for a husband to rape his wife, as if she's just his property. They've also argued for the death penalty for "crimes" like adultery and homosexuality.

Richard Dawkins may be arrogant and condescending sometimes, but at least it doesn't go any further than that. I don't think he'd actually force his beliefs and moral views on other people even if he had the chance. The same can't be said for some of these religious groups.[/quote]

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 5:37 pm

I don't see the point in complaining about this kind of thing. It just encourages the existing persecution complex that a lot of religious people seem to have.

Thats not quite my viewpoint, I am not complaining about it a great deal, I just want to see the ASA ban the advert simply because those bunch of nutcases tried (and failed) to get the previous "Athiest" adverts banned.

I certainly dont want to take this further and try to get the billboards on church property banned, or to stop them ringing their bells, I simply want to have millions of people mock them for their ridiculous narrow minded beliefs that are simply black and white, you or them. They think that they are allowed to get away with anything they like in the name of their religion, and they usually do. But since the ASA ruled that the athiest bus adverts are legitimate, I saw my opportunity, throw it back in their face, give them a taste of their own medicine - poison. Yes this is a ridiculous game to some, but I believe in the right to free speech, they dont, and if their adverts are banned it will cost them thousands of pounds, and with any luck this will be the beginning of the end of militant christians in the UK - ha ha I hear you say - worth 2 minutes of your time to fill in an online form is'nt it.?

Andy

blackworx · Post by **blackworx** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 5:43 pm

andyb wrote:with any luck this will be the beginning of the end of militant christians in the UK.

There's about as much chance of that happening as the rapture... (sorry!)

Anyway - better watch you don't get caught up at such an ungodly hour, they'll have you for witchcraft.

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 5:55 pm

There's about as much chance of that happening as the rapture... (sorry!)

This is for everyone else like me who has to look up "rapture".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture

To be fair I also wrote this (I may have edited it in whilst you were typing - sorry, I just had not thought it was so funny the first time round).

ha ha I hear you say

-------

Anyway - better watch you don't get caught up at such an ungodly hour, they'll have you for witchcraft.

Is that "Ungodly" or "UnDevilishly"

I suspect "undevilishly" would be more appropriate as the "Devil" obviously wouldnt be as nasty and cruel as that

Just as something to do I just googled "undevilishly" and got 6 (yes thats right "six" hits maybe this will be No.7), again this proves my theory about the nasty hold God has on us all. "devilishly" gets 582,000 hits, whilst "ungodly" gets 1.78m hits, and "godly" gets 4.6m. Again, proving my theory.

Andy

Steve_Y · Post by **Steve_Y** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 7:09 pm

andyb wrote: Thats not quite my viewpoint, I am not complaining about it a great deal, I just want to see the ASA ban the advert simply because those bunch of nutcases tried (and failed) to get the previous "Athiest" adverts banned.

Isn't that dangerously close to sinking to their level?

These are the people who tried to get the creators of Jerry Springer the Opera tried for blasphemy. That was a ridiculous attack on free speech, but that doesn't mean that I'd support an attempt to get a religious play banned to get back at them.

Eyedolon · Post by **Eyedolon** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:31 pm

I was correct about my call about you having a thing about the word God. IMO, heavenly/extraterrestrial/extra-reality-ial (You're the scientist - something that doesn't exist) beings are all the same. Hell, you could argue the "god" being and the "satan" being are different sides of the same coin. Actually, that works even better, because we all know which "diety" brimstone and fire are representative of. Well, I'm talking in the nigh-universally accepted pantheon of "heavenly figures", not your reversed vision.

I think it might just be easier to call the good one god and the bad one satan, just so the terminology doesn't get so damn confusing. The way you laid it out seems to be reversed just to differentiate you from "them", and I'm sure your reasons are better founded then on such a petty childish distinction =) You seem to be reasonable.

I'm profoundly in agreement with Steve on this matter. Granted, I have no idea who Richard Dawkins is, but that's par for the course. Crazy Brits.

thejamppa · Post by **thejamppa** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:59 am

blackworx wrote:"If god did exist, what would you ask him?". I'm thinking a popular question might be: "If you are omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent then why the hell do you need advertising?"

Answer would probably be something like: "I do not need advertisement, however, peoples who believe in me do that on their own. I will not interfeare due free will of man. "

God doesn't need advertisement. Nor He does not need peoples to convert in His name. Peoples do that on their own. That's what free will of man is all about. Because God is said to be Omnipotent and all poowerful, even the exact hebrew translation might give few alternative translations than mere omnipotent.

Our understanding world and metaphysics are still not advanced enough. Our brains cannot comprihend as much information nor concepts that it would be necessary to actually engage serious debate over existance of God, other than going on with your own belief and throw theory with another theory.

Only facts we have: We still do not know much about this world. We cannot proove existance of God in either way without doubt. That leaves only one conclusion: Everyone should believe as is fitting for themselves. Eventually no human being is responsible but his own fate, nobody elses. Everyone must let make their own choices and we must respect them.

Metaphysics is so very... very scary area. This thread alone has revived the uneasy feeling present, what has been lack of SPCR for quite long: disturbance in harmony that has been in SPCR and has been absent in other communities. Because of our common intrest in silence and silence in computing, there has been a lot harmony in here.

edh · Post by **edh** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:09 am

There is no real evidence that a god exists. Any 'evidence' is merely anecdotal or down to people who do not understand scientific study. The bible has little/no references and has never been peer reviewed. Anyone's personal belief in a god is merely a far fetched hypothesis, not even theory let alone fact.

We could leave philosophers to debate the existence of a god, that's up to them, there's just no need to scientifically investigate it as there is no evidence to suggest it. Religion is however interesting as a human weakness to be studied.

There is no more reason to believe that the universe was created by the Abrahmic god than that it was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or that it was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure.

If you're going to believe in a god or gods, please observe the 8 I'd really rather you didn'ts and then we'll all get on a whole lot better:

1. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Act Like A Sanctimonious Holier-Than-Thou Ass When Describing My Noodly Goodness. If Some People Don't Believe In Me, That's Okay. Really, I'm Not That Vain. Besides, This Isn't About Them So Don't Change The Subject.

2. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Use My Existence As A Means To Oppress, Subjigate, Punish, Eviscerate, And/Or, You Know, Be Mean To Others. I Dont Require Sacrifices, And Purity Is For Drinking Water, Not People.

3. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Judge People For The Way They Look, Or How They Dress, Or The Way They Talk, Or, Well, Just Play Nice, Okay? Oh, And Get This Through You Thick Heads: Woman=Person, Man=Person. Samey-Samey. One is Not Better Than The Other, Unless We're Talking About Fashion And I'm Sorry, But I Gave That To Women And Some Guys Who Know The Difference Between Teal And Fuchsia.

4. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Indulge In Conduct That Offends Yourself, Or Your Willing, Consenting Partner Of Legal Age AND Mental Maturity. As For Anyone Who Might Object, I Think The Expression Is Go F*** Yourself, Unless They Find That Offensive In Which Case They Can Turn Off The TV For Once And Go For A Walk For A Change.

5. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Challenge The Bigoted, Misogynist, Hateful Ideas Of Others On An Empty Stomach. Eat, Then Go After The B*******.

6. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Build MultiMillion-Dollar Churches/Temples/Mosques/ Shrines To My Noodly Goodness When The Money Could Be Better Spent (Take Your Pick): A. Ending Poverty B. Curing Diseases C. Living In Peace, Loving With Passion, And Lowering The Cost Of Cable. I Might Be A Complex Carbohydrate Omniscient Being, But I Enjoy The Simple Things In Life. I Ought To Know. I AM The Creator.

7. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Go around Telling People I Talk To you. You're Not That Interesting. Get Over Yourself. And I Told You To Love Your Fellow Man, Can't You Take A Hint?

8. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You If You Are Into, Um, Stuff That Uses Alot Of Leather/Lubrication/Las Vegas. If The Other Person Is Into It However (Pursuant To #4), Then Have At It, Take Pictures, And For The Love Of Mike, Wear A CONDOM! Honestly It's A Piece Of Rubber, If I Didn't Want It To Feel Good When You Did It I Would Have Added Spikes, Or Something.

blackworx · Post by **blackworx** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 5:44 am

thejamppa wrote:God doesn't need advertisement. Nor He does not need peoples to convert in His name. Peoples do that on their own. That's what free will of man is all about. Because God is said to be Omnipotent and all poowerful, even the exact hebrew translation might give few alternative translations than mere omnipotent.

In mitigation, I would say my question was more of a rhetorical one, aimed at the Christian Science/Alpha Course brigade, than an actual question for god

.

Metaphysics is so very... very scary area. This thread alone has revived the uneasy feeling present, what has been lack of SPCR for quite long: disturbance in harmony that has been in SPCR and has been absent in other communities. Because of our common intrest in silence and silence in computing, there has been a lot harmony in here.

I certainly wouldn't get into all this from a metaphysical perspective - for one thing I wouldn't know where to begin. I'm not an atheist, and my specific gripe is not with the existence or otherwise of god, but with the mumbo jumbo that accumulates round the notion of god like flies round sh*t.

I understand where you're coming from with regard to the "unease" you refer to, but this thread itself doesn't make me feel uneasy. We're all big enough here to understand that the fact there are such deep divisions of opinion on matters such as religion and politics is a given. I wouldn't want to be a part of some sanitized community where we all pretended such divisions didn't exist or where the subject was taboo. As long as it doesn't get personal I don't see the problem with it.

For myself, I don't feel uneasy debating with anyone the existence or otherwise of a higher consciousness, I just don't know enough to contribute anything worthwhile to that debate. I often get the impression that those unlucky enough to hear my thoughts on the matter think I'm merely stating the boringly obvious! I just get on with my life, have fun, live and let live, and above all do no harm

.

Eyedolon · Post by **Eyedolon** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:52 am

I just like to see where it goes. I don't think anyone here's getting hot under the collar, and if they are, it can drop. Lot of interesting perspectives in this thread though.

thejamppa · Post by **thejamppa** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 12:14 pm

I have tendencies to answer rhetorical questions ^^

But I have no God complex what I know of or what various shrinks think of me... What I know of that is ^.~

It is amazing how easily peoples are irritated if their believes are questioned...

Aris · Post by **Aris** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:29 pm

andyb wrote:
Its better to ignore whole thing. Faith is private matter or at least should be. Conflict between religions and betwen believes ( like communism vs democratism i.e. cold war etc ) start because peoples simply cannot respect others views and think they are correct and not other person...
Yes, but there are far more religious fanatics than non-religious fanatics, so I will quote Winston as an aid to my point about religious people trying to force their beliefs down peoples throats.

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

Andy

How is anyone forcing anything here? So your point is because there are less non-religious fanatics that it makes your fanatical response more justified? Your no better than the religious fanatics you complain about.

Eyedolon · Post by **Eyedolon** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:35 pm

Aris - He didn't come knocking at your door, or flag you down during your day, or leave little leaflets under your wiper blades, did he?

thejamppa · Post by **thejamppa** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:33 am

But still: Extremist is extremist, wether religious, atheist or in the between. Extremist cannot compromise, that is why they are wrong 99,9% of the time.