The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
Atheists fail to cough up for London bus ad
telegraph.co.uk — They even made a mock-up photo of a bus carrying their chosen message: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and get on with your life." A specially-created website had attracted only 877 pledges when its deadline passed on Thursday, far short of the 4,678 people needed
petsheep- 645 diggs
- digg it
- etherreal, on 08/03/2008, -10/+173Well, you know what they say....organizing Atheists is like herding cats.
- PosedMagnet, on 08/04/2008, -19/+31Oh, is that what they say? First time hearing that one.
- shadovvman, on 08/04/2008, -0/+4Read more Dawkins.
- IPublius, on 08/04/2008, -13/+5I have heard that about almost every group someone has been in charge of that they had trouble with. The phrase has become a cliche.
- slifty, on 08/04/2008, -0/+18I think that calling a phrase cliche has become a cliche
- XxtraLarGe, on 08/04/2008, -32/+2@etherreal: History seems to be against you. Communists were extremely well organized, and the vast majority of them were atheists.
- NeilieN, on 08/04/2008, -0/+27They were organized for different reasons than simply being atheists. Plus, they didn't have a lot of choice in the matter.
- drmangrum, on 08/04/2008, -0/+18I find it funny how how you try to equate Atheism with Communism when:
The USSR -- had an extremely large Orthodox Catholic population.
Cuba -- Come on now, Latin countries are renowned for their devout catholic culture.
China -- While not Christian, obviously, they DO have religions: Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism.
North Korea -- largely Buddhism and Confucianism.
Could it be that religion and political philosophy are completely separate? Could it be that nasty people will use whatever means necessary to acquire and maintain power whether through the use of religion or the oppression thereof? Nawwww, that's just crazy. - rlh1, on 08/04/2008, -11/+1XxtraLarGe shouldn't be dugg down on his statement.
What part of it is not true ? - WasabiBomb, on 08/04/2008, -0/+10Try reading the replies he got, rih1.
- rlh1, on 08/04/2008, -9/+2I did read the relies and I disagree.
The Communists movements in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, were all atheistic and actively suppressed religions.
They were very well organized and persistent.
Their movements were primarily for social and economic change, though atheism was a core part of it, not the only part. - dggeek, on 08/04/2008, -1/+7Yeah, and I heard all religious people are fascists. True story!
- rlh1, on 08/04/2008, -7/+2I didn't say or imply that all Atheists are Communists.
I just agreed with XxtraLarGe that the Communists were Atheists and very well organized.
The fact that there were majority religions is a country does not negate the fact that the Communist movement was definitely Atheist.
- sodade, on 08/04/2008, -2/+3It's true, and the other side knows it and takes full advantage of the fact.
- IglooBurner, on 08/04/2008, -8/+15"...probably no God..."
u guys gotta be a lot more confident than that.- tr909, on 08/04/2008, -3/+10Well, we can't prove there isn't one. Only say it's unlikely. If someone says THERE IS NO GOD, then they aren't an atheist but a believer. One who BELIEVES there is no God. Like most people, we just feel it's highly unlikely Zues runs the universe. But no one can say it with certainty.
- p3ngwin, on 08/04/2008, -2/+2everything in the universe is possible, however unlikely.
Therefore all that is left is probability.
Your life is the product of your actions.
Your actions are the product of your beliefs.
Your beliefs are the product of your information.
The information that comes through your five senses, and how you process it is where it all starts.]
Proof is the moment when someone *chooses* that enough probability has been reached to act on.
Some people require almost endless evidence, others require little to none before they believe. - TeenageDeathBoy, on 08/04/2008, -12/+0tr909, I hate people like you. People who think that certain words (mainly belief and faith) can't be applied to an atheist because they disbelieve in god. If those words aren't directly used in saying that they believe in a god, then they have no bearing on the term Atheist what-so-ever.
This can be applied to countless topics that people try to combat with this sort of nonsense. Please people, shut the ***** up with these ridiculous not-so-arguments already. Your retarded word plays don't mean *****. - shadovvman, on 08/04/2008, -0/+6Nah. They were just being intellectually honest. I can say "There are no leprechauns," but what's intellectually honest is "No credible evidence for leprechauns exist; therefore, they almost certainly do not exist."
The impossibility of proving a universal negative, and all that. - anachronaut, on 08/04/2008, -0/+4@tr909
Belief is not the problem, faith is the problem. It's all well and good to believe what you want based on whatever limited "evidence" you've experienced in your life or worked out in your head, but when you have faith in an unprovable belief, you've crossed over the line from logical thought processes to... something else. - tr909, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1@teenageDeathBoy: I'm sorry if you hate people that stick to the literal definition of a word (A - without / THEIST - person of beliefs) instead of the popular misconception of the word which you seem to prefer.
@anachonaut: I agree with you. However, I feel the difference between Belief and Faith are semantic. To me it's the difference between probability and belief/faith.
For example. I leave my house everyday not because I believe or have faith I'll make it home. I do because my brain's subconscious feels it is probable that I return safely. However, if my house was surrounded with gunmen telling me they will shoot me dead when I leave and I still step out the door because I BELIEVE or have FAITH that god will protect me, then that is completely different. - And I'll be dead. - TeenageDeathBoy, on 08/09/2008, -0/+0tr909, I would like you to read this carefully and a few times for it to sink in because I know you probably won't understand. I don't even know why I'm bothering because it's not even possible to explain this clear enough without confusing myself. Your statement is so stupid and seems to be pulled straight out of your ass that you may as well make up your own dictionary.
"If someone says THERE IS NO GOD, then they aren't an atheist but a believer. One who BELIEVES there is no God"
Apply your quote when you see this:**
Foremost: "Theist" does not mean a person of beliefs. It's a belief in a God or Gods. You're the one who has their ***** backwards.
Onward: EVEN if "atheist" somehow does mean what you said it did, then what you said** would still be be a fallacy in and of itself.
What you're saying is that someone who "believes" that there is not a god is a "theist" because they hold a "belief". Then on those same rules of your definition it must also mean that a person who does not have the "belief" that there is not a god is an "atheist".
Reasons why the above and your statement** is stupid:
1. I hate to break it to you but the words "belief" or "faith" are used to describe your feelings about a subject. They are not the subjects themselves. They can't exist on their own in any form. You have to have "faith" or a "belief" in something. They mean nothing without a subject to apply them to. Understand?
2. A person of certain beliefs is a "believer" of that certain thing(s). They are not automatically a "theist" because you say so. They are only a "theist" when any form of a "god" is the certain subject.
3. This is directed at the "atheist" part of your definition: If you take out the word belief, you wouldn't be able to replace it with any other word that doesn't boil down to meaning the same thing. Therefore, everyone would be a theist because they "think" in a certain way.
3. Now just to flat out defeat you: You're accusing me of sticking to the "popular" definition while you are using the "literal" definition? If you were using your "literal" definition: "A - without / THEIST - person of beliefs" then you wouldn't have been able to make the statement** in the first place because your definition has nothing to do with God. So, you definition destroys the whole point of making that statement** in the first place because your definition holds no ground without the "popular". Sorta creates a paradox doesn't it?
It's either you are an atheist or you are not. An atheist can believe whatever the hell they want as long as it's not a God or Gods. Nothing else can be derived from it. It's a cut and dry definition of someone who doesn't believe/think/whatever that is a God or Gods. END OF STORY Apparently you and at least 10 other people don't know the difference between subjects and supporting words. - TeenageDeathBoy, on 08/09/2008, -0/+0"It's a cut and dry definition of someone who doesn't believe/think/whatever that is a God or Gods. END OF STORY"
Should have a "there" after "that" and a "." after "STORY". Got a bit hasty at the end.
- punkcat, on 08/04/2008, -2/+45we atheists need some kind of place to gather to share our ideas like this.
i suggest maybe every sunday? how about in the morning?
the building should be distinctive too so we can't miss it, some kind of steeple, perhaps with a bell to remind us when its time to meet?- plainOldFool, on 08/04/2008, -0/+30Should they server crackers and wine too?
- Lyk4n, on 08/04/2008, -2/+2lawl
- cloak419, on 08/04/2008, -0/+5Hey I can get my band to play some music there if you need.
- fmyidotcom, on 08/04/2008, -1/+12WHERE IS YOUR GOD N--
Oh, wait. - yosserhughes, on 08/04/2008, -0/+17"organizing Atheists is like herding cats"
Because Atheists don't care. We don't believe in the Christian god, or the Hindu god, or Zeus, Thor, Ra, or the 2000 other named gods that people have invented; or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster. We don't believe in ghosts, goblins, things that go bump in the night, elves, fairies, demons, witches, spirits (good or bad); we simply do not believe in such nonsense, therefore we don't care to be involved with propaganda, either for or against a particular superstition.
A person has a right to believe in their particular invisible being, and that's fine, just don't inflict it on me.
Likewise if you don't believe in any of the above don't inflict it on the people that do.
Live and let live, right?- Infidelephant, on 08/04/2008, -0/+8In a perfect world - yes.
Unfortunately, "the other side" is well organized, well funded, and welcomed in all levels of our government.
*****! Their own "holy book" calls them "sheep" in need of a shepherd. It's practically bred into them to be "herded."
If the "godless" amongst us has any hope to stem back the tide of the ever-encroaching pursuit of scientific ignorance, social intolerance, and dominionist theocracies, we can't just sit back and let it happen.
Fire with fire. - plainOldFool, on 08/04/2008, -2/+2You mean eye for an eye, or perhaps tooth for a tooth?
- smokesteam, on 08/05/2008, -1/+1Strange how so many advocates of atheism put credit to their own intelligence but are very quick to deride the intelligence of anyone who doesnt subscribe to their views...
- Acolyte357, on 08/05/2008, -1/+1@smokesteam
There is no need to deride anyone's intelligence just their faith, it's much easier. - FLarsen, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1Ra was a false god.
Thor is not a god either, but he's a good guy at least. - smokesteam, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1@Acolyte357,
Putting aside the slight irony of your username, what does anyone gain by deriding another's faith? Besides making yourself look like a jerk that is...
- Infidelephant, on 08/04/2008, -0/+8In a perfect world - yes.
- targetloop, on 08/04/2008, -0/+0Wouldn't that be anarchists?
- themastersb, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1We're all organized here on Digg.... in a way.
- PosedMagnet, on 08/04/2008, -19/+31Oh, is that what they say? First time hearing that one.
- Mier, on 08/03/2008, -58/+10Is it because the conviction of their beliefs is next to nil?
- geekchic, on 08/03/2008, -4/+53Probably more due to a total lack of decent publicity. The first I heard of it was when it failed.
Next time - set up a facebook group ;) - Pittance, on 08/04/2008, -2/+34Agreed geekchic. Also, the fact that atheists almost never congregate with other atheists (that would be a church, wouldn't it?) makes this unlikely to succeed. We feel no need to "spread the faith" and convert other people's children into believing in our imaginary friend. Generally, atheists don't recruit since that's not what we are about. Atheism isn't in the "who can have the biggest club" game mos tother religions are. We simply grow when intelligent people realize all of the beliefs were silly, and they would rather cleanse themselves of such dogma and live the way they choose.
- drewkinney, on 08/04/2008, -6/+16You are so right!
I used to believe in a benevolent White haired bearded wise old man.
Then I tuned 9 and no longer believe in Santa Claus. - Stewdean, on 08/04/2008, -2/+14No publicity and, quite frankly, a terrible bit of copy writing. I'm an atheist and feels the message doesn't promote that idea.
Also atheists tend to be libertarians and feel little need to force their views on others in quite the same way as the religious. Regardless we have the biggest crowing belief system thanks to rising levels of eduction in most of the world and things like the Internet. - AchaIemoipas, on 08/04/2008, -2/+11Conviction of beliefs is a non-sensical expression. Atheists don't have beliefs anyway, especially not about God.
And they're hard to organize because they aren't a group. Free thinkers can't be a group. They are just the opposite of an ideological group. The people who don't belong to one. Atheists exist, and have existed, in every society on this planet, at any given time of human civlization. They are just people who questionned what they were taught as children and had enough logic (average intelligence) to realize theism is a giant load of self-substantiated crap.
And being an atheist doesn't mean you believe that bothering people in public places with value judgements is necessary. Most of us hate when religion does it, so doing it ourselves would just be dumb.
Some atheists also believe religion is a good thing. The only reason they aren't religious themselves is because they're too smart to believe in fallacies and mythology. But that doesn't mean they can't understand how religion can be comforting and even justify existence and give life a "meaning" (even if it's just a delusion) for people of lesser intelligence.
The people such an endeavour would attract are called anti-theists. I am one of those people, yet I've never even heard of this thing and since it's in the UK, I wouldn't have spent a dime on this.
Anti-theists believe religion is like a cancer of stupidity that needs to be cured with logic, science and information: more information than the church's (any religious institution) misinformation. Think of it as educating schizophrenics about their condition. - senatorpjt, on 08/04/2008, -0/+5Possibly because the statement that there "probably" is no God isn't "atheist".
- geekchic, on 08/03/2008, -4/+53Probably more due to a total lack of decent publicity. The first I heard of it was when it failed.
- Emelius, on 08/03/2008, -23/+114Religious people are really good at getting in groups and giving up their cash for their beliefs, but secularists prefer to keep their money to themselves, and we sure as hell don't impress our beliefs on other people, which is why this ad is stupid and gives us a bad rap. The best key atheism has at success is 1. Time, 2. Science. And as the trend goes right now, there are 1.1 billion NonReligious/Agnostic/Atheists in this world, which is up 300million since 2004, so, i mean, what is this ad gonna do that common sense won't due in another 30 years.
COme on!!- samoan27, on 08/04/2008, -49/+12Actually science (specifically physics) is probably atheists biggest hurdle. Atheism, the idea that there is no God, is dying amongst anyone who studies natural law, specifically universal constants. See there are hundreds of universal constants, and with modern numerical modeling scientists can calculate what would occur if they were different. Well the results find that for life to exist, out universe has to be so precisely tuned it's impractical to believe it happened by chance. Here's one obscure example to demonstrate my point:
http://digg.com/general_sciences/Thinnest_material ...
Imagine a book on a desk and tell me how it got there; now you may argue that if you wait long enough, the movement of the molecules of the floor could align and hit that book such that it will on it's own leap up onto the desk. Now if you're not an idiot you dismiss that possibility as being so minuscule it couldn't happen. Well that's about as probable as thinking our universe happened without divine intervention. Creationist theory has more scientific foothold than atheism.
Now I personally take the next step and say if this 'Creator' designed a universe so precise that it can actually contain life, he probably cares about it. But I can't prove this, math does nothing to describe this creator and if he cares for us; if you want to be agnostic I won't say a thing. But if you want to be atheist I can say with mathematical backing that your head is further up your ass than any religious zealot who's ever walked the earth (and you'll probably digg me down because of that fact, though I welcome any counter argument).- Loonacy, on 08/04/2008, -5/+30The probability of the universe coming into existance with the laws necessary for physical stability doesn't really matter. You could argue that it's a 1 out of 10^99999999999999999999 chance, but then how do you define each attempt? Perhaps the universe has tried to form 10^99999999999999999999 times, but only now that it has succeeded are we here to measure that success.
- fracktica, on 08/04/2008, -4/+24Then it must be even more unlikely than a divine creator just formed from random pre-universe matter and energy. In fact, I am here to reveal that our creator has - yes - a creator. But this creator is obviously more complex than our creator, so he must have an even more complex creator... I just fell - is it slippery in here?
- Pittance, on 08/04/2008, -4/+21You mean that all of the constants had to be this value for OUR life to exist. Or if the constants were different, a different universe with different laws would exist and different life (that we might not even call life) may spring forth. Its close-minded thinking that "we are then only type of life" that leads to theist thoughts in the first place. People need tp realize we aren't that special and we aren't that important.
- NoOnEx, on 08/04/2008, -4/+13Imagine a pebble on a mountain and tell me how it got there. Now you could argue a god placed it there. Now if you're not an idiot you could dismiss that possibility as being so minuscule that it couldn't happen. Then you could think on a macro level and realize that after iterations of plates moving a section of land was pushed up and earth itself was forced into the shape of a mountain causing cracks as it raises in elevation and a piece of the rock breaks of and lands on top of the dirty. After years of being weathered that rock is now broken into many pieces producing the pebble.
When will religious people learn that things that happen with a low probability still happen given enough time and iterations. The current model of our universe and its constants could be a result (similar to the Hindu belief as a side note) of many universes created and destroyed over time.
The idea here that a Creator is the answer raises more implications than the question it answers. Who created that creator? If it doesn't require a creator then why did the universe? If you want to be a theist I can say with logical backing that your head is further up your ass than any any atheist who has ever walked the earth. - GordonFree, on 08/04/2008, -6/+3You're painfully wrong.
- physicsguy, on 08/04/2008, -1/+8Anthropic principle. Go read.
- senatorpjt, on 08/04/2008, -2/+2However, if you were "intelligently designing the universe", it would be possible to design the universe so the majority of planets contained life, not just the one planet we've been able to observe it on.
- onwardknave, on 08/04/2008, -0/+10What experiments have you done to show other universes cannot possibly sustain life when you alter physical constants? The Nobel committee and I would be fascinated to see your data.
- sodade, on 08/04/2008, -2/+1Thank you Pittance for showing samoan27 how myopic his nifty little theory is.
- onwardknave, on 08/04/2008, -0/+4My edit window for my last comment closed; pardon the double-post, but I thought this particularly relevant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aGEXMyFWyg&eurl=ht ... - ApokalypseNow, on 08/04/2008, -2/+3No evidence for a creator - your misunderstanding or ignorance of science is not evidence for a creator.
- samoan27, on 08/04/2008, -7/+3@Loonacy: I can't disprove your explanation, but Occam's Razor dismisses it.
@fracktica: just because math says this universe was intelligently designed doesn't mean it can tell us anything about its designer(s). But not knowing about another universe does not dismiss what we know about ours.
@Pittance: No not our life, ANY life. I take it if you're a scientist you deal more with biology and think about evolution, that things adapt and somehow life will find a way. Well do you know why scientists get all excited about water on other planets, BECAUSE THERE COULD BE NO LIFE WITHOUT IT! It's not like in the absence of water some other life occurs, or if that aforementioned carbon constant was different life would evolve from silicon. Sorry, if you think life can be produced in any situation given enough time you're fall on your face wrong.
@NoOnEx: If your problem with God creating the universe is that with that answer there comes more questions than answers then I take it you're not a fan of modern physics. If you think scientists feel they understand the universe better now than they did 150 years ago, you'd be wrong.
@onwardknave: I'll see what I can dig up, the first I heard about this was when I attended a lecture of an Oxford Astrophysicist 7 years ago, and while I can't remember his name off hand when I have time I'll reply with a link to his or one of his colleagues work. As far as the Nobel Prize committee caring, they just gave the prize to Al Gore, if you think they're willing to award a prize to anything this controversial or vague (again all this says is there was intelligent design, no details past that) you can think again. - samoan27, on 08/04/2008, -5/+1@onwardknave: like physicsguy said, read up on the anthropodic principle. There's several studies conducted on it, you can google search it and find plenty (and they're published, not just youtube). Its criticisms, like super-string theory and many other modern theories, are based on the fact that tests to verify it are nigh impossible to perform (we'd need to create and sustain near big bang conditions to change the constants, or so it's predicted). The other big criticism stems from our "lack of imagination" believing that things like water and carbon are required for life (those are some of the assumptions these studies include). Perhaps with further developments in technology and as our understanding of life increases we may have more accurate models, BUT following the science we know and have observed (never having seen even the smallest of organisms exist without carbon or water) the evidence points towards an intelligent designer.
- onwardknave, on 08/04/2008, -1/+3@samoan: You reference the anthropic principle like it's a good thing. Also, speculation about other universes is exactly that. Speculation. To suggest that we are somehow uniquely suited to this set of physical rules, and that without them we would be wholly incapable of existing is speculative at best, utter nonsense at worst. Perhaps the universe would not have developed as it did. Perhaps we would not be here as we are, but to suggest alternative constants or physical laws would exclude life -- conscious life of any kind which itself might ask whether WE would exist given different physical parameters -- is anthropic, creationist, ID gospel, rooted in religion's prime mover: faith. As such, I wholly dismiss it as speculative.
Water and carbon offer physical properties which, given their relative abundance to other compounds in the universe, make them significantly better suited toward biochemical evolution and life _as we understand it_. The relative abundance of Hydrogen and Oxygen, and the binding properties of Carbon (being more common than, say, Silicon, also with a valence of 4) make the suggestion they are "necessary" for life (as we understand it) a numbers game. Given the anthropic limitations of the human brain to comprehend the scale of the universe in anything but a logarithmic scale, the probability of life existing in some capacity intuitively seems rather high. That is, if the universe were "fine tuned," with respect to universal constants, should we not expect many other instances of life in the universe?
Lastly, should not "faith" be enough for the religious? Isn't religion based upon faith, and therefore to use reason to understand the universe not anathema to the very core of its tenets, i.e. that the existence of a god or gods should just be trusted, because it can never be understood? If you believe your god gave you a brain, should you not use it to your fullest, and enjoy the fruits of its creativity and capacity for reason? The scientific method would thus ironically exclude religion as a progenitor of beliefs. - samoan27, on 08/04/2008, -2/+1@onwardknave:
The anthropic principle as I understand it (admittedly I'm fairly new to the term) seemed to revolve around the idea that our universe and it's fundamental laws are unique, so yes I saw it as a good thing though there are arguments against it.
I use water and carbon as an example because they're something the lay person understands and this is a digg forum. You seem to understand this stuff pretty well so I'll speak of more definitive evidence that I personally played around with back in my undergraduate days. Can we agree that no life would be possible without the formation of atoms? Now you'll have to bare with me as it's been years since I took quantum and can't remember all the equations, but I believe electron capture and emission deal greatly with the permittivity of free space, and I remember playing with that (or what ever constants were involved) and seeing how only a little tweak would cause electron emission to occur so rapidly that no neutrons (and thus any element other than hydrogen)could remain stable, tweak a little in the other direction hydrogen wasn't stable.
Again I apologize I can't remember all the details but I'm sure I'm not the only person who's looked at that. So I'm sure you can find what I'm talking about along with other aspects of quantum mechanics required for atomic structures to exist.
Anyway for me it comes down to Occam's razor as no theory can ever be tried. Do I believe that countless universes were created and eventually one that can support life came into being, after all with time that book can jump on the desk by itself. Or do I believe that something knew what it was doing and for its own purposes set the precise laws necessary to create a universe that can sustain life? - onwardknave, on 08/05/2008, -0/+3Your argument still appears to suggest that you're somehow certain that other constants aren't capable of sustaining life. My contention is that because we do not know, we should not assume they could not, nor subsequently suggest that because we exist in these particular conditions, think that they are somehow special and then attribute that to a god, or intelligence. Occam's Razor would say that to attribute this, or any universe's constants to a higher power instead of simply saying "we don't know," is unwarranted. I'm content to leave it at "we don't know," rather than attributing it to an invisible sky-man. Many things in the history of the world have once been attributed to a god or gods, later to be debunked as naturally occurring phenomena, such as lightning, eclipses, floods, and plagues. Plugging "intelligence" into an equation when simply "presently unknown" could explain the same situation is pretty much the antithesis of Occam's Razor.
- Loonacy, on 08/05/2008, -0/+4How does Occam's Razor dismiss my theory? Your assumption of a divine intelligence leaves more questions than it answers. My assumption is fully contained and simple. Occam's Razor would more appropriately be applied to your theory.
- darkstar949, on 08/04/2008, -0/+24I'm likely to get dugg down for this - but the phrase "Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist" on surveys resulting in the 1.1 billion number doesn't mean that all of them are Atheists. Depending upon the survey, a good number of members of this group (e.g. ~50%) might be theistic, but but don't participate in organized religions. Here's a link that goes in to much more detail on the subject - http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.ht ...
- Narshe, on 08/04/2008, -8/+41"we sure as hell don't impress our beliefs on other people"
....Are you kidding me? Every other article/comment on digg is an Atheist impressing their beliefs.- dvsbastard, on 08/04/2008, -4/+26Yeah, I guess he missed the article about the group who wanted to place an ad on the side of a London bus...
- cthellis, on 08/04/2008, -1/+7He's noting why it failed, and why few indeed were interested in supporting it. Certainly he did not mean that NO atheist is like that... that would be foolish. Just that by and large as a group, they are not.
They are much more likely to be outspoken in internet threads, though. OooooOOOOOOOooooooh!
- runCMD, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1Dillon said it best.
- ZenMojo, on 08/04/2008, -1/+3I'm a religious secularist and former agnostic, and I'm damn tired of atheists trying to bogart me for their issues.
- samoan27, on 08/04/2008, -49/+12Actually science (specifically physics) is probably atheists biggest hurdle. Atheism, the idea that there is no God, is dying amongst anyone who studies natural law, specifically universal constants. See there are hundreds of universal constants, and with modern numerical modeling scientists can calculate what would occur if they were different. Well the results find that for life to exist, out universe has to be so precisely tuned it's impractical to believe it happened by chance. Here's one obscure example to demonstrate my point:
- hoginthefog, on 08/03/2008, -1/+56maybe if they had come up with a better ad...
- justintsmith, on 08/04/2008, -2/+4I guess the Atheists just couldn't bring themselves to believe in the possibility of the ad being real......
- justintsmith, on 08/04/2008, -2/+4I guess the Atheists just couldn't bring themselves to believe in the possibility of the ad being real......
- anonymiau, on 08/03/2008, -12/+154Just goes to show most atheists are smart people, cause this ad was totally lame.
- Springdaddy, on 08/04/2008, -2/+5I totally agree...
- loopis, on 08/04/2008, -3/+7I think not raising enough money for the Ad is a positive thing and shows that the majority Atheist are not in the "business" of religion and are not interested in pushing their beliefs on others.
- jj101, on 08/04/2008, -2/+6Any ad would be pointless. I wouldn't cough up for an ad that said "The Sun is very hot" for exactly teh same reason as I wouldn't pay for this nonsense. Spend that money fighting legal battles to prevent stupid ***** being taught in schools.
- Risingashes, on 08/04/2008, -1/+3It doesn't even properly reflect Atheist beliefs.
It should be "It's most likely that there is no God."
And when exactly did 'not worrying' come in to Atheism? If you want to advertise hippy BS then buy separate ads. Every single Atheist I know has a fixation concerning our known reality- we don't have the magical fantasy sky castle to look forward to so it's all we have.
- Hetman, on 08/03/2008, -11/+48Lame. Seriously what is the point. People have the net, they are well aware of atheism. If you are an atheists good for you. But there is no need to waste money like this.
- geekchic, on 08/03/2008, -2/+11Wouldn't the same apply to the adverts for Christianity which pop up on public transport as well though?
That was the whole point (it seems) of the campaign, to counter those adverts.- Jaablaze, on 08/04/2008, -2/+6why would you even care. those ads aren't for athiest. they are for church goers that go to other churches. Just like TGIFridays wants people who to go chilli's to come to them.
- cloak419, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1Because it's wrong and the basic principals for which these organizations are on are able to, not only take our money, but tell us how to perceive the true nature of reality and creation of life in a fashion similar to a fairy tail, but a little more convincing.
amirite?
- Hetman, on 08/03/2008, -5/+7I have mixed feelings on the whole thing. I really do not believe that atheism needs to campaign against religion. It seems eventually the whole religion thing should just disappear because of our changing culture. Most people who are atheist understand that they are not the only atheists out there and as I mentioned the net is an easy way to figure this out.
- Pittance, on 08/04/2008, -2/+4No, christianity HAS to recruit, as does every other religion. Either they openly recruit, or they subtly recruit by teaching their unsuspecting children the same thing.
- IPublius, on 08/04/2008, -1/+7Are you saying that if you have children you would not teach them what you believe?
- meghalc, on 08/04/2008, -0/+3You have to be born into Hinduism. That is the only religion you cant take on.
- jj101, on 08/04/2008, -2/+1When I have children I will try my best to teach them what I know. On issues which are a question of personal choice I will encourage them to believe what makes them happy, regardless of my personal beliefs becasue that is exactly what they are.
- wwwdot1jesdotus, on 08/04/2008, -1/+1"On issues which are a question of personal choice I will encourage them to believe what makes them happy"
This is a large part of the problem. People decide to teach based on what feels good instead of making what is true the basis for teaching. I would not teach my kids something that is probably false just because it makes them happy. I don't want my kids to grow up to be happy idiots.
I will teach my kids to believe what I, after my years of experience, have discovered to be true. Isn't that the whole point of parenting? - WasabiBomb, on 08/04/2008, -1/+1How does that invalidate Pittance's message, IPublius?
- smokesteam, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1Jews dont recruit, most flavors of Buddhism dont either, same for Shinto or other forms of animism AFAIK. As for kids, what will you teach your unsuspecting children?
- Radan, on 08/04/2008, -2/+4Why is there even a need of having to advertise the lack of something?
Personally, I couldn't care less about what kind of fairy tales people dedicates their lives for, if it makes them live happier then fine let them do that. As long as they keep it to themselves I don't see any reasons for stopping them. - shadovvman, on 08/04/2008, -1/+2I disagree. Religion is such an enormously destructive force in the world that any money spent discouraging adherence to it is money well spent.
It would only be a live-and-let-live proposition if religion weren't diametrically opposed to human advancement and civilization.
- geekchic, on 08/03/2008, -2/+11Wouldn't the same apply to the adverts for Christianity which pop up on public transport as well though?
- RidgeWalker76, on 08/03/2008, -7/+23The Atheist Meetup groups here in Phoenix raised enough money to put up 4 or 5 billboards. They are going up September 1st on CBS billboards throughout the city.
- petsheep, on 08/03/2008, -0/+8What does the message on those Phoenix billboards say?
- RidgeWalker76, on 08/04/2008, -9/+5http://atheists.meetup.com/157/messages/boards/thr ...
All of the information can be found here, the fundraiser was successful and was the combined effort of about 4 groups showing that Atheists can indeed come together effectively when they want to.
Locations:
The five billboard locations are on surface streets all within 1 to 3 miles of central Phoenix. Billboards are numbered and say “CBS” on them.
#1103 Cross streets: 3rd Ave & Van Buren. Located on 3rd Ave just north of Van Buren. Best viewing occurs while traveling northbound on 3rd Ave approaching Van Buren. At this intersection look forward and right. The sign is setback from a parking lot which makes for clear viewing and efficient picture taking. The Arizona State Capital, Phoenix City Hall, FOX News, and the Arizona Republic are all within a few blocks.
#1245 Cross streets: 7th St & Coolidge. Located just north of the downtown area on 7th Street. Best viewing occurs while traveling southbound on 7th Ave just south of Camelback Rd but just prior to Coolidge. The sign is on the east side of 7th Street.
#2005 Cross Streets: Jefferson & 13th St. Located just east of the downtown area and Chase Field on Jefferson Street. Best viewing occurs while traveling eastbound on Jefferson just after 13th Street. The sign is on the south side of Jefferson Street.
#2501 Cross Streets: 19th Ave & Fillmore. Located just west of the State Capital area on 19th Ave. Best viewing occurs while traveling northbound on 19th Ave just prior to Fillmore. The sign is on the west side of 19th Ave. This location is within a few blocks of the Capital Complex.
#2911 Cross streets: McDowell & 14th St. Located just northwest of the downtown area on McDowell Rd. Best viewing occurs while traveling eastbound on McDowell just after 14th St. The sign is on the north side of McDowell. The Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center is within a few blocks. - senatorpjt, on 08/04/2008, -0/+12@Ridgewalker: Thanks but no thanks: He didn't ask where the billboards were, he asked what they said, which would only have taken up the following sentence.
petsheep: "Beware of Dogma" and "Imagine No Religion."
- RidgeWalker76, on 08/04/2008, -9/+5http://atheists.meetup.com/157/messages/boards/thr ...
- Stewdean, on 08/04/2008, -0/+10Atheists have a much harder time in the US and are likely to face high degree of prejudice. In the UK being an atheist is the norm rather than the exception for the people I meet, it might even be the biggest belief system in the UK.
- haterofps3, on 08/04/2008, -2/+4Not a belief system thank you, its not a choice it simply is. How could it be the biggest belief system if they do NOT believe in anything?
- MrWhite7, on 08/04/2008, -0/+4Atheists believe there is no god.
- erossmu, on 08/04/2008, -0/+4A show about nothing is still a show. A belief system about not believing in a God or spiritual beings is still a belief system.
- JQP123, on 08/04/2008, -1/+3"A belief system about not believing in a God or spiritual beings is still a belief system."
Only if you prefer a world where everything is open to semantic and philosophical debate.
"I believe the sun came up today".
This could be called a mere belief but absent any evidence to the contrary, most reasonable people would be willing to accept it as a fact.
- paidhima, on 08/04/2008, -2/+1Atheism is not a belief system. The word itself simply means "without god". People frequently describe Atheism with negative language - I don't mean negative as in derogatory, but as in the opposite of affirmative. Atheism isn't about subtracting a god from your life; it's about not adding a god to your life.
- ObamaWins08, on 08/04/2008, -0/+20Quit trying to force your beliefs on me.
- Sharky35, on 08/04/2008, -6/+5"The Atheist Meetup groups" or Churches as they are more commonly called.
- jj101, on 08/04/2008, -1/+4Atheists meetings would no more be churches than car club meetings would be for people without cars. It does strike me however that the type of person who would attend such a meeting may be seeking something similar to what a church would offer. a sense of belonging to something larger than themselves. Personally I would rather watch the football then waste my time with interfering busybodies.
- Lazydriver, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately, and perhaps fortunately, one of the good things churches are good at doing is rallying a community together.
Now if we could have that without the boring-as-hell sermons and Bible, that'd be SPLENDID.
- Lazydriver, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately, and perhaps fortunately, one of the good things churches are good at doing is rallying a community together.
- petsheep, on 08/03/2008, -0/+8What does the message on those Phoenix billboards say?
- sk11, on 08/04/2008, -12/+55The best way to counter religion is to point out the absurdity of it through humour. See Monty Python, Blackadder, The Simpsons, Family Guy, Father Ted, etc. Lend people those shows on dvd.
- saqer, on 08/04/2008, -17/+10yup, atheists are the masters of sarcasm and satire. That's why no one takes them seriously.
- GordonFree, on 08/04/2008, -5/+16Only intelligent people have the capability to see the message in a sarcasm or satire and take it seriously.
That's why no one like you takes it seriously.
- GordonFree, on 08/04/2008, -5/+16Only intelligent people have the capability to see the message in a sarcasm or satire and take it seriously.
- DestroyFascism, on 08/04/2008, -1/+3And we are all individuals...
- GrantTLC, on 08/04/2008, -1/+2That South Park eps taking pot-shots at Mormons is fantastic, too. (And the one against the Scientologists, but we're talking religion here not cults)
- ZenMojo, on 08/04/2008, -1/+1The ones bashing the Atheists were funnier than the Mormon ones but not as funny as the Scientologist ones. The Catholic one was amusing and the Super Pals was pretty badass.
- saqer, on 08/04/2008, -17/+10yup, atheists are the masters of sarcasm and satire. That's why no one takes them seriously.
- WestonP, on 08/04/2008, -65/+14Atheism = epic fail
- Cerialthriller, on 08/04/2008, -4/+13blindly following invisible man = epic fail
- DeliLlama, on 08/04/2008, -2/+4You clearly do not have any idea about the people who came up with that meme.
- TheGroje, on 08/04/2008, -5/+16As long as atheists and christians alike continue to find this "non story" news-worthy - posting it to news-groups, forwarding it to friends - Why would a sign on the side of a bus even be necessary?
- sodade, on 08/04/2008, -0/+4Maybe they are trying to reach people who aren't on the internet?
- ryan83189, on 08/04/2008, -8/+6They need only come to Digg. Most digg members would consider this donation their "tithe to the FSM".
- TheMachine1, on 08/04/2008, -7/+84A lot atheists like myself do not see atheism as something to be evangelistic about. Some atheists must view atheism as a "religion" that replaces God with science and such atheist then act like the same God believing religious assholes they trash.
- Vegabondsx, on 08/04/2008, -1/+16As an Atheist I see Atheism as simply "A"-Theistic, or without theism. It's like not owning a car.
"What car do you drive"
Ford.
Honda.
I don't own one- cloudberries, on 08/04/2008, -0/+20I was at the pub the other night. The guys I was with were talking feverishly about football, and quoting football trivia as if it was the most natural thing in the world. One guy asked us what team we support. When it got to me (what with me knowing nothing about football, and not caring about football in any way, shape or form), I just shrugged and said I didn't care for the sport.
I think this confused the guy slightly. He found it hard to comprehend the concept of "Not liking football". It's probably the same with religion. People with a strong religious tendency can't really understand the idea of "Not being religious", so the idea of atheism was born. I'm wouldn't describe myself as an atheist, I just can't be arsed with religion. - GordonFree, on 08/04/2008, -7/+2So you're saying theists have something more that atheists don't have? I think atheists have more. More intelligence. Statistically, that's actually correct.
- paidhima, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1@cloudberries
I think that's actually an excellent way of viewing atheism. Many people (religious and atheist alike) view atheism as somehow being anti-religion and anti-god. It's not. If it were, it would be called antitheism. - Griminald, on 08/04/2008, -0/+0Cloudberries does a pretty good job at describing the thought process behind it.
I'm agnostic and I go through some of the same misunderstandings as atheists. Unfortunately, and ironically, even "our" stance on religion is defined by many people by what our most activist "members" do.
- cloudberries, on 08/04/2008, -0/+20I was at the pub the other night. The guys I was with were talking feverishly about football, and quoting football trivia as if it was the most natural thing in the world. One guy asked us what team we support. When it got to me (what with me knowing nothing about football, and not caring about football in any way, shape or form), I just shrugged and said I didn't care for the sport.
- senatorpjt, on 08/04/2008, -0/+15I think the idea is that atheists think that religious superstition is holding society back from progress.
- SolidBones, on 08/04/2008, -2/+3I have to agree. I don't know any [intelligent] atheists who spent their time and money trying to crush other people's beliefs. Especially not at random on the side of a bus.
Live and let live. - shadovvman, on 08/04/2008, -0/+3Depends on your atheist perspective.
Some atheists think religious folk are the equivalent of children playing with their imaginary friends: silly, but not in the least dangerous, so let it alone.
Others think it's more like letting a child play with an imaginary friend who tells him to kill his parents.
From the second viewpoint, a little proselytizing to the cause is not unreasonable.
- Vegabondsx, on 08/04/2008, -1/+16As an Atheist I see Atheism as simply "A"-Theistic, or without theism. It's like not owning a car.
- reaver84, on 08/04/2008, -5/+3It seems as though Atheists stray from any organization or movement that benefits their belief, or lack thereof. I'm not surprised they didn't raise enough but their voice is heard already.
- Springdaddy, on 08/04/2008, -33/+6Wow, atheists are really lame for trying to do this ... plus this ad was almost as gay as Richard Simmons himself.
- housewarmer, on 08/04/2008, -3/+16Let's see, you managed to insult atheists, homosexuals and Richard Simmonns in only one sentence. Quite the hat trick.
- Springdaddy, on 08/04/2008, -2/+1Yup. I try to go for it all in one shot.
- housewarmer, on 08/04/2008, -3/+16Let's see, you managed to insult atheists, homosexuals and Richard Simmonns in only one sentence. Quite the hat trick.
- thinboyslim, on 08/04/2008, -11/+20There are atheist message boards? *sigh*
- onwardknave, on 08/04/2008, -3/+6Richard Dawkins' website has forums for people who wish to discuss atheism, among other things. Why would it depress you that people want to talk about it? Weighing ideas against others is the basis of civilization.
- thinboyslim, on 08/04/2008, -1/+2Are you proving a point?
The happiness I hold from being atheist is that I can walk past signs outside of churches saying "You're going to hell" without having to run inside and ask Why? Safe in the knowledge that I can drive behind a "Jesus Bus" without having the urge to run them from the road and demand elderly people's pensions back. And almost incandescent that I can simply say "No thank you" when jehovah witnesses come knocking on my door. If you feel the need to oppress others with a view that may or may not be true, however highly regarded that opinion, then maybe you should donate your money to have a sign on a bus. Personally I like to discover and form my own opinions, not have them thrust down my throat like a cheap advert for fast food.
- thinboyslim, on 08/04/2008, -1/+2Are you proving a point?
- shadovvman, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1Yes.
We call it "Digg."
- onwardknave, on 08/04/2008, -3/+6Richard Dawkins' website has forums for people who wish to discuss atheism, among other things. Why would it depress you that people want to talk about it? Weighing ideas against others is the basis of civilization.
- digitronix, on 08/04/2008, -10/+9Maybe they ought to follow the religious paradigm, by meeting in large groups and pass around an offering plate once in a while. Oh, wait... that would make them look too much like a religion.
- jman583, on 08/04/2008, -2/+5No, that would make them like a cult... oh wait.
- chicofaraby, on 08/04/2008, -11/+32Why would I give money to anyone regarding my lack of belief in fairy tales? That makes no sense. I simply don't give a crap about gods and monsters. If others want to believe in fairies they can. I just don't care. It's not important.
- Talphin, on 08/04/2008, -4/+4You say that until laws are passed that require you to pray 5 times a day or risk being arrested, tortured or executed. Think it can't happen in the U.S.? Think again. It's closer than you think.
- chicofaraby, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2Sure. I'll try to remember to quake in fear if I can work it into my busy afternoon schedule.
- Sharky35, on 08/04/2008, -1/+1And you sir/ mame are a real Atheist! Congratulations... seriously!
Those who feel the need to meet and worship the non-existence of a non-deity are agnostics in sheeps clothing. They feel that if they make a big enough ass of themselves, someone will pull them to the side, bust out the holy grail and turn water to wine for them. Just so they will STFU. - shadovvman, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2That's one way to look at it.
The other is that, on noting that one is surrounded by crazy people, one shouldn't assume they'll remain benignly silly instead of dangerous for forever. - smokesteam, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1Why the need to use words like "fairy tales"? Does it make you feel better than someone who chooses to believe differently than you?
- Talphin, on 08/04/2008, -4/+4You say that until laws are passed that require you to pray 5 times a day or risk being arrested, tortured or executed. Think it can't happen in the U.S.? Think again. It's closer than you think.
- mickhead, on 08/04/2008, -3/+56Most of us were too busy getting on with our lives to donate to pointless ads.
- DiggRational, on 08/04/2008, -2/+25As an athiest I really don't see the point of that ad. First, it was totally rubbish, and second - who was the target audience? If thiests aren't pursuaded by the most advance science and philosophical thinking we have at present...they're not exactly going to pay attention to a one-liner on a bus.
- nbcaffeine, on 08/04/2008, -0/+5Oh wow, a sign on the bus. I'd better rethink my beliefs!
- Sonan, on 08/04/2008, -0/+6I agree, but it would be nice to see our point of view expressed in public once in a while. I bet if most of us saw that bus, we'd crack a smile at least. So maybe the target audience should be other athiests?
- Frost9999, on 08/04/2008, -0/+5I say target it at children. They're the ones indoctrinated into religion. Give them some protection against religious brainwashing by having a photo of a child saying "There is no God."
- shadovvman, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2The point was to stimulate dialog.
Mission accomplished, looks like.
- RationalXubrnce, on 08/04/2008, -16/+7 It's not easy to organize people around the belief in nothing.
- saqer, on 08/04/2008, -4/+2I think you mean the belief in astronomically ridiculous numbers of chance
- housewarmer, on 08/04/2008, -3/+7You're both clueless. Atheism is not a "belief in nothing". The very concept of "belief" is antithetical to atheism which is a non-belief based upon sound reasoning and scientific evidence.
As for chance, the probability of any one event (say the development of life on earth) may be incredibly small, but in a vast universe across vast spans of time, the probability that SOME highly improbable event will occur is 1. - saqer, on 08/04/2008, -8/+1Yeah the chances of a big bang are not 1
- ApokalypseNow, on 08/04/2008, -1/+4The odds of things like the universe or DNA are not governed by chance, but by forces. Go learn about statistical thermodynamics before you start yammering about odds.
- saqer, on 08/04/2008, -5/+1yeah, forces that appeared out of nothingness. what a ***** *****
- Cate320, on 08/04/2008, -0/+4How is the universe appearing out of nothingness any less likely than a God appearing out of nothingness?
- housewarmer, on 08/04/2008, -3/+7You're both clueless. Atheism is not a "belief in nothing". The very concept of "belief" is antithetical to atheism which is a non-belief based upon sound reasoning and scientific evidence.
- sodoh, on 08/04/2008, -0/+5That is kind of incorrect. Atheists believe in a lot of things. They just don't believe in what equates to fairy tales.
I'm with DiggRational in that there is really no point to this advert.
There are hardcore atheists who think that everyone shouldn't believe in a god and belittle those that do. Which your run of the mill atheists think are whack jobs as well.
Atheism is about getting on with your life and not to blame everything on something that most likely does not exist.- housewarmer, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1No, it's precisely correct. Belief is a position that can be held in the absence of evidence or even contrary to evidence. Much closer to faith than a rational position.
- sodoh, on 08/04/2008, -0/+0Good point house warmer.
However I find those tag lack of belief to equate to everything a person may do. For example I have three exams coming up. Although I haven't sat them yet I believe I will pass them.
"I believe I will pass because I have done the study on it"
I might still fail but it doesn't mean Atheists don't have a belief system.
Of course if you were to compare that to religion then it would be "I believe I will pass because some higher being will pass it for me". - smokesteam, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1sodoh,
Are you "hardcore" for using words like "fairy tales" which serve no purpose but to belittle a theist of any form?
- senatorpjt, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1Really? I meet a lot of atheists when I go to scientific conferences.
- RationalXubrnce, on 08/04/2008, -1/+1 Geez guys where's the sense of humor?
- Mnementh2230, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2It's not the belief in nothing, it's a lack of faith.
- saqer, on 08/04/2008, -4/+2I think you mean the belief in astronomically ridiculous numbers of chance
- ChayesFSS, on 08/04/2008, -8/+6I didn't even read the story and don't really know what I'm doing here
- sodoh, on 08/04/2008, -1/+47As Colbert would say. "Where is your no god now Atheists!".
- lookadeez, on 08/04/2008, -4/+7just goes to show you, without God, you can't get an ad on a bus.
Out of the millions of people and businesses who aspire to have an ad on a bus but don't have the money to do it, why is this news? - waydee, on 08/04/2008, -1/+27I'm atheist, I'm not interested in trying to convince people to think like me. People can believe what they want, as long as I'm free to believe there is no god others should be free to believe there is.
- Sonan, on 08/04/2008, -1/+15But what about all the others who are trying to convince people to think like them? My 7-year-old daughter "believes in god" and she didn't get that from her parents, that's for sure. We can't shield her from the mainstream belief in deities, so why not make atheism more mainstream to even the playing field? Just my 2¢ as a concerned father.
- ZenMojo, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2So it's okay for atheists to have free will, but not 7 year old theists? How much more mainstream to a 7-year-old child can Atheism be than her parents?
- smokesteam, on 08/05/2008, -0/+2At the risk of being a jerk, it sounds like you are not performing your duty as a parent to indoctrinate your child. Also it sounds like you are pulling the typical American thing of blaming the outside world for your child's actions. My apologies for criticizing your parenting, but I wanted to reply to the idea in general.
- Sonan, on 08/06/2008, -0/+0I didn't say my daughter was a theist. I don't believe 7 year olds are capable of having such a title. She's merely repeating what her friends say, who are merely repeating what their parents say, and none of them have a clue what it means. To her, god is just another magical being like the Tooth Fairy, and I have little doubt she'll eventually stop believeing in both.
And for the record, I'm against the notion that you should indoctrinate your children with your own beliefs. That's actually the main problem here in my opinion, and it would be hipocritical to say it's ok for atheists to do it but not theists.
- JQP123, on 08/04/2008, -0/+12"People can believe what they want, as long as I'm free to believe..."
In theory, that is very reasonable and kind ... as far as it goes. In reality, it ignores the fact that theists are constantly attempting to impress their beliefs on others and enlist government support for doing so. The most obvious example being the ongoing effort to teach "creationism" as science. - sysop073, on 08/04/2008, -1/+4Yeah, I used to believe that, until people started getting elected to positions of power and taking away our freedoms because God says they're bad
- waydee, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1Yeah I can understand all of your concerns, I think in the UK there is less religious influence in law, education etc. and this might be the reason a campaign to promote atheism doesn't meet with much support.
I get the feeling, and I can only base this from what I read - never having lived in the US, that religion has more 'swing' in matters that affect everyone than it does here.
- Sonan, on 08/04/2008, -1/+15But what about all the others who are trying to convince people to think like them? My 7-year-old daughter "believes in god" and she didn't get that from her parents, that's for sure. We can't shield her from the mainstream belief in deities, so why not make atheism more mainstream to even the playing field? Just my 2¢ as a concerned father.
- ignite180, on 08/04/2008, -19/+2The lack of effort just shows that they are not sure if they want to be atheists.
So it should read.. "There probably is a God, but we're to lazy to seek for ourselves."- GordonFree, on 08/04/2008, -0/+7So the new concept is that we have to SEEK God? By paying churches and priests?
Like God is playing hide and seek or something?
Or you mean "seek" in your own inner psychology?- ignite180, on 08/04/2008, -7/+0Matthew 7:7-8
- SolidBones, on 08/04/2008, -1/+7ignite, people on digg don't own bibles.
- smokesteam, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1Too bad, being ignorant is such a shame.I can see how people might be threatened by books they wont read.
- PurpleSfinx, on 08/04/2008, -0/+5Don't you dare call me unconfident in my beliefs simply because you don't share them.
- GordonFree, on 08/04/2008, -0/+7So the new concept is that we have to SEEK God? By paying churches and priests?
- fx666, on 08/04/2008, -26/+2There are not too many atheists left on this planet. I, for once, was an atheist because was raised as one by my atheist father and agnostic mother.. But that all changed when I started reading books written by the most prominent evolutionists (that would be Darwin, Dobzhansky, G.G Simpson, Gould, Mayer, Stebbins and few others). Soon I realized how stupid these people are, and this was the best cure from atheism. I did not become a creationist, though, because I am a scientist and I know that the natural sciences cannot not be used to prove that God exists. Instead I became a non-practicing Buddhist, which means that I do not use the prayer as a mode of expression. Rather than praying I study the Buddhist literature, especially philosophical passages ascribed to Buddha. I also spend a lot of time criticizing the evolutionary theory, which is just as stupid as the creationist claims.
- Testiculese, on 08/04/2008, -2/+9There're about a billion Atheists/Agnostics. Other than them, yea, not too many at all.
- chicofaraby, on 08/04/2008, -3/+10Yeah. You're smarter than Darwin and Gould.
please- fx666, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1Being smarter than the idiots like Darwin and Gould is not something I would brag about because their intellectual level is too low to consider them as scientists.
- bsmang, on 08/04/2008, -2/+14Lol, you think atheism is in decline because you used to be one and aren't now? And you're a scientist who thinks evolution is as false as creationism? Somehow I suspect that your comment is 100% BS from beginning to end.
- fx666, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1Some people do not realize that there are many other options than being either a creationist or an evolutionist. I suggest you read more on this topic. Anyway, creationism is a relatively new doctrine, somehow anti-evolutionists got by without it for centuries.
- bsmang, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1You don't seem to understand. You sound as if though you think that creationism and evolution are both religions to be given equal consideration or something. Creationism is religion (a wild story made up by silly people who knew no better) from thousands of years ago. Evolution is science. It's actually something real with many examples, not something that's based only in one's imagination... And "evolutionist" is a really silly word -- you should say "scientist" or "person" instead.
Of course, I'm just saying what's real, ya know? If you want to have an opinion that's out in la-la land, then I guess that's your prerogative.
- istor, on 08/04/2008, -2/+11Thank you for your lovely story about how you became a moron.
- fx666, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1A moron is a one who reads the books that I listed without realizing that they are totally unscientific, that would be the likes of you.
- senatorpjt, on 08/04/2008, -1/+5However, I wouldn't really call Buddhism a form of "theism" either. Buddhism is actually an "atheist religion", which I suppose shows the two aren't really in opposition. I'd probably describe it as more of a "ritualized spiritualism".
Of course, what a lot of people describe as "atheism" is more accurately "scientific skepticism", not a lack of belief in a God specifically but the lack of belief in claims lacking empirical evidence under which Buddhism would also fall.
However, I think even these people would have to admit that acceptance of scientific skepticism may be unsatisfying for a great many people, to know that this is really all there is and after you're dead you're just a piece of rotting meat - among strongly religious persons such a sudden realization is referred to as an "existential crisis" and can possibly provoke a severe psychological reaction such as a total mental breakdown. It is therefore important that if one is to accept "atheism" of this type that they have a pre-existing "meaning of life" beyond that provided by their religion.
However, as Buddhism is a form of spiritual atheism it's sort of a "middle way" (which would make sense to a buddhist) between the belief in a personal God which is protecting them from themselves and a belief that there is no greater organizing principle behind existence.- smokesteam, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1In theory you are correct. In practice, most sects of Buddhism behave much like any other religions. Most dont proselytize, but other than that there are are the hierarchies, prayer rituals, dogmas and intercene rivalries between sects.
- fx666, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1All Buddhists believe in reincarnation, while all atheists deny it because, in their view, there is no afterlife. So far no one atheist, except for you, classified Buddhism as an atheist religion.
As for the empirical evidence, I can provide such showing that the past lives exist, although I cannot prove existence of a creator.
I think you are confusing atheism with agnosticism. My mother is an agnostic who believes that the existence of afterlife cannot be proved or disproved -- this is the basis of agnosticism. My late atheist father used to believe that there is nothing beyond the grave
- ApokalypseNow, on 08/04/2008, -1/+4Your personal anecdotes in no way contradict the real numbers, which show that secular groups are the fastest growing demographic in the category of faiths (or in this case, lack thereof).
- cthellis, on 08/04/2008, -1/+3>> I also spend a lot of time criticizing the evolutionary theory, which is just as stupid as the creationist claims.
AH-hahahahahahaheeeeee~~!!
*wipes a tear*
Whew! Thanks for that. - shadovvman, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1Evolution /= atheism.
Disbelief in one does not dictate disbelief in another.
Unless you're an idiot.- fx666, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1One of the most prominent evolutionists, Theodosius Dobzhansky, was also a deeply religious person, I know his story. But for his religious beliefs he was taking a lot of heat from his fellow evolutionists. His story is one of the few exceptions from the general rule stating that atheism = evolutionism.
- GordonFree, on 08/04/2008, -18/+15What's up with digg lately being all christian and *****?
- deweyhewson, on 08/04/2008, -2/+1Digg may be less anti-God, but it sure as Hell ain't Christian.
Kind of an ironic statement now that I read through it. :) - sysop073, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2I know you're getting dugg down, but it has been getting progressively less atheist anyway. There used to be no "***** you, God is the *****" comments before, but now there always are
- deweyhewson, on 08/04/2008, -2/+1Digg may be less anti-God, but it sure as Hell ain't Christian.
- lemur, on 08/04/2008, -22/+5Atheism... looks good on paper, but real life implementation is a totally different story.
- jkichline, on 08/04/2008, -8/+5"Where your money is, there your heart will be also." Why do atheist try to get people to believe in unbelief?
- martian, on 08/04/2008, -4/+3You don't think delusional people should be helped?
- bagelmaster, on 08/04/2008, -1/+1Actually, now that you mention it, no. They just shouldn't have any real power either.
- smokesteam, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1Dont you think that might go both ways from the perspective of some theists?
- martian, on 08/04/2008, -4/+3You don't think delusional people should be helped?
- pinchduck, on 08/04/2008, -1/+26Rather than some goofy ad, why don't the the atheists ban together to do something worthwhile for downtrodden humans? Take on Religion on it's own home court. Within an hour of my home, I have 3 or 4 hospitals run by the Catholic church and lots of soup kitchens run by all kinds of religious institutions. Wouldn't be cool to be able to check in to the Carl Sagan Research Hospital? Maybe be able to refer people to the Shemer Skeptical Soup Kitchen for a bowl of hot soup and a clean, safe place to spend the night? Give every guest a copy of "Demon Haunted World". Individuals could go to sporting events, sit a few rows from the "John 3:14" guy and hold up an "E=MC^2" sign.
- Pic0, on 08/04/2008, -9/+2Way to push your beliefs on others, *****.
- pinchduck, on 08/04/2008, -0/+10I make a suggestion on digg and I'm pushing my beliefs on others? Wow do you have a low "I'm a victim" threshold. Whatever, man.
- smokesteam, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1Seems people didnt get Pic0's joke...
- smokesteam, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1Very good point. Not sure if enough people would want to go to such places to make them self supporting or financially viable, but it would be a way to earn respect. It really does not take a degree in sociology to see that one reason organized religions get respect is because they do things for the sick, the hungry and the poor. Of course in the end, the fruits of science are benefit these efforts, but indeed where IS the Concerned Skeptics Nutrition Center? I wonder though, would a skeptical soup kitchen also serve the theistic or agnostic hungry? ^_^
- asiarock, on 08/05/2008, -0/+2After reading many of the comments from Athiests on Digg, they are probably the last people that I would want running a hospital or homeless shelter.
- Pic0, on 08/04/2008, -9/+2Way to push your beliefs on others, *****.
- ObamaWins08, on 08/04/2008, -10/+9Hmmm soliciting donations to further your beliefs (or non-beliefs)?
Sounds awfully religous to me...- housewarmer, on 08/04/2008, -2/+9So by your reasoning, groups like political parties and such, could be classified as religion too huh?
- MrWhite7, on 08/04/2008, -0/+5... have you ever been around active members of a political party?
- martian, on 08/04/2008, -0/+7Oh really? What god is being worshiped?
If you call "soliciting donations to further your non-beliefs" a religion? Remind me not to buy YOUR dictionary.- fmyidotcom, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2How can you have a "non belief", especially in this situation? A non belief would imply that you don't care at all, you believe in nothing. This is clearly not the case; these few atheists obviously felt very strongly about what they were doing.
- ZenMojo, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1Agnosticism is non-belief, i.e., apathetic judgment. Atheism is belief in the absence of something.
- housewarmer, on 08/04/2008, -2/+9So by your reasoning, groups like political parties and such, could be classified as religion too huh?
- jferrari, on 08/04/2008, -2/+13More importantly why are there still bendy busses on our roads?
- freexe, on 08/04/2008, -1/+1They carry more people and load and unload faster than normal buses.
- kinerry, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1they also fail more
- Rotzooi, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1freexe, if you watched Top Gear, you'd know what jferrari is referring to.
- freexe, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1If you lived in London and get bendy buses regularly you wouldn't mind them so much.
- freexe, on 08/04/2008, -1/+1They carry more people and load and unload faster than normal buses.
- stringerbell, on 08/04/2008, -1/+5That's the thing... Atheists don't really care about brain-washing other people that much. Now, just imagine there was a religious plea to raise funds to create an advert that pointed out the wonders of God and the evils of (insert your favorite sin here). Think there would be any problem raising the money in that case?...
- Sonan, on 08/04/2008, -1/+1The slogan "man + woman = family" was all over the buses when a marriage amendment was being proposed, funded by the local mega-church (we call it Six Flags over Jesus).
- smokesteam, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1If a group wanted to advocate a different view, they certainly could buy ad space as well.
- Sonan, on 08/04/2008, -1/+1The slogan "man + woman = family" was all over the buses when a marriage amendment was being proposed, funded by the local mega-church (we call it Six Flags over Jesus).
- hamdoken, on 08/04/2008, -1/+11Who cares? This is viral marketing. A non-organization creates a non-story about their barely-existent effort failing and suddenly they get far more press than if they had actually put up those ads.
Stop being Cloverfield suckers.- VitriolAndAngst, on 08/04/2008, -3/+1This will prove to some religious exactly whatever they were already prepared to believe -- and of course, it was God's will that .0000001% of the Religious marketing budget would fail.
Oh, and there is a war on Christmas and our 1 Billion + people are being persecuted. Amen.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 08/04/2008, -3/+1This will prove to some religious exactly whatever they were already prepared to believe -- and of course, it was God's will that .0000001% of the Religious marketing budget would fail.
- Rudegar, on 08/04/2008, -2/+3wonder if it would work with redheads
or lefthanded people
?- bagelmaster, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2Gingers are an abomination upon God! Lefthanded people are cool though.
- hpymondays, on 08/04/2008, -0/+24$50,000 for an ad on a single bus for two weeks? That sounds like a ripoff to me. I could buy a bus of my own for that money.
- derjames, on 08/04/2008, -0/+5everything in London is just a... ripoff
- vulapine, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1I think hpymondays is unfamiliar with outdoor advertising.
- hpymondays, on 08/04/2008, -0/+3I am not but please explain if you are. It could be argued that you don't need passengers if you make that kind of money from advertising. I would just buy buses and roam them empty around the city with that money.
- mtmtmtmt, on 08/04/2008, -0/+5Perhaps if they'd bothered to hire someone remotely competent to do the ad, it would've worked better.
Just a thought. - martian, on 08/04/2008, -5/+3Regardless of whether we atheists are willing to cough up money for our non-cause, that still doesn't make the existence of gods any more plausible.
- mdinire, on 08/04/2008, -1/+3..or the non-existence. Many atheists put their beliefs in science but this seems to be the one area where their scientific methods are not necessary. I would call myself an atheist too but I have respect for other people's faith.
- Braindead360, on 08/04/2008, -8/+7I still don't understand why so many atheist are making it their whole hearted attempts at crushing religion. I understand that everyone is entitled own their own beliefs and oppinions, but your all acting as if Christians or any other religious groups are taking something away from you. If you really think about it, you guys have already won the socialistic fight. God has been taken out of schools. Courts have removed the ten commandments from their walkways. Most workforces shun upon any mentioning of religious affiliation. At the end of the day, what difference does it make what someone wants to believe?
- senatorpjt, on 08/04/2008, -0/+4It's not hard to argue that the personal religious beliefs held by individuals have a collective effect of impeding the progress of society as a whole. As most every religion I can think of relies on texts composed at a fixed point of time in the past they tend to be resistant to new ideas.
- vulapine, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2Is some social progress slowed by old ideas, sure. But let us not forget that religious views (in their purest sense) have historically been very progressive. We have yet to attain the goal set about 2 millennia that everyone is equal regardless of birth or race or gender. That's still a progressive idea, even today, and is a religious idea all the same.
But we must take care to not lose site of the here and now as we seek the light of progress. If being compassionate, building hospitals, caring for orphaned children, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, comforting the sick, attending to the lonely, and helping to meet the needs of fellow human beings wherever they may be impedes progress, then perhaps we need to change our view of progress. - smokesteam, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1Interestingly enough, most of those values are actually mandated in what Christians call the "Old Testament"
- vulapine, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2Is some social progress slowed by old ideas, sure. But let us not forget that religious views (in their purest sense) have historically been very progressive. We have yet to attain the goal set about 2 millennia that everyone is equal regardless of birth or race or gender. That's still a progressive idea, even today, and is a religious idea all the same.
- JQP123, on 08/04/2008, -2/+5"God has been taken out of schools."
And religious adherents are doing everything possible to put god back in schools. In many ways, religion is the antithesis of education.- smokesteam, on 08/05/2008, -0/+0Then how do you explain the phenomenon that in US cities where school vouchers have been tested, many parents who claim no particular religious affiliation choose to send their kids to Catholic schools? Why is it that lots of ethnically but non practicing Jewish parents still choose to send their kids to Yeshivas?
Perhaps you wanted to say that belief in dogma can limit a person's ability to accept new ideas or something like that?
In any case, if you dont like whats happening at your local school board, get involved.
- smokesteam, on 08/05/2008, -0/+0Then how do you explain the phenomenon that in US cities where school vouchers have been tested, many parents who claim no particular religious affiliation choose to send their kids to Catholic schools? Why is it that lots of ethnically but non practicing Jewish parents still choose to send their kids to Yeshivas?
- erossmu, on 08/04/2008, -2/+6Probably because I care about this planet and the people on it, regardless of where they are or what they believe in.
Telling people in an over-populated, HIV infested country that contraception--one of the cheapest solutions to HIV and pregnancy prevention excluding abstinence--is illegal because some religious leader deems it so, is not okay by me and I'm going to do everything I can to help the efforts to stop this movement.
Religion is disgusting and I want it to be "crushed," and I don't care what anyone says.- runCMD, on 08/04/2008, -2/+1And the world says ... yawn.
- senatorpjt, on 08/04/2008, -0/+4It's not hard to argue that the personal religious beliefs held by individuals have a collective effect of impeding the progress of society as a whole. As most every religion I can think of relies on texts composed at a fixed point of time in the past they tend to be resistant to new ideas.
- jayscot, on 08/04/2008, -2/+7If there is no God the what does it matter what you put on a bus?
The majority of Atheists were only being true to their belief (or lack thereof...or whatever).- Pic0, on 08/04/2008, -2/+5Seriously... I hate people pushing their beliefs onto others
- futuretheory, on 08/04/2008, -8/+7Why would an atheist try and push their "religion" on others? It's that kinda crap that made me question religion in the first place.
- Jaablaze, on 08/04/2008, -4/+4religious advertisments aren't something to "combat". If they don't interfere with your atheism why even care. If you get so frustrated about people believing in what you think is a stupid idea, think of it this way. Just as an idea of a God sounds dumb to you, the idea that our existence doesn't promote an intelligent design sounds dumb to them.
- flashback99, on 08/04/2008, -3/+11The problem is that when you leave stupid people alone for a few decades, they suddenly come back posing stupidity as fact. And if you dont educate them, they become presidents that do stupid things like go to war and ignore economic crisis.
- Jaablaze, on 08/04/2008, -1/+1wow, are you really blaming George Bush's horrific presidency on religion? Anyway, you say stupid people like it can be 100% proven that God does not exist or that there is no evidence at all to support intelligent design. Examples of something that can be classified as stupid would be walking in front of a bus, putting your hand in a blender, drinking gasoline. But until someone can prove one way or another there is no stupid in either belief. While the similarity between human and ape DNA may be enough for you to not believe in God, the complexities of the brain and nervous system is enough for others to believe in intelligent design.
- flashback99, on 08/04/2008, -1/+1"wow, are you really blaming George Bush's horrific presidency on religion?"
No im blaming it on the combined stupidity of Bush and the idiots who voted him in twice.
"Anyway, you say stupid people like it can be 100% proven that God does not exist or that there is no evidence at all to support intelligent design."
I have news for you: you are stupid. - Jaablaze, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1I have news for you: you are a *****.
Turn your nose down for a second and learn to accept diversity.
- flashback99, on 08/04/2008, -3/+11The problem is that when you leave stupid people alone for a few decades, they suddenly come back posing stupidity as fact. And if you dont educate them, they become presidents that do stupid things like go to war and ignore economic crisis.
- n1kon82, on 08/04/2008, -7/+1Good. I'm glad this thing didn't get off the ground. The last thing atheists need to do is get up on a high horse and start preaching their beliefs (or lack thereof) to everyone. Makes them no better than the religious whack jobs who seem to make a living ramming their beliefs down everyone's throat.
- TechboyUK, on 08/04/2008, -3/+12Atheists have nothing to prove so don't need to advertise.
All the religious divisions/sects are trying to promote an idea/concept (and they all have books to sell) so need to advertise.- stinkymonkey, on 08/04/2008, -2/+4Good point.
Religion is really just a business and hands down, the biggest scam of all time.
- stinkymonkey, on 08/04/2008, -2/+4Good point.
- mlvassallo, on 08/04/2008, -7/+14When did Atheism become a religion?
- VitriolAndAngst, on 08/04/2008, -3/+11It never did.
- bagelmaster, on 08/04/2008, -2/+7Calling Atheism a religion is like calling Anarchy a form of government.
- sysop073, on 08/04/2008, -0/+6I prefer "Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color"
- skeen07, on 08/04/2008, -4/+17You're missing the point. It's not about "evangelizing atheism", it's a reaction to the ludicrous ads plaguing London buses. Every time I go to and from work, I have to look at some stupid saying that a fictional character, who causes mass amounts of intolerance, allegedly said.
I like this ad. It will promote discussion on the topic of religion, and will encourage people further to not treat religion more respectfully than they would any other viewpoint.
I'd quite like to see the hypocritical backlash from Christians, and to see how they justify their beliefs. Hell, after writing this, I think this ad is necessary!- erossmu, on 08/04/2008, -0/+5I agree, the ad doesn't have to be interpreted as Atheists trying to "convert" people, but an ad to encourage discussion about the topic and to let other Atheists know that there are movements currently active that are trying to raise the consciousness of their community. There are alternatives to believing in fictional characters, it's time it became socially accepted.
- runCMD, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1Society accepts the fact that you don't believe in fictional characters. : ) Silly.
- CourtesyFlush, on 08/04/2008, -2/+4"Look at this ad! LOOK AT IT!"
I tend to tune out advertising. In some areas, one is literally surrounded by it. All of it is trying to win you over and influence you to part with your money. It's the nature of the business.
I see absolutely no reason to single any group out for posting an advertisement.
Don't look now, but your bitterness is showing.- skeen07, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1Yes, I'm bitter about religious advertisements, and I've every right to be - it's not something I care to change, and an "atheist" ad might balance the scales a bit.
- CourtesyFlush, on 08/04/2008, -1/+2So....do you think there should be more taco ads to balance the burger and chicken campaigns?
Are there enough seafood ads for you?
- erossmu, on 08/04/2008, -0/+5I agree, the ad doesn't have to be interpreted as Atheists trying to "convert" people, but an ad to encourage discussion about the topic and to let other Atheists know that there are movements currently active that are trying to raise the consciousness of their community. There are alternatives to believing in fictional characters, it's time it became socially accepted.
- flashback99, on 08/04/2008, -2/+9*sigh*
In the entire known history of the earth there has never been a single piece of scientifically verified evidence to suggest that a creator exists or that life has an ultimate absolute meaning or purpose.
*sigh*- angryfirelord, on 08/04/2008, -2/+5On the contrary, there also is no evidence that says a creator doesn't exist either. Scientific theories have to do two things: Prove the supporting theory correct and prove the other theories wrong. We seem to only focus on one or the other.
- shadovvman, on 08/04/2008, -1/+1Sophistry.
- flashback99, on 08/04/2008, -1/+1no shadovvman, is called Stupidity.
@angryfirelord: there's no god, now deal with it. - flashback99, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1There's no evidence that santa claus exists. Why do us normal people have to listen to you delusional people? Either there is a god or there isnt. It's not like your imagination is suddenly going to affect everyone elses reality. (and magically create physical evidence)
- poopyloopster, on 08/04/2008, -3/+2How about billions of people that believe in FAITH in GOD.Does it prove God exist no,But it proves people want to believe something GREATER. For some strnage reason some you atheist attack it constantly and you guy's don't even believe it is real.
- flashback99, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1just because people want something greater doesnt mean it is real. After all if you are going to tell people that they way they live their life is wrong based upon a desire, rather than reality, then you are deluding both them and yourself.
If a theist claims that their god is real and has physical effect on the real world, they are going t have to prove it.. and they cant, never have been able to and never will be able to..
- flashback99, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1just because people want something greater doesnt mean it is real. After all if you are going to tell people that they way they live their life is wrong based upon a desire, rather than reality, then you are deluding both them and yourself.
- detokaal, on 08/05/2008, -1/+2The first fallacy of science is that everything can be known through our five physical senses. That takes a lot of faith for such a big assumption - especially since it that premise can never be verified. Let science stick to what it is good at and let religion have the other, more important subject matter.
- flashback99, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1rubbish, what do you think an electron microscope is? or a thermal imaging camera? or infrared detector? what senses are those mr detokaal?
It takes no faith at all. several of the technologies that deal with things we cant see or detect with our five senses are inside the computer you typed with.
Religion covers no subject matter other than the imagination. - detokaal, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1Our bodies are aware of every single one of those items you mentioned: heat, touch, light, etc. Maybe the human body cannot consciously sense the entire SCALE, indeed some animals and things in nature respond to them on a scale beyond ours. We even believe some animals are sensitive to the earth's magnetosphere.
My point still stands. Those all start by observation with our senses, even if we need tools to see or measure the entire range beyond our physical abilities.
Science at its core, is religion, believing something based on the evidence you currently have in front of you. It is yet another feeble attempt to answer humanity's big questions. Why are we here? Is there a purpose to my existence? Is there something more than this? Why is there something rather than nothing? What is right and wrong?
You believe the answers lie in science - another 1000 years from now, after you are long dead, some humans will still be looking to science for answers to these questions only a relationship with God can answer. Let science look to the physical world for answers, leave the important topics to religion.
- flashback99, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1rubbish, what do you think an electron microscope is? or a thermal imaging camera? or infrared detector? what senses are those mr detokaal?
- angryfirelord, on 08/04/2008, -2/+5On the contrary, there also is no evidence that says a creator doesn't exist either. Scientific theories have to do two things: Prove the supporting theory correct and prove the other theories wrong. We seem to only focus on one or the other.
- drmangrum, on 08/04/2008, -2/+13Maybe because there are more Atheists than Christians that don't want to shove their beliefs down others throats.
- Weirdsmobile, on 08/04/2008, -3/+14"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and get on with your life."
Haha...the irony of this message is that it applies equally to the kind of atheists who would waste their time and money placing this ridiculous ad.
Believe in God, don't believe in God...WHATEVER. Deal with the fact that people have different beliefs or lack thereof, and concentrate on trying not to be a complete douchebag in a world of brimming over with douche.- VitriolAndAngst, on 08/04/2008, -0/+3This message brought to you by the committee to reduce Douchey-ness.
- cubicledrone, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1"world brimming over with douche"
win
- HearWa, on 08/04/2008, -2/+9The London atheists need to take their own advice. There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and get on with your life!
- VitriolAndAngst, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2Which is why they didn't need to respond to the ad pandering to their belief system. Sheesh!
- JQP123, on 08/04/2008, -0/+3"The London atheists need to take their own advice."
Judging from the story ... the majority of them did.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 105 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is