'There definitely is a God': Christians hit back at atheist buses with own adverts

Originally posted by karl 12
Would you be offended if an advertisement like this went out?

It's not offensive, it's merely incorrect. If you put "One religion flies you into a building" then perhaps that's the case metaphorically (since religion doesn't fly anything). Also, not all science flies you to the moon unless you can instruct me how I as a biochemist can make a chemical that teleports me to the moon.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by saint4God]

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge

On the other hand at least they remind people that there is more then a material world.

I sometimes wonder if they really do. I was not "brainwashed" into any faith at all, but I have a belief in something other than the material world. I think that most people would, even if no brainwashing were done at all. Look at how unsuccessful attempts to impose atheism have been? It isnt all brainwashing, rightly or wrongly most of us have an inherent "sense" that there is something other than the material world. We may all be wrong about that, it could well be a built in delusion, but none the less, being shared by so many makes it "real" enough, regardless if it has any objective basis.

I am not opposed at all to people having a sense of the Divine. And I dont mind what they do, (harming no other) in their worship of that Divinity. I think it is a natural part of being human. Now the imposition of a certain type of religion, on the other hand, I have great opposition to. You say;

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
Personally i fear that scientifically driven desire for efficiency will eventually terminate all the people. So this compared to not-so-gentle "brainwashing" demanded by religion is pretty intense.

And I dont wholly disagree that science could take us there. So could a religious war. The problem, as I see it, is that both the scientist who seeks to impose their will upon nature, and the religious person who seeks to impose their will (disguised as Gods will) upon nature, are both making the same mistake.

Nature IS Gods will. Regardless what point of view you take, be it evolutionary, or creationistic, what we see around us is the result of the same process that brought us to life.

Both those who say, "we have dominion over the Earth, God will provide, we need to multiply" and those who say, "Science has subdued nature, our cleverness will provide, we need to expand societies" are both saying essentially the same thing. I would argue that even the Atheist scientist who thinks that we can ever do anything other than work WITH nature is deluded, and most likely by the same "dominion over the Earth" mindset that he would never agree to if he or she realized the source of it.

I would argue that sure, science may create the nuclear weapons that could destroy us, it is the "We are right! We are the chosen ones!" mindset that will actually push the launch button. And I am not singling any one religion out with that "chosen ones" argument. Whether they outright say so or not, every religion operates under the assumption that those who follow its teachings are special in the eyes of the Divine. Some scientists who claim to be atheists have this very same delusion that THEY are the chosen ones.

The destruction of human kind, if it is self inflicted, will not be the result of technology alone. It will be the result of this false sense of specialness and the belief that what we want should dictate what actually IS.

At the heart of most spiritual traditions and science itself sits a very different truth. Regardless what the "true believers" of science and religion think. That truth is the we are dependent upon "what is" and that the right way to live is to discern first what is, and then figure out a way to act in harmony with it. Whether you choose to call it the will of God or natural law, we are supposed to submit to it, not it to us. Any forward motion or gain we make comes from our figuring out how to work WITH nature, not by rejecting it outright.

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
How they play out - is merely result of our design and usage.

And that is exactly my belief. Which is why I argue against religion itself but not the idea of a Divinity or spiritual belief itself. Religion is designed by men, not by Gods. Although I know that is contentious. And there are scientists who are more religious than they know, even if they eschew the idea of a Divinity. Many still practice the religion of "my will, not thy will" and spit in the face of nature the same way many of the religious spit in the face of their God by following the teachings of men and not allowing the Divine and its dictate of cooperation with each other and nature to lead them personally.



[edit on 6-2-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]

[edit on 6-2-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]

Originally posted by saint4God
It's not offensive, it's merely incorrect. If you put "One religion flies you into a building" then perhaps that's the case metaphorically

Maybe its just like when overtly religious folk get confused about the opinion that 'god definitely exists'.
Theres not just one god but hundreds of thousands of them.
Which one (if any) is right?

Also if a beleif was 'fact',you wouldn't need to have 'faith' in it would you?

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

Originally posted by karl 12
Maybe its just like when overtly religious folk get confused about the opinion that 'god definitely exists'.

I don't know why 'god definitely exists' would confuse overtly religious folk.

Originally posted by karl 12
Theres not just one god but hundreds of thousands of them.
Which one (if any) is right?

As the sign capitalizes and holds in singular form, it's saying there is only one. It doesn't say "gods" and for good reason.

Originally posted by karl 12
Also if a beleif was 'fact',you wouldn't need to have 'faith' in it would you?

We all have faith in facts all the time, our world operates on this premise. If you drive to work/school, you have faith that the building will be there when you arrive. The fact is it's there but until you see it you have faith.

a few weeks ago we had the christian bus driver who said NO in driving a Bus that has a sign saying there isnt a God

so can we expect Athiest Bus drivers to say no to these along with Hundu, Muslim, Jewish and people of other faiths saying no to driving a Bus that has a sign saying

"There definitely is a God; so join the Christian Party and enjoy your life."

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)


can anyone imagine if it had a Jewish, Muslim, Hindu slogon insted
of Join the Christian party? wounder what outcrys we would get

Originally posted by saint4God

It's not false advertising, it's true. I know it to be true and have obtained my proof. Sorry that you haven't yet, but if anyone would like to sincerely know how to obtain theirs, feel free to U2U me.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by saint4God]

People claim to have been abducted by aliens, traveled to another dimension while having an out of body experience, seen Christ, etc. Claiming to have seen God or experienced something mystical is of course, in the same category.

Originally posted by karl 12
[
I think if we do not get a grip on what is decently acceptable to advertise in the public arena then we open the floodgates to all manner of extremist agenda and preconceived opinion.

Would you be offended if an advertisement like this went out?

I'm not one to bust out laughing, but if I saw a bus driving down the road with that slogan it would sure get a snicker out of me.

So, how about the christians ad goes on one side of the bus, and the athiest ad goes on the other? Sounds fair to me.



[edit on 6-2-2009 by Clark W. Griswold]

Originally posted by saint4God
As the sign capitalizes and holds in singular form, it's saying there is only one. It doesn't say "gods" and for good reason.

Why for good reason?
The opinion that there are several gods is just as feasible and plausible as your opinion that there is just one.

Do you have any corroborating evidence to give one opinion dominion over the other?
If not why not?

Athena was the Greek goddess of wisdom or (Renenutet the Egyptian cobra goddess of fertility) is just as likely to exist as the abrahamic god
..who, it seems, was not a very nice chap.

We all have faith in facts all the time, our world operates on this premise. If you drive to work/school, you have faith that the building will be there when you arrive. The fact is it's there but until you see it you have faith.

Nonsensical gibberish and doublespeak - its called faith because it is not factual in nature and people have to suspend their disbeleif in a certain opinion due to a complete lack of evidence of any kind.
If you think faith is factual why don't you jump out of an aeroplane without a parachute on?

One of America's finest writers Mark Twain makes a good point:

You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons,
sticks turning into snakes, burning bushes, food falling from the sky,
people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive
stories, and you say that WE are the ones that need help?
Mark Twain

I have no problem with people who beleive in talking animals,sticks turning into snakes,flying horses,moons splitting in half etc..

Let them beleive in pixies and munchkins for all I care -just don't try and foist these opinions on everyone else as factual in nature.



[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

Originally posted by GeeGee
People claim to have been abducted by aliens, traveled to another dimension while having an out of body experience, seen Christ, etc. Claiming to have seen God or experienced something mystical is of course, in the same category.

You claim you exist, can I wave you off that you don't? I have with me something God wrote as well. If you say you exist, then surely you could understand how someone could say God exists according to what He wrote. I, on the other hand, required a whole lot more proof than writtings or a singular experience.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by saint4God]

I'd like to see someone sue them for false advertising...

Originally posted by Clark W. Griswold
So, how about the christians ad goes on one side of the bus, and the athiest ad goes on the other? Sounds fair to me.

Why not? You'd have both sides of the argument represented in that case. No complaints here. We can take a poll to see if people on the east side of the street then believe in God and people on the west side of the street do not.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by saint4God]

Originally posted by karl 12
Why for good reason?

By good reason I mean clear intent, perhaps that would've been a better way of putting it. I believe the reasoning is good, but to those who don't believe perhaps they could read into it as 'non-accidentally so'.

Originally posted by karl 12
Do you have any corroborating evidence to give one opinion dominion over the other?
If not why not?

Yes, but it's not shareable.

Originally posted by karl 12
If you think faith is factual why don't you jump out of an aeroplane without a parachute on?

Faith must be founded upon facts. I have faith that if I jump out of an aeroplane without a parachute on I would die. My faith will likely be proven right.

Originally posted by karl 12
sticks turning into snakes, burning bushes, food falling from the sky,
people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive
stories, and you say that WE are the ones that need help?

Sounds wild, doesn't it?

Originally posted by karl 12
-just don't try and foist these opinions on everyone else as factual in nature.

Ah, here we go again with the "help! I'm being oppressed!" argument again. It do get so tiring after having to refute over and over again. I'll save my words this time because the outcome is predictable.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by saint4God]

[edit on 6-2-2009 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
Faith must be founded on facts.

Not realy;


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

Correction, my faith is founded upon facts. This is called a 'seeing faith' whereas there are those who can accept things on 'blind faith'. I appreciate the contention so that I am presented with the opportunity to clarify that what I know of faith does not describe all of what faith can be.


[edit on 6-2-2009 by saint4God]

"Clever" little sayings are no good proof of any kind of supernatural entity controlling the universe, or however you want to define "God." They're just dumb little sayings.

If religious people want to convince me of such a thing, all they have to do is reasonably define what they're talking about, and then offer me good proof that what they defined actually exists in some way that means something to me.

How simple is that? No need to get snarky about it.

Originally posted by saint4God

It's not offensive, it's merely incorrect. If you put "One religion flies you into a building" then perhaps that's the case metaphorically (since religion doesn't fly anything).

In your next post you say that there is a very good reason the sign on the bus doesnt say "Gods." And here you say, "one religion.." trying to separate the Christian from the Muslim. However, and correct me if I am wrong, do not Christians, Jews, and Muslims all worship the same God?

Would it have been more correct to say "God flies you into buildings?"

Edit to add;

BTW, I am not saying you are wrong for believing what you do. I have a belief that I can never prove myself. And, like yours it is a seeing belief not a blind one. However, I do not confuse what I believe to be true with what I can prove to be true. To me, my belief IS true, if it werent, I would not believe it, (that should be obvious) but I can never "prove" it. Not even to myself, as I always have to acknowledge the possibility that my experience was some sort of delusion.

Of course, to be fair, there is also the possibility that ALL my experiences, even ones I have in a lab, are hallucinations as well. Or the actions of a image in a holograph.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]

Originally posted by saint4God

You claim you exist, can I wave you off that you don't? I have with me something God wrote as well. If you say you exist, then surely you could understand how someone could say God exists according to what He wrote. I, on the other hand, required a whole lot more proof than writtings or a singular experience.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by saint4God]

My existence is verifiable. God's is not.

And yes, "writings" isn't enough to prove that a supernatural deity exists. You can believe what you want, but that does not sound very convincing.

There is probably more evidence for UFO's and aliens than a supernatural deity, to be honest.

Originally posted by GeeGee
My existence is verifiable. God's is not.

Yes good point

Here are some apt quotes:

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Philip K. Dick

"Belief in the supernatural reflects a failure of the imagination."
Edward Abbey

"Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to investigate."
F.M. Knowles

"Faith is a euphemism for prejudice and religion is a euphemism for superstition."
Paul Keller

"Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them."
Peter Ustinov

The human brain is a very powerful thing and I suppose you could make the correlation between people who wholeheartedly believe in Voodoo magic often showing psychosimatic symptoms when they find out they've been put under a curse.
Despite it feeling very real to them,the curse is illusionary and the phenomenon has more to do with the psychological make up of the brain rather than any paranormal explanation.

And yes, "writings" isn't enough to prove that a supernatural deity exists. You can believe what you want, but that does not sound very convincing.

No it doesn't,especialy when people just cherrypick the nice bits from the abrahamic mythologies and leave out all the unhinged,sociopathic instruction.

Its interesting that when you actualy ask a 'true beleiver' how he/she actualy knows that "god definitely exists" all you get back are vague mutterings,ambivalent remarks,ambiguous comments and nonsensical cryptic doublespeak.

I suppose a person could beleive with all their heart that
'The Lord of the Rings' is a factual,historical document - it doesn't necessarily make it true.

There is probably more evidence for UFO's and aliens than a supernatural deity, to be honest.

George makes some good points:

Google Video Link

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

Originally posted by karl 12

Its interesting that when you actualy ask a 'true beleiver' how he/she actualy knows that "god definitely exists" all you get back are vague mutterings,ambivalent remarks,ambiguous comments and nonsensical cryptic doublespeak.

Well, that may be what you normally get, but there are those who have a personal experience that leads them to their belief. Just like touching a table makes me assume its existence. Mind you my God is not the Christian God as they describe it, it is more the God of Spinoza, or Einstein. Not an anthropomorphized God. But my experience of it was personal and first hand, not based on hearsay.

Now mind you, I am not trying to convince YOU that YOU should believe. I am not at all. I know, I am well aware, that some error of my brain could have caused that experience, and that it may in fact have no objective reality at all.

But, for me, it was as real as the keyboard I am typing on right now. Like your one quote; "Reality is that which when you quit believing in it, doesnt go away."

However, being a philosopher who loves science, I also am acutely aware that I could be "a brain in a vat" as the thought experiment goes, being stimulated with electrical signals. I have no way of knowing if what I perceive myself to touch, eat, smell, etc., have any existence outside of my own mind. Not only my "mystic" experience could be the result of electrical activity in my brain, and nothing more, but ALL my experience could be that.

I see Descartes statement being played fast and loose here. (Though it was never quoted as such) that one can know that one exists. But let us not forget Descartes did not say he could know his body exists. He only said that the fact that there was some "I" questioning its own existence meant that that "I" had existence. He did not make a statement that we could know beyond a doubt that material reality was an objective fact.