Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: 24KT on January 29, 2009, 01:49:26 PM
-
'No God' Ads, Soon To Appear On TTC Vehicles,
Spark Heated Debate
Thursday January 29, 2009
CityNews.ca Staff
(http://www.citynews.ca/images/2009-01/jan2909-nogodad.jpg)
"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."
It's certainly not everyone's opinion, and it may or may not be yours - but if you're a transit user in this city you'll soon be seeing that message frequently.
It's part of a controversial ad campaign by the Toronto-based Freethought Association of Canada (http://freethoughtassociation.ca/n2ew/) that has been approved by the TTC to appear on buses and inside subway cars.
The spots, which were given the thumbs up by the transit commission late Wednesday, are already sparking heated debate. Charles McVety, president of the Canada Christian College in Toronto, calls them out-and-out attack ads. The evangelical leader said he hasn't decided whether the group he heads up, the Canada Family Action Coalition, will formally complain about them once they start appearing on the transit vehicles.
The ads were used in a similar campaign in Britain recently, and they've also adorned buses in Spain.
CityNews.ca spoke with Rabbi Reuven Tradburks of the Council for Orthodox Rabbis in Toronto to get his take.
"I think the issue has to be divided into two things: What is our personal reaction to an ad of that sort, and what's the legal status of it? I think that legally, there's freedom of speech and people can advertise whatever they want. There is always a certain point where it crosses what is appropriate for advertising in general, but there's freedom of speech and people can do what they like," he explains.
"I think on another level, personally, to see an ad that promotes or encourages people to adopt a view which rejects God in their life and therefore you can do whatever you want, that's personally offending to me. I don't like to see that, and it bothers me to see it."
The Freethought Association, for its part, says the atheist messages aren't meant to attack people's religious beliefs but to promote dialogue.
"People welcome this. They may not agree with our point of view but they welcome the challenge, and the dialogue, and support our right to freedom of speech," said Association spokesperson Justin Trottier.
Promote dialogue they have - Torontonians asked what they thought of the soon-to-appear spots had a lot to say.
"We are living in a multicultural country. That's their right to express their belief," said Willy Rablora. "But for me, whatever I see, I just read it, that's it."
And George Van Luven noted, "Personally, it doesn't affect me - I'm sure a lot of people would be upset."
"I think it's a good message," Doug Welsh opines. "Don't worry about it, just get on with your life."
But Erica Pugcaliwangan suggests, "It's inappropriate. It's kind of offending to some people that do believe in God."
In a CityNews phone poll, 4020 respondents said 'Yes' they were offended by the ads, while 2543 respondents said 'No' they weren't. On CityNews.ca, our web poll found more people on the other side of the debate - 674 people said they were off-put by the spots, while 767 people said they weren't.
The TTC says the ads, which are supposed to start appearing in mid-February, don't violate any of the transit commission's rules, however the decision to approve them could be reviewed if there are complaints.
"Under the Ontario Human Rights Commission atheism is defined as a creed or a religion so we are required to run it," TTC Chair Adam Giambrone explained.
The Freethought Association now plans to use a portion of the tens of thousands of dollars in donations it raised through a site called www.atheistbus.ca (http://www.atheistbus.ca/) to post similar ads in Calgary and Halifax.
-
I think its kind of funny and it should at the very least provoke thought and the questioning of organized religion.
That being said, it's in my opinion a monumental WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY.
So what? You don't believe in GOD and someone else does. You both need to keep it to your selves. Or just debate it on forums, not advertise publicly.
-
Yeah. This is dumb. More atheists spending an inordinate amount of time talking about something they don't believe in.
-
I have seen many god/church advertisements. I think it is only fair for another group to have their own opinion/agenda especially since there are millions of atheists.
-
No one is restricting it.
It's just silly and its a waste.
-
Shows how mindless they are to throw money away like that
-
I have seen many god/church advertisements. I think it is only fair for another group to have their own opinion/agenda especially since there are millions of atheists.
The issue isn't fairness. It's about how DUMB it is for folks to spend that much money, yelping about someone they DON'T believe to exist.
-
The issue isn't fairness. It's about how DUMB it is for folks to spend that much money, yelping about someone they DON'T believe to exist.
I bet you don't think it is dumb to worship something that you could not possibly have any proof of huh?
-
I bet you don't think it is dumb to worship something that you could not possibly have any proof of huh?
Number one, Who says that I can't possibly have any proof? I have enough proof, personally, to believe that God exists. Whether you or anyone else thinks I don't (or what I have is not enough isn't really my concern).
Number two, that question of yours just makes my point even more. If you believe that God doesn't exist, simply because you don't think there's enough proof, why would you spend that much time, money, and energy, wailing about it?
Perhaps, a better sign would be, "If there is no God, why do you atheists keep complaining about Him? Maybe YOU need to quit worrying and enjoy your life!"
Also interesting is the facts that the Canadians, according to their laws, deem atheism as a religion, which is why they're required to run those ads (if they also run ads for Christian organizations). Yet, when I mentioned that atheism was a religion, with man effectively worshipping himself, a number of non-believers here got a bit testy about it. Why is that?
-
The issue isn't fairness. It's about how DUMB it is for folks to spend that much money, yelping about someone they DON'T believe to exist.
the point of it is to envoke thought and possibly end religion which affects atheists in negative ways.. and is at the center of much of the conflict in the world. Not to mention the billion dollar industry and money wasted by religion which exceeds atheistic spending 100 fold. Its about stopping indoctrination of children, and having people think for themselves.
-
Number one, Who says that I can't possibly have any proof? I have enough proof, personally, to believe that God exists. Whether you or anyone else thinks I don't (or what I have is not enough isn't really my concern).
Number two, that question of yours just makes my point even more. If you believe that God doesn't exist, simply because you don't think there's enough proof, why would you spend that much time, money, and energy, wailing about it?
Perhaps, a better sign would be, "If there is no God, why do you atheists keep complaining about Him? Maybe YOU need to quit worrying and enjoy your life!"
Also interesting is the facts that the Canadians, according to their laws, deem atheism as a religion, which is why they're required to run those ads (if they also run ads for Christian organizations). Yet, when I mentioned that atheism was a religion, with man effectively worshipping himself, a number of non-believers here got a bit testy about it. Why is that?
If you guys werent trying to take over the world, or hoping for the end of civilization with the return of christ we would. Perhaps when religion stfu and stops blurring the line between church and state. Perhaps when the former president doesnt say things like atheists shouldnt be considered citizens they will.
proof is irrelavant to the observer, evidence if objective or even subjective can be verified by everyone, i dont accept your proof because it is illogical.
-
Perhaps, a better sign would be, "If there is no God, why do you atheists keep complaining about Him? Maybe YOU need to quit worrying and enjoy your life!"
:)
Excellent!
-
the point of it is to envoke thought and possibly end religion which affects atheists in negative ways.. and is at the center of much of the conflict in the world. Not to mention the billion dollar industry and money wasted by religion which exceeds atheistic spending 100 fold. Its about stopping indoctrination of children, and having people think for themselves.
Children are indoctrinated in a number of things. There's no difference between your indoctrinating your children (current or future) that there is no God and my indoctrinating my chidren that there is one.
Plus, your assertion that those with religious beliefs don't think for themselves is a rather foolish one. This may come as a shock to you, but a number of people who are Christians became such IN THEIR ADULT LIVES.
As for spending, yep, religious institutions just chuck away their dollars on silly things like: schools, food banks, homeless shelters, humanitarian programs, drug and alcohol recovery centers, hospitals, shelters for battered women, etc.
The interesting thing is that I don't see a whole lot of these items funded by the anti-God cryers (How many Darwin shelters and food banks are there again?) Maybe, I've missed something, here. Maybe, if some of your buddies actually put your money where your rather-loud mouths are and actually helped your fellow man, instead of flapping your gums, trying to convince them (or more likely, YOURSELVES) how smart you are because you don't believe there's a God, many of you wouldn't come across as a bunch of stuck-up jerks.
If you guys werent trying to take over the world, or hoping for the end of civilization with the return of christ we would. Perhaps when religion stfu and stops blurring the line between church and state. Perhaps when the former president doesnt say things like atheists shouldnt be considered citizens they will.
proof is irrelavant to the observer, evidence if objective or even subjective can be verified by everyone, i dont accept your proof because it is illogical.
I missed the memo where I'm supposed to care whether you accept my proof or not.
Obsessing over something that you claim doesn't exist is "illogical", too. But that hasn't stopped you from wailing about it, every chance you get. As for your claim about "blurring the line between church and state", last time I checked, there was something in the Declaration of Independence about a "Creator" endowing man with inalienable rights. Why don't read that for a change, before you continue to bleat about "church and state".
As. Dr Martin Luther King stated, the church should be neither the master nor the slave to the state, but its conscience. It's funny how you don't seem to have a problem with such "blurring", when it comes to items like stealing, murder, theft, obedience to parents by children, adultery, covetousness, etc. (i.e. the last six commandments of the Decalogue).
Or, as I said a couple months ago, I see no legions of atheists demanding to work during late December time or giving their Christmas bonuses back.
Instead, the oh-so-intellectual non-believers (while preaching about not worrying and enjoying life) have heart attacks every December, when they see a Nativity scene. Or, they go into epileptic shock when a kid commits the unspeakable horror of thanking God for his peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich at lunch time. And, don't let the valedictorian thank the Lord for his/her success at commencement. The godless geniuses will go nuts!!!
I'm sorry!!! Who was that doing all the "worrying" again?
-
Children are indoctrinated in a number of things. There's no difference between your indoctrinating your children (current or future) that there is no God and my indoctrinating my chidren that there is one.
Plus, your assertion that those with religious beliefs don't think for themselves is a rather foolish one. This may come as a shock to you, but a number of people who are Christians became such IN THEIR ADULT LIVES.
As for spending, yep, religious institutions just chuck away their dollars on silly things like: schools, food banks, homeless shelters, humanitarian programs, drug and alcohol recovery centers, hospitals, shelters for battered women, etc.
The interesting thing is that I don't see a whole lot of these items funded by the anti-God cryers (How many Darwin shelters and food banks are there again?) Maybe, I've missed something, here. Maybe, if some of your buddies actually put your money where your rather-loud mouths are and actually helped your fellow man, instead of flapping your gums, trying to convince them (or more likely, YOURSELVES) how smart you are because you don't believe there's a God, many of you wouldn't come across as a bunch of stuck-up jerks.
churches waste more money on shit then i can fathom, why the fancy churches? counter to jesus's beliefs. What does darwin have to do with atheism? thats like saying gravitationists dont have food banks and attributing people who are swayed by the evidence of gravity as atheists. Terrible strawman argument, and a piss poor one also.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/world/europe/09nazi.html?_r=1
so random wasting of money, here is 2.4 mil for the atrocities they committed, of course its our money.
The church in vatican city is worth millions, quite extravagant for no apparent reason.
also, how does an atheist indoctrinate his child with no doctrine? It is a lack of belief, the fact that you keep repeating the same ignorant statements makes me think you have a completely closed mind. There is all kinds of non religious charitable orginizations, your point
religion isn't needed for shelters, homes etc... your argument doesnt follow.
"Instead, the oh-so-intellectual non-believers (while preaching about not worrying and enjoying life) have heart attacks every December, when they see a Nativity scene. Or, they go into epileptic shock when a kid commits the unspeakable horror of thanking God for his peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich at lunch time. And, don't let the valedictorian thank the Lord for his/her success at commencement. The godless geniuses will go nuts!!!"
why should christians be allowed preference? are you a bigot? all or nothing, you seem to think you deserve to have christian propaganda on government property even though its unconstitutional. What about hindus? muslims? atheists?pagans? screw them all, christianity deserves a special place and should be allowed to steamroll everyone.
"Or, as I said a couple months ago, I see no legions of atheists demanding to work during late December time or giving their Christmas bonuses back"
christmas is not a christian holiday, it is the winter solistice first celebrated by the pagans. You can try and claim it as your own but you would be lying.
-
churches waste more money on shit then i can fathom, why the fancy churches? counter to jesus's beliefs. What does darwin have to do with atheism? thats like saying gravitationists dont have food banks and attributing people who are swayed by the evidence of gravity as atheists. Terrible strawman argument, and a piss poor one also. ::)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/world/europe/09nazi.html?_r=1
"Piss poor" would be your feeble attempt to pretend as if atheists haven't (for all practical purposes) deified one Charles Darwin. At, the very least, he has prophet status i, the religion of atheism.
so random wasting of money, here is 2.4 mil for the atrocities they committed, of course its our money.
The church in vatican city is worth millions, quite extravagant for no apparent reason.
also, how does an atheist indoctrinate his child with no doctrine? It is a lack of belief, the fact that you keep repeating the same ignorant statements makes me think you have a completely closed mind. There is all kinds of non religious charitable orginizations, your point
Atheism, as we know it today, is ANYTHING but a mere lack of belief. It has and continues to be a deliberate attack and belittling of religion and people of faith. Calling yourself "freethinkers", implying that those who believe in God are "slaves". Or, referring to yourselfs as "brights", hinting that people of faith are "dim". Again, why are you guys blubbering and whining about someone whom you don't believe exists?
religion isn't needed for shelters, homes etc... your argument doesnt follow.
So, where are the numerous shelters and food banks, run by atheists, then? Go to any such place, and there's a 80% chance (and that's being conservative) that it's run directly or indirectly by a religious insitutition.
"Instead, the oh-so-intellectual non-believers (while preaching about not worrying and enjoying life) have heart attacks every December, when they see a Nativity scene. Or, they go into epileptic shock when a kid commits the unspeakable horror of thanking God for his peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich at lunch time. And, don't let the valedictorian thank the Lord for his/her success at commencement. The godless geniuses will go nuts!!!"
why should christians be allowed preference? are you a bigot? all or nothing, you seem to think you deserve to have christian propaganda on government property even though its unconstitutional. What about hindus? muslims? atheists?pagans? screw them all, christianity deserves a special place and should be allowed to steamroll everyone.
In other words, like a spoiled brat, you and other atheists of your ilk have a classic case of that green-eyed monster, JEALOUSY. Again, check your history books. The founders of this country believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and (SURPRISE, SURPRISE!!!), they wanted to celebrate His birth by making Christmas a federal holiday, which they have every right to do.
"What about hindus? muslims? atheists?pagans?" What about them? This is (at least, on its face) a Christian nation. I don't go to Saudi Arabia and wail about there not being enough churches or no celebration of Christmas. I expect a nation, founded by Muslims, to observe Muslim holidays. Plus, it ain't the Hindus or Muslims (or even the pagans), by and large, who are complaining. It's the neurotic atheists, feebly attempting to hide behind these other religions, to take potshots at Christianity.
Furthermore, contrary to your screwball statement, "Christian propaganda" is NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL on government property. But, once again, we have godless folks, bleating like tormented sheep, because someone mentioned that pesky God, that they swear to the skies doesn't exist. Our new president takes the oath of office, using a Bible, and ends his oath with "So help me God" (AS EVERY OTHER PRESDIENT BEFORE HIM HAS DONE), and you "enlightened" atheists get your usual cases of diaper rash.
"Or, as I said a couple months ago, I see no legions of atheists demanding to work during late December time or giving their Christmas bonuses back"
christmas is not a christian holiday, it is the winter solistice first celebrated by the pagans. You can try and claim it as your own but you would be lying.
Then why are you whining about it, then? Last time I checked, you don't get Dec. 25th off (with pay) merely to celebrate the fact that it's winter. Notwithstanding the issue of why that particular date got picked, the simple fact is that (as far as celebratory purposes go), it is the official day used to honor the BIRTH OF JESUS CHRIST.
Again, you and the rest of your godless buddies need to take your own advice and "STOP WORRYING AND ENJOY LIFE!" Quit obsessing over something you don't believe to exist. Stop having coronaries every time someone mentioned Jesus Christ, within 10 feet of you. And, cease with the weeping and gnashing of teeth, every time an acknowledgement of this country's Judeo-Christian roots get mentioned in our government (as if that automatically forces you and your family to hit the sancutary once a week and pay tithe).
-
"Piss poor" would be your feeble attempt to pretend as if atheists haven't (for all practical purposes) deified one Charles Darwin. At, the very least, he has prophet status i, the religion of atheism.
Atheism, as we know it today, is ANYTHING but a mere lack of belief. It has and continues to be a deliberate attack and belittling of religion and people of faith. Calling yourself "freethinkers", implying that those who believe in God are "slaves". Or, referring to yourselfs as "brights", hinting that people of faith are "dim". Again, why are you guys blubbering and whining about someone whom you don't believe exists?
So, where are the numerous shelters and food banks, run by atheists, then? Go to any such place, and there's a 80% chance (and that's being conservative) that it's run directly or indirectly by a religious insitutition.
In other words, like a spoiled brat, you and other atheists of your ilk have a classic case of that green-eyed monster, JEALOUSY. Again, check your history books. The founders of this country believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and (SURPRISE, SURPRISE!!!), they wanted to celebrate His birth by making Christmas a federal holiday, which they have every right to do.
"What about hindus? muslims? atheists?pagans?" What about them? This is (at least, on its face) a Christian nation. I don't go to Saudi Arabia and wail about there not being enough churches or no celebration of Christmas. I expect a nation, founded by Muslims, to observe Muslim holidays. Plus, it ain't the Hindus or Muslims (or even the pagans), by and large, who are complaining. It's the neurotic atheists, feebly attempting to hide behind these other religions, to take potshots at Christianity.
Furthermore, contrary to your screwball statement, "Christian propaganda" is NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL on government property. But, once again, we have godless folks, bleating like tormented sheep, because someone mentioned that pesky God, that they swear to the skies doesn't exist. Our new president takes the oath of office, using a Bible, and ends his oath with "So help me God" (AS EVERY OTHER PRESDIENT BEFORE HIM HAS DONE), and you "enlightened" atheists get your usual cases of diaper rash.
Then why are you whining about it, then? Last time I checked, you don't get Dec. 25th off (with pay) merely to celebrate the fact that it's winter. Notwithstanding the issue of why that particular date got picked, the simple fact is that (as far as celebratory purposes go), it is the official day used to honor the BIRTH OF JESUS CHRIST.
Again, you and the rest of your godless buddies need to take your own advice and "STOP WORRYING AND ENJOY LIFE!" Quit obsessing over something you don't believe to exist. Stop having coronaries every time someone mentioned Jesus Christ, within 10 feet of you. And, cease with the weeping and gnashing of teeth, every time an acknowledgement of this country's Judeo-Christian roots get mentioned in our government (as if that automatically forces you and your family to hit the sancutary once a week and pay tithe).
"Piss poor" would be your feeble attempt to pretend as if atheists haven't (for all practical purposes) deified one Charles Darwin. At, the very least, he has prophet status i, the religion of atheism.
you dont seem to understand what atheism is, nor evolution. Darwinism doesnt exist, evolution is far more advanced then the ideas he proposed, he laid the groundwork. You are ignorant to science but i didnt expect anything else.
"What about hindus? muslims? atheists?pagans?" What about them? This is (at least, on its face) a Christian nation. I don't go to Saudi Arabia and wail about there not being enough churches or no celebration of Christmas. I expect a nation, founded by Muslims, to observe Muslim holidays. Plus, it ain't the Hindus or Muslims (or even the pagans), by and large, who are complaining. It's the neurotic atheists, feebly attempting to hide behind these other religions, to take potshots at Christianity.
no its not, it was founded on secularism, and you guys are arrogant enough to think its a christian nation.
-
A nation build on secularism doesn’t state in its Declaration of Independence that the Creator give its people inalienable rights. Nor does it put “In God We Trust” on its money; or make a similar statement part of its national anthem.
Nor does it use Bibles as textbooks in its schools, or as part of the taking the oath of office of President (and several other positions in government). Nor does it make Christmas a federal holiday. You are ignorant to those aspects of American history; but I didn't expect anything else.
You are also dead wrong about Darwinism not existing. But why let that stand in the way of yet another atheistic blubberfest?
-
A nation build on secularism doesn’t state in its Declaration of Independence that the Creator give its people inalienable rights. Nor does it put “In God We Trust” on its money; or make a similar statement part of its national anthem.
Nor does it use Bibles as textbooks in its schools, or as part of the taking the oath of office of President (and several other positions in government). Nor does it make Christmas a federal holiday. You are ignorant to those aspects of American history; but I didn't expect anything else.
You are also dead wrong about Darwinism not existing. But why let that stand in the way of yet another atheistic blubberfest?
"A nation build on secularism doesn’t state in its Declaration of Independence that the Creator give its people inalienable rights. Nor does it put “In God We Trust” on its money; or make a similar statement part of its national anthem."
all after the fact, get your facts straight the founding fathers had none of this and were ademant about being a secular nation.
"Nor does it use Bibles as textbooks in its schools, or as part of the taking the oath of office of President (and several other positions in government). Nor does it make Christmas a federal holiday. You are ignorant to those aspects of American history; but I didn't expect anything else."
again added after the fact. Im not american ftr, christians may have taken over, this is obvious, but america is a secular nation. It doesnt state which god and this passage was added, same with the money. This will be gone in the future however.
"You are also dead wrong about Darwinism not existing. But why let that stand in the way of yet another atheistic blubberfest?"
sure some variants or neo darwinist exist if you are talking about the basic framework or principles he stated. However, if you took any classes in biology no class is called darwinism, or darwinist biology, it is evolution which includes palentology,genetics,homology etc... stuff darwin never really touched. Especially genetics which are the cornerstone of modern biology at the moment.
Darwin has nothing to do with atheism, just like whitten and string theory.You have selected one theory in science and for some reason this is likened to atheism, meanwhile, evolution says nothing about god at all. Just like all of science. There is no logical reason to place evolution and atheism in the same bracket and not quantum physics and atheism.
-
"A nation build on secularism doesn’t state in its Declaration of Independence that the Creator give its people inalienable rights. Nor does it put “In God We Trust” on its money; or make a similar statement part of its national anthem."
all after the fact, get your facts straight the founding fathers had none of this and were ademant about being a secular nation.
52 of the 55 founding fathers were Bible-believing Christians. It's time YOU got YOUR facts straight, Necrosis.
Here's a start:
“It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!”
“Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.” - Patrick Henry
"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian." - U.S. Supreme Court, circa 1892
"Nor does it use Bibles as textbooks in its schools, or as part of the taking the oath of office of President (and several other positions in government). Nor does it make Christmas a federal holiday. You are ignorant to those aspects of American history; but I didn't expect anything else."
again added after the fact. Im not american ftr, christians may have taken over, this is obvious, but america is a secular nation. It doesnt state which god and this passage was added, same with the money. This will be gone in the future however.
Says who? The Christians didn't "take over". They're the ones who founded the nation.
Now, you're feigning your ignorance, here. Do you REALLY think Thomas Jefferson was talking about Allah, Buddha, Dagon, Molech, or Krisna, when he wrote about the “Creator” giving man his inalienable rights? If so, I have some great waterfront property for you in Arizona.
"You are also dead wrong about Darwinism not existing. But why let that stand in the way of yet another atheistic blubberfest?"
sure some variants or neo darwinist exist if you are talking about the basic framework or principles he stated. However, if you took any classes in biology no class is called darwinism, or darwinist biology, it is evolution which includes palentology,genetics,homology etc... stuff darwin never really touched. Especially genetics which are the cornerstone of modern biology at the moment.
Darwin has nothing to do with atheism, just like whitten and string theory.You have selected one theory in science and for some reason this is likened to atheism, meanwhile, evolution says nothing about god at all. Just like all of science. There is no logical reason to place evolution and atheism in the same bracket and not quantum physics and atheism.
[/quote]
Tell that to the atheists who, as I've said before, all but bow before the shrine of Darwin. They're the ones that idolize the guy, not me (unless you have some explanation for the "Darwin" fish that's a direct jab at the "Jesus" fish, a popular car decal, often used by Christians).
The point, which you missed by a country mile, was that atheism (as we know it today) is hardly a mere lack of belief in a supernatural being.
As I've said, if you and your godless brethren need to take your own advice and "STOP WORRYING", especially when it's about someone you don't believe to exist.
-
I haven't read the whole thread, but why would the city approve something so controversial to appear on public buses?
-
52 of the 55 founding fathers were Bible-believing Christians. It's time YOU got YOUR facts straight, Necrosis.
Here's a start:
“It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!”
“Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.” - Patrick Henry
"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian." - U.S. Supreme Court, circa 1892
the nation was founded on secularism and seperation of church and state, which still holds true today. The constitution emphatically states this, America is not a christian nation, no where does it say this, however, the seperation of church and state pretty much sums this one up. This act by atheists wouldnt be allowed if this was a christian nation.
Who bows to the shrine of darwin, evolution is not the study of darwin, and barely touches on his brief ideas. He laid a brilliant framework.
"As I've said, if you and your godless brethren need to take your own advice and "STOP WORRYING", especially when it's about someone you don't believe to exist."
missing the point as usual, im not worried about god, im worried about you and those who beleive in god. Those that tell me im going to suffer for eternity, those that want more control, end times and so on. Those that think atheists are second class citizens and deny them esteemed office positions. A retarded reminder on money that christians are trying to take over. I am worried that grown men who could wield power beleive in talking snakes, 800 year old men and noahs ark. I am worried about indoctrination and religious wars.
If you believe the earth is 6000 years old then i am worried you are a mental deficient and in awe of how this could affect my life.
-
the nation was founded on secularism and seperation of church and state, which still holds true today. The constitution emphatically states this, America is not a christian nation, no where does it say this, however, the seperation of church and state pretty much sums this one up. This act by atheists wouldnt be allowed if this was a christian nation.
Who bows to the shrine of darwin, evolution is not the study of darwin, and barely touches on his brief ideas. He laid a brilliant framework.
The "separation of church and state" appears ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE in the U.S. Constitution.
"As I've said, if you and your godless brethren need to take your own advice and "STOP WORRYING", especially when it's about someone you don't believe to exist."
missing the point as usual, im not worried about god, im worried about you and those who beleive in god. Those that tell me im going to suffer for eternity, those that want more control, end times and so on. Those that think atheists are second class citizens and deny them esteemed office positions. A retarded reminder on money that christians are trying to take over. I am worried that grown men who could wield power beleive in talking snakes, 800 year old men and noahs ark. I am worried about indoctrination and religious wars.
And what is going to happen to poor little ol' Necrosis, if these pesky Christians take over, notwithstanding the fact that America was founded by such men, in the first place (BTW, I'm still looking for those chapters in American history where a bunch of atheists and secularists wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, only to get jacked by Bible-believing men years later)?
Wars are started for a number of reason, few of which actually regard religion. Therefore, you're basically spewing little more than the usual atheistic paranoia.
As for the office thing, again, the reason that atheists are denied esteemed office positions is because, in practice, they are anything but athiests. They are anti-theists, with hostile mean-spirited anti-religious rhetoric and viewpoints.
NEWS FLASH!! If a majority of people believe in God, and you offend their beliefs, call them names, and insult them, their faith, and their God, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO ELECT TO INTO OFFICE!!!!
If you believe the earth is 6000 years old then i am worried you are a mental deficient and in awe of how this could affect my life.
Thank you for demonstrating my earlier point!!! Atheists like you make statements like this. And then, you're SOOOOOOOO surprise that the populace won't elect folks of your ilk into office???? ::) BTW, There are plenty of people who believe in Creation and are anything but mentally deficient. In fact, there's a TV movie about one such guy: Dr. Ben Carson.
Why don't you tell everyone how much of a "mental deficient" he is. And while you're at it, you can also explain why such occur to men like Louis Pasteur, Barry Black, just to name a few.
-
I think its kind of funny and it should at the very least provoke thought and the questioning of organized religion.
That being said, it's in my opinion a monumental WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY.
So what? You don't believe in GOD and someone else does. You both need to keep it to your selves. Or just debate it on forums, not advertise publicly.
people who write posts like this clearly haven't figured out the massive amount of affect the god-believers have on the lives of non-believers via politicians.
-
people who write posts like this clearly haven't figured out the massive amount of affect the god-believers have on the lives of non-believers via politicians.
And the "massive amout of effect" would be........
-
The only reason Atheists spend so much time talking about something that they do not believe in is because OTHER PEOPLE believe, and it affects society and civilization.
Why is the Bus campaign a waste of time? Would a sign that says "Accept Jesus" be an equal waste of time?
Atheism is not a religion. Any admiration of Darwin (or other scientists) is just that:Admiration. It's not "worship" in any sense of the word.
There are plenty of SECULAR charities. There is no point in an "Atheist" Charity because it wouldn't make sense. Secular charities do the work without pushing their dogma.
TO say that the "Founders" of America were all Christian would be ignorant, since MANY were Deists and they were all SECULAR. America is not a "Christian nation" in any sense except the fact that most people living in it identify as Christian. That's all.
Support of organized religion, or preference of one religion over another IS illegal for the government. That's all from the "Wall of separation" ideal. The "In GOd we trust" and similar B.S. was added MUCH later after the founding of America, mostly in times of reverent revivalism or communist fears.
-
The only reason Atheists spend so much time talking about something that they do not believe in is because OTHER PEOPLE believe, and it affects society and civilization.
Why is the Bus campaign a waste of time? Would a sign that says "Accept Jesus" be an equal waste of time?
Well, if it just said that, perhaps. Of course, part of the Christian faith is to share the Gospel with others. A bus advertisement is a somewhat unorthodox way of attempting to do that. So, that's not a waste of time.
Getting bent out of shape about references to someone you don't believe to exist is not only a waste of time, some would say, it borders on "nutty" ;D .
Atheism is not a religion. Any admiration of Darwin (or other scientists) is just that:Admiration. It's not "worship" in any sense of the word.
Tell that to the Canadians; their law is the one that deems atheism a religion.
There are plenty of SECULAR charities. There is no point in an "Atheist" Charity because it wouldn't make sense. Secular charities do the work without pushing their dogma.
The charity work is part of their "dogma" (i.e. feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the widows and orphans, etc).
As for the "atheist" charities (or lack thereof), you mean to tell me that the enlightened freethinkers, who are SOOOOOOOOOO concerned about mankind and society can't or won't open a food bank or two, because it "wouldn't make sense"?
TO say that the "Founders" of America were all Christian would be ignorant, since MANY were Deists and they were all SECULAR. America is not a "Christian nation" in any sense except the fact that most people living in it identify as Christian. That's all.
Nobody claimed that they were ALL Christians. But a huge chunk of them were, and they made that no secret. And not only were they Christians, they were identified by their particular denomination (only a handful were Deists); and none of them intended for this country to be a godless secular society. We have their own words as testament to that.
So, I don't know where you and Necrosis keep getting this secular stuff. But, you might want to check the facts.
Support of organized religion, or preference of one religion over another IS illegal for the government. That's all from the "Wall of separation" ideal. The "In GOd we trust" and similar B.S. was added MUCH later after the founding of America, mostly in times of reverent revivalism or communist fears.
No, it's not illegal for the government. And when atheists file bone-headed lawsuits, trying to use that argument, their cases usually get chucked out of court.
-
Well, if it just said that, perhaps. Of course, part of the Christian faith is to share the Gospel with others. A bus advertisement is a somewhat unorthodox way of attempting to do that. So, that's not a waste of time.
Getting bent out of shape about references to someone you don't believe to exist is not only a waste of time, some would say, it borders on "nutty" ;D .
No. It's also part of critical thinking and rationality to spread it as well.
What if the govt. decided to put "Xenu" on the money, the national anthem, and push Xenu all over the place. Wouldn't YOU get bent out of shape over something you don't believe in?
Tell that to the Canadians; their law is the one that deems atheism a religion.
So what? Because a Canadian law says it, it must be true? ::)
Atheism doesn't fit any real definition of religion in any reputable dictionary.
The charity work is part of their "dogma" (i.e. feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the widows and orphans, etc).
Only a TINY fraction of professed religious people do any significant amount of charity work. Even if charity is part of a dogma, this doesn't give the dogma repute since in most cases many bad things are part of the same dogma. Also, people can do charity work without any dogma. That's the real goal. Charity work without the side effects of B.S. beliefs about religion or proselytizing.
As for the "atheist" charities (or lack thereof), you mean to tell me that the enlightened freethinkers, who are SOOOOOOOOOO concerned about mankind and society can't or won't open a food bank or two, because it "wouldn't make sense"?
They do. Plenty of atheists belong to more secular charities like the United Way, Toys for Tots, Habitat for humanity, World Wildlife fund, etc. I myself included.
Nobody claimed that they were ALL Christians. But a huge chunk of them were, and they made that no secret. And not only were they Christians, they were identified by their particular denomination (only a handful were Deists); and none of them intended for this country to be a godless secular society. We have their own words as testament to that.
Those handful were the most prominent and influential of the forefathers.
No, it's not illegal for the government. And when atheists file bone-headed lawsuits, trying to use that argument, their cases usually get chucked out of court.
The supreme court has interpreted the 1st amendment which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" as that any government or state body that spends tax payer dollars, or otherwise uses state property to promote any religion, is against the 1st amendment.
-
No. It's also part of critical thinking and rationality to spread it as well.
What if the govt. decided to put "Xenu" on the money, the national anthem, and push Xenu all over the place. Wouldn't YOU get bent out of shape over something you don't believe in?
As I said earlier, if I lived in Saudi Arabia, I wouldn't be blubbering about the currently or holidays, or anything else making references to Allah.
This country wasn't formed by atheists or worshippers of Allah or any other deity. The men who helped shaped this country professed to be Christians.
So what? Because a Canadian law says it, it must be true? ::)
Atheism doesn't fit any real definition of religion in any reputable dictionary.
Only a TINY fraction of professed religious people do any significant amount of charity work. Even if charity is part of a dogma, this doesn't give the dogma repute since in most cases many bad things are part of the same dogma. Also, people can do charity work without any dogma. That's the real goal. Charity work without the side effects of B.S. beliefs about religion or proselytizing.
Side effects.....and these would be what? Once again, the atheist
They do. Plenty of atheists belong to more secular charities like the United Way, Toys for Tots, Habitat for humanity, World Wildlife fund, etc. I myself included.
I'm sorry!! I missed the part where these charities were OPENED (that is, started) by atheists. The Marines run Toys for Tots, and as military, they serve "God and country".
And I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but according to Wikipedia, the United Way, "has roots in Denver, Colorado, where in 1887 church leaders began the Charity Organization Society which coordinated services and fund raising for 22 agencies"
Those handful were the most prominent and influential of the forefathers.
I beg to differ.....and so does the historical record.
The supreme court has interpreted the 1st amendment which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" as that any government or state body that spends tax payer dollars, or otherwise uses state property to promote any religion, is against the 1st amendment.
As is too often the case, people like you forget to list the REST of the first amendment, you know the part about the free exercise, which is often where atheists get their knickers in a knot. As mentioned, let someone display a Nativity scene in a public park, during Christmas (a federal holiday, BTW). And, the wailing begins.
-
As I said earlier, if I lived in Saudi Arabia, I wouldn't be blubbering about the currently or holidays, or anything else making references to Allah.
This country wasn't formed by atheists or worshippers of Allah or any other deity. The men who helped shaped this country professed to be Christians.
Side effects.....and these would be what? Once again, the atheist
I'm sorry!! I missed the part where these charities were OPENED (that is, started) by atheists. The Marines run Toys for Tots, and as military, they serve "God and country".
And I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but according to Wikipedia, the United Way, "has roots in Denver, Colorado, where in 1887 church leaders began the Charity Organization Society which coordinated services and fund raising for 22 agencies"
I beg to differ.....and so does the historical record.
As is too often the case, people like you forget to list the REST of the first amendment, you know the part about the free exercise, which is often where atheists get their knickers in a knot. As mentioned, let someone display a Nativity scene in a public park, during Christmas (a federal holiday, BTW). And, the wailing begins.
That's because Saudi Arabia is less tolerant. American Atheists are lucky that things aren't as bad as they are in the middle east. Lucky that religious fanatics are held on a leash.
The side effects of religious dogma is the uncritical beliefs that go with it. Believing that evolution is wrong can harm scientific and education progress. Believing that Zygotes have souls can harm women and society. Believing that the bible is the only true way can harm free liberty. Belief in B.S. is always bad.
I never said that the charities listed were made by Atheists. I said they were "secular", meaning no religious affiliation. Atheists can do charity work without involving religious beliefs in it. No sense in that.
The United way had starts with church leaders. Today it is secular.
Jefferson, Paine, Washington, Franklin....All Deists.
"Free exercise" means free exercise for "the people", separate from the government.
-
That's because Saudi Arabia is less tolerant. American Atheists are lucky that things aren't as bad as they are in the middle east. Lucky that religious fanatics are held on a leash.
Tolerance has nothing to do with it. The founders of the country were MUSLIMS, not atheists. So, no one should surprised about the Islamic references and holidays within their society. America started with Christian fathers, no matter how much the secular humamists/progressives try to whitewash that fact.
The side effects of religious dogma is the uncritical beliefs that go with it. Believing that evolution is wrong can harm scientific and education progress. Believing that Zygotes have souls can harm women and society. Believing that the bible is the only true way can harm free liberty. Belief in B.S. is always bad.
Come again? The beliefs of Christianity have been anything but "uncritical". The Bible has been the most criticized book, perhaps, in human history. Yet, it's withstood those criticisms and stands today.
The "Zygote" comment is nothing more than a PC way to call a baby anything but a baby, to justify its destruction for convenience's sake. As for women being harmed, as a bumper sticker I recently viewed so eloquently states, "It's easy to be 'pro choice', when you're not the one being KILLED". It's the baby, who gets his arms and legs ripped out, the skull crushed, and the brain sucked out by a vacuum, not the mother. And, considering in at least 95% of the cases, it's the woman's choice to open her legs and have sex in the first place, you'll excuse me if I don't buy the pathetic attempt to show how sparing the baby in the womb harms the woman.
The only harm that comes to education is with regards to the materialistic/humanistic philosophy, present in many scientists. From a practical standpoint, it has no effect whatsoever. People don’t stop finding cures to diseases, making nifty inventions, or discovering things, because they believe in Creation instead of evolution.
It certainly didn’t stop Louis Pasteur from developing vaccines or pasteurizing milk; nor did it stop Raymond Damidian from his contributions to inventing the MRI machine (over which he got screwed out of the Nobel Peace prize, due to his religious beliefs).
And, it certainly didn’t stop Ben Carson from becoming one of the greatest neurosurgeons on this planet (TNT just showed a movie on his life, “Gifted Hands”; so PLLLEAAASSSE tell me how his education was “harmed” by his belief in Creation.
From his article “Evolution? No! I don’t have enough faith”,
” Before Darwin most scientists were Christian. Even Darwin was brought up a Christian, but he became embittered. He set out to prove another explanation to life. I have to give the man credit--he was a powerful observer. On the Galápagos Islands he found thick-billed finches whose bills were capable of breaking apart hard seeds. He also discovered iguanas and tortoises with different adaptations. Therefore, he concluded that these organisms were evolving, and he was right in terms of microevolution--adaptation to the environment. Imagine if you only got fed if you could dunk a basketball . . .
Ultimately, if you accept the evolutionary theory, you dismiss ethics, you don't have to abide by a set of moral codes, you determine your own conscience based on your own desires. You have no reason for things such as selfless love, when a father dives in to save his son from drowning. You can trash the Bible as irrelevant, just silly fables, since you believe that it does not conform to scientific thought. You can be like Lucifer, who said, "I will make myself like the Most High."
Can you prove evolution? No. Can you prove creation? No. Can you use the intellect God has given you to decide whether something is logical or illogical? Yes, absolutely. It all comes down to "faith"--and I don't have enough to believe in evolution. I'm too logical!
http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html (http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html)
I never said that the charities listed were made by Atheists. I said they were "secular", meaning no religious affiliation. Atheists can do charity work without involving religious beliefs in it. No sense in that.
The United way had starts with church leaders. Today it is secular.
Of course, you missed the point. Atheists appear to be rather slow on the humanitarian front. Or are we to believe that they gave nothing to the United Way (nor did they start any humanitarian efforts of their own), until it became “secular” enough for them.
And, why, if it's so important to have "secular" charities, did atheists not start any themselves?
Jefferson, Paine, Washington, Franklin....All Deists.
You're missing some folks: Patrick Henry, for one, was a Christian. Two, regarding Washington being a Deist, you might want to check that one again.
"Free exercise" means free exercise for "the people", separate from the government.
The government isn't mandating exercise, one way or the other. But, it has every right to acknowledge its Judeo-Christian roots, in keeping with the will of the people. That's why we have Christmas as a federal holiday, "In God We Trust" on our money and as part of our national anthem (3rd verse), and we swear our leaders into office using Bibles.
-
I think you're missing the point here. I'm saying that there are not big campaigns in Saudi Arabia to remove Muslim holidays because such campaigns would be met with a lot of violence, unlike the U.S.
The bible has been criticized through and through, but Christians who believe in the bible ignore these well though out (and justified) criticism. Their beliefs are not critical. The bible has not "withstood" these criticism, because they are correct. It has only withstood them in the sense that a lot of stubborn people still believe in the Bible.
A Zygote isn't a baby, it's a zygote. You can't call a NON-THINKING, NON FEELING growth in a woman's stomach a "baby" because it's just not the case. It's something that "might" become a baby in the future, but until then it's a zygote. Only a religious person or an ignorant person would prohibit abortion prior to the 3rd trimester, prior to the fetus having thought or feeling. But then again, aren't the two often synonymous?
If every scientist in America stopped believing in Evolution and started believing in Creationism, Science would come to a basic stand still. Biology is based on evolution, and it can't progress without it. As is medicine. Belief in creationism would mean the scientific method is obsolete (since science refutes creationism), and thus shouldn't be followed...which would cause science to freeze and we would return to the dark ages.
The people who made various discoveries with the belief in creationism did so without knowing that science itself would one day refute creationism (as told by Genesis), and couldn't predict that they were paving the way for this. If the scientific facts from the scientific method say that the world is 4 billion years old and all life today came from a common ancestor, belief otherwise means the method is worthless and thus science itself is worthless. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Anyone who says that evolution means a dismissal of ethics is a moron. Evolution simply says how things are and where we came from, it doesn't determine what is moral and what isn't moral. Selfless love is, in fact, an evolutionary trait. So is Altruism.
Can you prove evolution? Yes. ERVs. Phylogeny. Fossils. Genetics. Etc.
Atheists give to charities, even religious ones. I'm saying that Atheists see no point in making charities based on spreading their beliefs. Charities are for charity and that's it. No point in making an "Atheist charity" anymore than there is a point in making a "General Charity made by people who love jazz music".
Patrick Henry isn't as well known, nor was he as influential as the ones I mentioned.
Washington was a Deist. Despite what dishonest Christians want to claim.
The government isn't mandating exercise of a religion by using tax dollars to feature religious monuments on state property, but it IS seeming to make preference of one belief over another. Which would be "establishing religion" and thus illegal.
-
I haven't read the whole thread, but why would the city approve something so controversial to appear on public buses?
It's not the "city" that approved the ad, ...but rather the "transit commission", ...and they were correct to do so.
The Ontario Human Rights charter prevents discrimination based on sex, colour, religion, creed etc., etc., etc.
Atheism while not a "religion", is an accepted creed, and as such cannot be discriminated against.
For some however, those signs are as offensive as religious signs sharing their message is to atheists.
Whether we agree with their message is irrelevant, ...they have the right to advertise their "product" as much as Evian advertises their water, or RIM with their Blackberry.
What I find so fascinating is how such a simple message whether one agrees or disagrees with it, ...can get people so darned riled up. I've seen where thousands of people are dying in a day, ...many from preventable & treatable diseases, ...millions slowly starving to death from war, pestilence, famine etc., and people don't even bat an eye, ...but make a statement that goes contrary to prescribed dogma, ...and they flip out. They react like you're driving a knife through their chest. Unbelievable. ::)
-
I don't think it's a big deal either way.
-
I've seen where thousands of people are dying in a day, ...many from preventable & treatable diseases, ...millions slowly starving to death from war, pestilence, famine etc., and people don't even bat an eye
And what are you doing about this, Jag? How are you directly helping those people?
-
And what are you doing about this, Jag? How are you directly helping those people?
Among this and other things... www.FundamentalFreedomInitiative.com (http://www.fundamentalfreedominitiative.com)
I'm helping to clean up the air across the planet that people have to breathe.
I'm helping to introduce waterless technology into areas so that we can preserve water, one of the earth's most precious resources. Contributing to the building of wells that provide fresh clean drinking water to people around the world that don't have it. Clean Air to breathe and Clean Water to drink, are the fundamental elements of life, and should be basic fundamental freedoms everyone on the planet should enjoy. I've helped in the building of schools around the world. One in Uganda, and another in Samoa. I help people to develop sustainable incomes that are changing their lives and those of their families, ...and their heirs, ...among other things... What do you do?
When planning for a year, plant rice.
When planning for a decade, plant trees.
When planning for lifetime, train and educate people."
-- Chinese Proverb
-
Among this and other things... www.FundamentalFreedomInitiative.com (http://www.fundamentalfreedominitiative.com)
I'm helping to clean up the air across the planet that people have to breathe.
I'm helping to introduce waterless technology into areas so that we can preserve water, one of the earth's most precious resources. Contributing to the building of wells that provide fresh clean drinking water to people around the world that don't have it. Clean Air to breathe and Clean Water to drink, are the fundamental elements of life, and should be basic fundamental freedoms everyone on the planet should enjoy. I've helped in the building of schools around the world. One in Uganda, and another in Samoa. I help people to develop sustainable incomes that are changing their lives and those of their families, ...and their heirs, ...among other things... What do you do?
When planning for a year, plant rice.
When planning for a decade, plant trees.
When planning for lifetime, train and educate people."
-- Chinese Proverb
Good for you! But it looks like those thousands of people you mentioned need immediate help or they'll die real soon. None of those things you mentioned you are doing for them really help them now. They'll all be dead by then.
Yet many of the people you criticize by saying..."but make a statement that goes contrary to prescribed dogma, ...and they flip out."...are the same people who are also putting a whole lot of their time, energy, money and love into directly helping those less fortunate around the world, right now. You should join them and help them continue to provide immediate, much needed help to others.
-
Good for you! But it looks like those thousands of people you mentioned need immediate help or they'll die real soon. None of those things you mentioned you are doing for them really help them now. They'll all be dead by then.
I think you misunderstand. The wells are dug, ...and more are being dug everyday. As is awareness and Action.
Ask those kids who no longer have to walk 8 hrs a day for filthy disease ridden water if the well in their village isn't helping them NOW. Ask those kids who can now go to school instead of walking 8 hrs a day far from home vulnerable to animal and human predators if that well or that school is not helping them NOW. Ask someone who made enough more to feed their family that day, ...or someone right here in North America who was down to their last $6.50 if the additional $200 they were able to put in their pocket in 30 mins didn't help them to buy a few groceries right then and there. Or the trucker who would normally spend $4,000 in fuel for his dedicated run, who now only has to spend $3,400 on fuel to do the same trip. Tell me that $600 in his pocket isn't going to help him. Tell me that taking a truck that blows 19 on an emission test, down to 5 isn't going to help him stay in business. Any trucker who fails emission testing is out of business. Tell me helping someone to remain gainfully employed... in this economy, when they would otherwise be out of work, isn't helping them NOW. Come on' ...I dare you. In fact, ...I double dog dare you. ;)
If you give a man a fish, ...you feed him for a day. If you teach a man how to fish, ...you feed him for a lifetime!
Yet many of the people you criticize by saying..."but make a statement that goes contrary to prescribed dogma, ...and they flip out."...are the same people who are also putting a whole lot of their time, energy, money and love into directly helping those less fortunate around the world, right now.
No, I believe I was very clear on the issue. I believe I stated my astonishment at those who do not bat an eye to the suffering in this world, but get apoplectic if someone makes a statement that goes against dogma.
You should join them and help them continue to provide immediate, much needed help to others.
This statement implies to me that you don't believe I am helping. if you choose to believe that, you are welcome to.
I don't do it for recognition. I do it for results. I know I'm making a difference, and the impact continues to be felt.
-
Tell that to the Canadians; their law is the one that deems atheism a religion.
Canadian law does not discriminate against a group of people whose "creed" does not conform to the trappings of traditional organized religion. It does not recognize atheism as a religion, but it recognizes it for what it is... a creed. A creed is nothing more than a belief, and the law you cannot discriminate because of someone's beliefs.
-
I think you misunderstand. The wells are dug, ...and more are being dug everyday. As is awareness and Action.
Ask those kids who no longer have to walk 8 hrs a day for filthy disease ridden water if the well in their village isn't helping them NOW. Ask those kids who can now go to school instead of walking 8 hrs a day far from home vulnerable to animal and human predators if that well or that school is not helping them NOW. Ask someone who made enough more to feed their family that day, ...or someone right here in North America who was down to their last $6.50 if the additional $200 they were able to put in their pocket in 30 mins didn't help them to buy a few groceries right then and there. Or the trucker who would normally spend $4,000 in fuel for his dedicated run, who now only has to spend $3,400 on fuel to do the same trip. Tell me that $600 in his pocket isn't going to help him. Tell me that taking a truck that blows 19 on an emission test, down to 5 isn't going to help him stay in business. Any trucker who fails emission testing is out of business. Tell me helping someone to remain gainfully employed... in this economy, when they would otherwise be out of work, isn't helping them NOW. Come on' ...I dare you. In fact, ...I double dog dare you. ;)
If you give a man a fish, ...you feed him for a day. If you teach a man how to fish, ...you feed him for a lifetime!
No, I believe I was very clear on the issue. I believe I stated my astonishment at those who do not bat an eye to the suffering in this world, but get apoplectic if someone makes a statement that goes against dogma.
This statement implies to me that you don't believe I am helping. if you choose to believe that, you are welcome to.
I don't do it for recognition. I do it for results. I know I'm making a difference, and the impact continues to be felt.
Forgive me! Maybe I did misunderstand you. You're very vague.
someone right here in North America who was down to their last $6.50 if the additional $200 they were able to put in their pocket in 30 mins didn't help them to buy a few groceries right then and there. Or the trucker who would normally spend $4,000 in fuel for his dedicated run, who now only has to spend $3,400 on fuel to do the same trip. Tell me that $600 in his pocket isn't going to help him. Tell me that taking a truck that blows 19 on an emission test, down to 5 isn't going to help him stay in business. Any trucker who fails emission testing is out of business. Tell me helping someone to remain gainfully employed... in this economy, when they would otherwise be out of work, isn't helping them NOW
How exactly are you accomplishing this, or helping them accomplish this?
-
It would be FOOLISH for society to try to ban PAID advertisements because they disagree with their religious message. This is censorship and ignorance at its peak. If I pay money for an advertisement, what the fuck gives you the right to try to get it removed because you disagree with what it says? This isn't obscenity in any sense of the work, you just disagree with the particular message. I find the "Jesus saves" and other religious B.S. advertisements on highway billboards highly offensive, but I don't try to BAN them.
-
Forgive me! Maybe I did misunderstand you. You're very vague.
How exactly are you accomplishing this, or helping them accomplish this?
Here's what the President had to say ...
While the President was somewhat vague, we do it by educating people about solutions to issues they were previously unaware of. By teaching people how to build a business, providing these same solutions to the public, by gathering a handful of customers and business partners. And teaching them how to teach others how to do the same. We simply duplicate that process over and over again. I guess you could say we took a page from the world's greatest network marketer who told the 12 members of his team to "Be fishers of men." They then went on to share the good news about what they had, and how it was available to all. Look at the size of the organization he built. :P
Paul Zane Pilzer, a world-renowned economist, the world's most accurate economic forecaster, was an appointed economic advisor in two presidential administrations and warned of the impending $200-billion savings and loan crisis years before official Washington was willing to listen—a story that he later told in 'Other People’s Money' (Simon & Schuster, 1989) which was critically acclaimed by the 'New York Times' and 'The Economist' magazine, coined a phrase for it. He called it "Intellectual Distribution." You can read an interview with Paul Zane Pilzer (http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/Pilzer.htm) through here.
And if you want to know what my friend Len (a well respected court recognized industry expert) has to say...
feel free to read his well researched article on the matter. He calls it "The Coming Boom" (http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/boom.htm)
We all knew it was coming, ...weren't sure when, ...but current GLOBAL economic conditions appear quite ripe.
-
Here's what the President had to say ...
While the President was somewhat vague, we do it by educating people about solutions to issues they were previously unaware of. By teaching people how to build a business, providing these same solutions to the public, by gathering a handful of customers and business partners. And teaching them how to teach others how to do the same. We simply duplicate that process over and over again. I guess you could say we took a page from the world's greatest network marketer who told the 12 members of his team to "Be fishers of men." They then went on to share the good news about what they had, and how it was available to all. Look at the size of the organization he built. :P
Paul Zane Pilzer, a world-renowned economist, the world's most accurate economic forecaster, was an appointed economic advisor in two presidential administrations and warned of the impending $200-billion savings and loan crisis years before official Washington was willing to listen—a story that he later told in 'Other People’s Money' (Simon & Schuster, 1989) which was critically acclaimed by the 'New York Times' and 'The Economist' magazine, coined a phrase for it. He called it "Intellectual Distribution." You can read an interview with Paul Zane Pilzer (http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/Pilzer.htm) through here.
And if you want to know what my friend Len (a well respected court recognized industry expert) has to say...
feel free to read his well researched article on the matter. He calls it "The Coming Boom" (http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/boom.htm)
We all knew it was coming, ...weren't sure when, ...but current GLOBAL economic conditions appear quite ripe.
What is this? You have managed to turn this into an Amway sales pitch? I thought we were talking about helping needy people around the world. Is this how you are helping? No, you are not helping them. You are kicking them when they're down.
You are taking advantage of their desperate situation and exploiting them when they are most vulnerable, luring them into your pyramid scheme...all the while bad mouthing those who are truly helping them.
And who cares what Bill Clinton has to say? In that same video he says "In America, if you play by the rules..." If you play by the rules? Yeah, we all know he played by the rules to get to where he is.
-
It would be FOOLISH for society to try to ban PAID advertisements because they disagree with their religious message. This is censorship and ignorance at its peak. If I pay money for an advertisement, what the fuck gives you the right to try to get it removed because you disagree with what it says? This isn't obscenity in any sense of the work, you just disagree with the particular message. I find the "Jesus saves" and other religious B.S. advertisements on highway billboards highly offensive, but I don't try to BAN them.
Who said anything about banning it?
My comment was merely aoubt how DUMB it was to obsess about something/someone you don’t believe to exist, to the point you have to pay lots of $$$$$ to express your disbelief in the allegedly non-existent entity on the side of a bus.
In other words.....Legal? YES!!! Dumb? Absolutely!!!!
-
Who said anything about banning it?
My comment was merely aoubt how DUMB it was to obsess about something/someone you don’t believe to exist, to the point you have to pay lots of $$$$$ to express your disbelief in the allegedly non-existent entity on the side of a bus.
In other words.....Legal? YES!!! Dumb? Absolutely!!!!
Someone had asked why the city would "approve" it.
I don't think it's stupid to obsess over something you don't believe in. Especially when that thing that you don't believe in affects countless people around you, and indirectly affects you. In our world, even things that don't exist can hurt us if people believe in them and to stupid things because of those beliefs.
-
What is this? You have managed to turn this into an Amway sales pitch? I thought we were talking about helping needy people around the world. Is this how you are helping? No, you are not helping them. You are kicking them when they're down.
You are taking advantage of their desperate situation and exploiting them when they are most vulnerable, luring them into your pyramid scheme...all the while bad mouthing those who are truly helping them.
As for your opinion of what we are doing... I beg to differ. In fact, I cannot disagree with you strongly enough.
First off: We are NOT exploiting anyone, or taking advantage of desperate situations.
It is the international bankers, corrupt politicians, cartels, and war mongers across the planet that exploited them.
We are addressing their desperate situations in a sustainable fashion. That's lasting change.
Secondly: I was not bad-mouthing anyone. Again, I was very clear. My astonishment was reserved for those who do not bat an eye at suffering in the world, but who get all riled up because someone has taken out a billboard advertisement that states an opinion they do not agree with. I was not bad-mouthing Christians or faith based relief organizations.
Thirdly: We do NOT operate a pyramid scheme, ...we are a legitimate network marketing company.
Pyramid schemes often try to disguise themselves as network marketing companies, that doesn't make them so.
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/pitbunny.jpg)
Is this a pit bull or a bunny rabbit? See my point? :D ...and I am not involved with Amway.
Fourthly: I have not made a sales pitch. You asked me what I do to help these people. I told you what I do to help people in desperate situations, and I told you I dig wells and build schools with my colleagues. end of story. You then came back asking for further clarification, asking me how I do what I do, ...and I told you that network marketing is the vehicle that allows me to do this. Had I informed you about the very products & services I provide to the public, the various prices of the items sold that generate the income, that finances this, then perhaps you could stretch somewhat to try to fashion an argument that I was making a sales pitch, ...but I have got to insist that you not keep requesting further clarification, then objecting when I give it to you.
Fifthly: We are truly helping people, however, we are doing it in a sustainable fashion NO STRINGS ATTACHED.
It takes money to build a school. Many faith based organizations do the same. I will make a comparison between us and them because I believe that is who you think I was referring to (despite my previously stating that not to be the case). As we can both agree, faith based organizations help others in various parts of the world to meet basic needs, etc. They acquire their funding through handouts. Begging money from governments, citizens etc. Then they come back next season requesting more.
Some people will give $50 to a group, but do so not out of some desire to help, but because their religion tells them they have to give this money to their church, so they do it out of dogmatic obligation and/or a tax write off. Many other people have a sincere desire to help, but do not have the financial resources to do so directly, or the ability to roll up their sleeves and help, so they give $5, $25, $100 etc., to a faithbased org or registered charity, and hope it's not run by an individual with the character of Jimmy Swaggert, Jim or Tammy Faye Baker.
Network marketers however, are a different breed of humanitarian.
We fund our charitable & humanitarian activities through our businesses.
We have the financial means, and the lifestyle that enables us to hop on a plane and fly to some part of the world, ...roll up our sleeves and put shovel to dirt. A network mktr making a 6 figure monthly income has a lot of resources at their disposal to get the job done, ...not to mention the ability to fly to some remote part of the world for 3 or 4 months at a time overseeing a project, ...all the while the income continues coming in.
Most people cannot do that. There are those who would love to go to Peru and work with farmers down there, but they have to work their 9-5 Just Over Broke day in day out to put food on their own table, and a roof over their family's head. So they again turn to some organization hoping it's not run by a Jim Baker.
A huge distinction between what we as network marketers do and the faith based groups do, is that network mktrs do it without any strings attached. The faith based groups (missionaries) will go over, and provide the assistance, but along with it comes an agenda; ...one that discounts, and obliterates native customs, cultures, and religions, and replaces it with their particular doctrine. Their help comes with a price tag... religious conversion and endless proselytizing ad nausem. I don't think we need to get into the effects on a society when their culture is destroyed. Especially while corporate avarice moves in and takes all their resources leaving nothing in return except destroyed local economies, and polluted environments. It creates unsustainable bubbles that eventually burst to the detriment of all concerned. We've seen ample evidence of that across the globe over the years, ...and in recent months.
The network mktr however, is simply supporting a cause we believe in. These people over there need a school. Let's build one. This village over there needs clean drinking water. Let's put in a well that will do just that. This organization needs a source of perpetual funding, one that is not vulnerable to whimsical changes in government administrations, or influential lobbyists with exceptional access to administrative decision makers. Our solution, ...let's build a business whose profits can sustain the funding needs of the organization through passive residual income. This allows the organization to devote their time to the task at hand, rather than constant fundraising. We are entrepreneurs with a talent for feeding two birds with the same worm. We are intimately acquainted with universal principles and the interconnectedness of all things, and we leverage these principles.
Let's say you have a valueable product with the ability to simultaneously clean up the air, while reducing the customer's expenditures, allowing the customer of the product to keep more money in his/her pocket, or in the case of some (if your customer is a business owner), to even remain in business. The more customers you have using it, the cleaner the air would be, the more money your customers would have, and the more businesses that would stay afloat right? The more sales generated, the cleaner the air becomes, the more money your customers keep in their pockets, ...and the more money you make, and the more money you have available to do good works.
Let me give you a hypothetical using small numers:
Person #1 in NewYork who was just laid off from their job, can sell a product to Customer A, and earn a direct retail sales commission that they can put into their pocket immediately. Customer A is happy because this product represents real value to them. By using this product, they can meet compliance guidelines that allow them to stay in business. They also save themselves $X, allowing them to expand their businesses and hire additional employees. Something sorely needed especially in this economy. Customer A continues to buy the product. Sets up a standing monthly order for this product so it can be automatically shipped to them at intervals of their choosing. They never have to run out of it, or schlep across town to get it from Person 1. Person 1's customer is supplied, and Person 1 didn't have to tie up massive amounts of capital to do it, nor did they have to schlep across town to deliver the product. You have just created an ongoing income from a one-time effort. Of course, Person 1 is now going to sell that same product to Customer B, and Customers C,D,E,F,G etc. All 7 customers set up standing monthly orders for these products. Every month, Person A has income coming in from 7 customers. So what is he going to do, he's going to gather another 7 customers and so on and so on. Let's say that Person 1 eventually develops 100 customers. Every month, Person 1 makes commissions from 100 sales whether s/he gets out of bed or not.
That's 100 customers staying in business and hiring employees... and cleaning up the air in the process.
What if Person 1 received a matching bonus check for everybody that s/he taught to do the same thing?
If Person 1 taught Person 2 how to do the same thing. and then taught Persons 3, Person 4,5,6,7 etc
As Person 1, your business would have 700 sales every month whether you got out of bed or not. Passive Income.
Now Persons 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, duplicated the same thing, and each found 7 more people who each develop 100 customers. You could be earning a residual income on monthly sales generation of 34,300 businesses
...whether you got out of bed or not, in addition to a check matching bonus on 343 other people doing what you are.
What kind of an impact do you think 34,300 businesses NOT closing their doors has on a local economy?
...especially if businesses are a type whose demise could stop a NATIONAL economy in it's tracks?
How many additional employees can 34,300 businesses hire if they are able to improve their profit margins, while reduce operating expenses. Many companies reduce expenses by laying workers off, ...what if you could help a business to reduce expenses and improve their profit margins, while hiring additional workers? How many local families does that feed, house, and clothe?
Duplicate this process over time, ...and it can generate some very impressive numbers.
It's a win/ win/ win/ situation all around. I see nothing wrong with, and everything right, about being able to sustainably finance the desperate needs of people around the planet, by simultaneously providing value to consumers, an income source for the unemployed, and cleaner air for people to breathe, and stimulating local economies on a global scale.
Do you think that when we go over and build schools, we're trying to recruit distributors?
Because if that's your impression, you are completely mistaken.
Most successful network mktrs belong to companies who do not even do business in those countries.
My friend has been building schools and digging wells in Uganda for yrs. She's also been in network mkting for over 30 yrs, and to my knowledge, not until 3 years ago did she even participate with a networking company that even did business in Uganda. Most only did business in the US, Canada, Japan, UK, and Australia.
There are some network marketers who are attracted to the industry because the income it produces can create a life of absolute hedonistic luxury for them. A $300,000 per month, or a $500,000/month, or in the case of the very elite mlm'er, a 7 figure a month income, can produce an incredible lifesyle and a legacy that can set your family up for life. Not only their immediate family, but their kids, grandchildren, and heirs for generations to come.
The vast majority of elite income earners that I've met however, live well below their means, in quite modest accomodations, rarely revealing their assets except to those within the same asset bracket who would not be intimidated by it. Many continue to live as they did when their family was getting by on their corporate salaries of less than $100K a year, ...but the income is invested in many endeavors... whether it be in real estate, stock markets, or travelling the world putting boots on the ground, doing hands on good works. And yes, some hide it under their mattresses.
Not everyone can be Oprah Winfrey and have their own media empire that enables them to build an elite academy, however, network marketing affords everyone the opportunity to be able to do the same good works as Oprah, and develop the financial means to do it, despite their lack of a talk show, or monthly magazine.
Network marketers have options and choices the non network marketer does not.
The non network marketer gives their money to a faith based group, and that group decides how it will be spent.
There may not even be an existing organization that focusses on the areas or causes the person wants to support, so they examine a list of existing institutions and picks one that comes the closest... again hoping it's not run by a Jim Baker.
The network marketer has the ability to fund his/her desired cause directly, and make a difference on the planet, ..if s/he chooses to make that kind of a difference on the planet. Or, ...s/he can simply keep the residual income they've earned, and live a good life. The choice is entirely their own.
And who cares what Bill Clinton has to say? In that same video he says "In America, if you play by the rules..." If you play by the rules? Yeah, we all know he played by the rules to get to where he is.
That's why we do what we do. We know that society doesn't work the way it's supposed to. We know that many are feeling the harsh betrayal of the corporate world after "playing by the rules". It has led to many lives shattered, loyal employees who've devoted their lives to companies at the expense of their marriages, families, being shafted out of retirement incomes, pension plans, etc., In network marketing, however, ...if you play by the rules, you will be able to achieve your goals and your dreams... whatever they are. There is no glass ceiling. You produce... you get results. Network marketing is simply the vehicle we use as leverage to achieve them. It is Brilliant Compensation (http://www.jaguarenterprisesnet/brilliant.htm) at it's finest.
That's what I do, ...and that's how I do it. I never did get your answer about what you do?
-
I don't have time to read all of that, but I might come back and read it...one of these days.
-
that is awesome
-
that is awesome
*bump*
-
LOL HAHAHAHAHHAHA WOW :o I think its hillarious that atheist continuosly come on this board and complain about how religious ppl try to ram religion down there throat. Then turn around and defend or agree with atheist trying to push their agenda publicly...Ive asked this question to many ppl necrosis has avoided it multiple times, Whats the difference between religious ppl pushing their agenda and atheist pushing theirs? both do it yet you guys seem to only bitch and moan about religious ppl doing it, whats the difference?
-
LOL HAHAHAHAHHAHA WOW :o I think its hillarious that atheist continuosly come on this board and complain about how religious ppl try to ram religion down there throat. Then turn around and defend or agree with atheist trying to push their agenda publicly...Ive asked this question to many ppl necrosis has avoided it multiple times, Whats the difference between religious ppl pushing their agenda and atheist pushing theirs? both do it yet you guys seem to only bitch and moan about religious ppl doing it, whats the difference?
Are you categorizing me as part of the atheist crowd? Because if you are, ...you are gravely mistaken.
I believe you asked me once before if I was an atheist, ...and I told you I was not.
Is your your ADD kicking in again, ...or has all that high fructose corn syrup in the US impaired your memory? :P
-
LOL HAHAHAHAHHAHA WOW :o I think its hillarious that atheist continuosly come on this board and complain about how religious ppl try to ram religion down there throat. Then turn around and defend or agree with atheist trying to push their agenda publicly...Ive asked this question to many ppl necrosis has avoided it multiple times, Whats the difference between religious ppl pushing their agenda and atheist pushing theirs? both do it yet you guys seem to only bitch and moan about religious ppl doing it, whats the difference?
i answered the question in the only thread you have asked me ::)
-
i answered the question in the only thread you have asked me ::)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=287840.25#lastPost
LOL go reread that thread brainchild and try not to prove my point and sound like little kid arguing with grown ups
better yet heres your response
i am fine with religious people keeping it to themselves, since they cannot then it must be opposed.
how is that any different from religious ppl pushing their ideas on you?
if you just want there to be no religious statements made in public life ok but then you go and agree with this idiocy and act like youre in the right? :o hahahah WOW its amazing that you dont see the irony and idiocy in that contradiction...
-
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=287840.25#lastPost
LOL go reread that thread brainchild and try not to prove my point and sound like little kid arguing with grown ups
better yet heres your responsehow is that any different from religious ppl pushing their ideas on you?
if you just want there to be no religious statements made in public life ok but then you go and agree with this idiocy and act like youre in the right? :o hahahah WOW its amazing that you dont see the irony and idiocy in that contradiction...
i cant even follow what you are saying. Religious people would continue to preach etc regardless of atheism, they act unconstitutionally, like the baby jesus set-up on gov property while atheist do not.
relgious people have there god on our money, deny people government positions and i dare say deny us the presidency of the united states. Not to mention they are closed minded impeders of progress.
atheism could not exist without religion, not vice versa.
One view is based on evidence the other on faith and superstition. If you can't see the difference then i do not know what to say.
-
i cant even follow what you are saying. Religious people would continue to preach etc regardless of atheism, they act unconstitutionally, like the baby jesus set-up on gov property while atheist do not.
relgious people have there god on our money, deny people government positions and i dare say deny us the presidency of the united states. Not to mention they are closed minded impeders of progress.
atheism could not exist without religion, not vice versa.
One view is based on evidence the other on faith and superstition. If you can't see the difference then i do not know what to say.
apparently you cannot b/c nowhere in that incoherent babbling did you come close to answering my question so Ill pose it again
You are against religious ppl pushing their views on you, right? but you agree with this add, right? whats the difference? atheist are pushing their views on ppl arent they? but youre ok with that?
how does religion deny ppl govt positions, presidency? thats idiocy thats like saying gays deny ppl awards at the grammys...
-
One view is based on evidence the other on faith and superstition. If you can't see the difference then i do not know what to say.
evidence, what evidence do you have that proves that God doesnt exist? this is the problem with your types you come out and act arrogant and all knowing yet know nothing more then anybody else...
-
apparently you cannot b/c nowhere in that incoherent babbling did you come close to answering my question so Ill pose it again
You are against religious ppl pushing their views on you, right? but you agree with this add, right? whats the difference? atheist are pushing their views on ppl arent they? but youre ok with that?
how does religion deny ppl govt positions, presidency? thats idiocy thats like saying gays deny ppl awards at the grammys...
one is based on rational thought and the evidence, the other faith. I have a problem with faith and views that are inherently dangerous. This is the difference. Religious views tell you that you will go to hell, how life started, what happens when you die, how you should live your life etc..
the add if im not mistaken said there probably isnt a god, so stop worrying. I see that as a rational thought that people should ponder.
People are denied government positions, do you your homework before you call someone an idiot. You believe in the irrational, so who's the idiot?
-
evidence, what evidence do you have that proves that God doesnt exist? this is the problem with your types you come out and act arrogant and all knowing yet know nothing more then anybody else...
there is no evidence for god, that is the evidence. I believe in what is evident and logical. You cannot prove a negative and the logically conclusion would lead one to believe there is no god, at least how the bible describes him.
Being omni everything is logically impossible.
the religious act as if they know everything, shit you cant even change there mind with competing facts, that is arrogant.
-
there is no evidence for god, that is the evidence. I believe in what is evident and logical. You cannot prove a negative and the logically conclusion would lead one to believe there is no god, at least how the bible describes him.
Being omni everything is logically impossible.
the religious act as if they know everything, shit you cant even change there mind with competing facts, that is arrogant.
Don't you have an unscientific, faith-based belief in how life on earth originated?
-
Don't you have an unscientific, faith-based belief in how life on earth originated?
no
-
no
What is your scientifically substantiated belief in how life originated on earth?
-
one is based on rational thought and the evidence, the other faith. I have a problem with faith and views that are inherently dangerous. This is the difference. Religious views tell you that you will go to hell, how life started, what happens when you die, how you should live your life etc..
the add if im not mistaken said there probably isnt a god, so stop worrying. I see that as a rational thought that people should ponder.
People are denied government positions, do you your homework before you call someone an idiot. You believe in the irrational, so who's the idiot?
I agree that it is a thought ppl should ponder even religious ppl should take that into consideration and decide what to do with it I have...that however doesnt answer the question What makes that any different then religious ppl trying to push their ideals on others? try to stay with this issue....
Exactly how are they denied govt positions you made the claim you back it up...
-
there is no evidence for god, that is the evidence. I believe in what is evident and logical. You cannot prove a negative and the logically conclusion would lead one to believe there is no god, at least how the bible describes him.
Being omni everything is logically impossible.
the religious act as if they know everything, shit you cant even change there mind with competing facts, that is arrogant.
WHAT??????? I dont know whether to laugh or face palm in sadness that you even think like that. Im fairly certain you never attended college now and if you did you never took a stats class...Lack of evidence in your mind doesnt prove that God doesnt exist...Even if no evidence existed what so ever wouldnt disprove God you need evidence that disproves God to say he doesnt exist not pointing to a lack of evidence and saying seee no God...idiocy.
How do you know what I believe about God? Ive have my own beliefs and as such believe the Bible is skewed as it was written and translated by MAN that doesnt disprove GOD...
so again necrosis what proof do you have THAT GOD DOESNT EXIST?
-
WHAT??????? I dont know whether to laugh or face palm in sadness that you even think like that. Im fairly certain you never attended college now and if you did you never took a stats class...Lack of evidence in your mind doesnt prove that God doesnt exist...Even if no evidence existed what so ever wouldnt disprove God you need evidence that disproves God to say he doesnt exist not pointing to a lack of evidence and saying seee no God...idiocy.
How do you know what I believe about God? Ive have my own beliefs and as such believe the Bible is skewed as it was written and translated by MAN that doesnt disprove GOD...
so again necrosis what proof do you have THAT GOD DOESNT EXIST?
i am 100% certain i know more about statistics then you, as i did advanced level in university ::). You took my quote out of context, there is no evidence whatsoever of god, therefore i do not believe in a god. It is both irrational and illogical to believe in something without proof.
however, logically we view a world that goes from simple to complex, never the reverse what relgious folk suggest is the complete opposite, that hypercomplex was at the start and made the simple. Also, to defend my suggestion that lack of evidence is evidence, we would expect to find some evidence of a loving, hyperintelligent being in our existence. The fact that all signs point to the opposite is in fact evidence.just like i cant prove gravity always works, i can point to the evidence that it does.the fact that no one has witnessed the law of gravity reversed or sidestepped gives us pretty strong inclination that it always occurs everywhere. However, this cannot be proven. It is reasonable to make assumptions like this when faced with overwhelming evidence or lack thereof.
For instance, if an intelligent being made this world we would expect it to be orderly and logical. however, it is not. Natural disasters occur at random, the eye is a poor design, child malformations and a star that will obliterate us, point to no intelligence behind it all. Why can i make this assumption? because i also am intelligent and can see that these things make no sense in a rational context. Also, one cannot know the future while being all loving in this existence. God in terms of the bible created people knowing they would go to hell, makes no sense and is logically impossible to reconcile.Hell also goes against an all loving god, another contradiction that cannot be rectified.
also, Never once have we seen god, pictures, a change in the physical laws, a miracle even. A complete lack of evidence for something that created everything and is claimed to be involved with it. Perhaps you should go back to stats class because probability is on my side, not yours. Not once have we found a god, or supernatural explanation for any discovery, out of the millions. This indicates that the trend will most likely continue and no god will be found. However, there could be.unicorns may exist but the overwhelming lack of evidence would suggest they do not, just like god. So i cannot prove a negative but i can make safe assumptions based on the evidence and the claims made, if a god existed surely some evidence would exist.
You think you are safe in your belief that you cannot prove a negative, as if that should make you more comfortable in your irrationality. Meanwhile the criteria you present or anyone presents of a god is impossible to measure in the first place making it a total non starter and irrelavant.
Now my question to you is what is your evidence for god?
-
i am 100% certain i know more about statistics then you, as i did advanced level in university ::). You took my quote out of context, there is no evidence whatsoever of god, therefore i do not believe in a god. It is both irrational and illogical to believe in something without proof.
however, logically we view a world that goes from simple to complex, never the reverse what relgious folk suggest is the complete opposite, that hypercomplex was at the start and made the simple. Also, to defend my suggestion that lack of evidence is evidence, we would expect to find some evidence of a loving, hyperintelligent being in our existence. The fact that all signs point to the opposite is in fact evidence.just like i cant prove gravity always works, i can point to the evidence that it does.the fact that no one has witnessed the law of gravity reversed or sidestepped gives us pretty strong inclination that it always occurs everywhere. However, this cannot be proven. It is reasonable to make assumptions like this when faced with overwhelming evidence or lack thereof.
For instance, if an intelligent being made this world we would expect it to be orderly and logical. however, it is not. Natural disasters occur at random, the eye is a poor design, child malformations and a star that will obliterate us, point to no intelligence behind it all. Why can i make this assumption? because i also am intelligent and can see that these things make no sense in a rational context. Also, one cannot know the future while being all loving in this existence. God in terms of the bible created people knowing they would go to hell, makes no sense and is logically impossible to reconcile.Hell also goes against an all loving god, another contradiction that cannot be rectified.
also, Never once have we seen god, pictures, a change in the physical laws, a miracle even. A complete lack of evidence for something that created everything and is claimed to be involved with it. Perhaps you should go back to stats class because probability is on my side, not yours. Not once have we found a god, or supernatural explanation for any discovery, out of the millions. This indicates that the trend will most likely continue and no god will be found. However, there could be.unicorns may exist but the overwhelming lack of evidence would suggest they do not, just like god. So i cannot prove a negative but i can make safe assumptions based on the evidence and the claims made, if a god existed surely some evidence would exist.
You think you are safe in your belief that you cannot prove a negative, as if that should make you more comfortable in your irrationality. Meanwhile the criteria you present or anyone presents of a god is impossible to measure in the first place making it a total non starter and irrelavant.
Now my question to you is what is your evidence for god?
as did i and you know that simply b/c there is no proof(as you would put it) doesnt mean that something doesnt exist if you did...maybe you slept through that day?
simply b/c you cannot see the intelligence doesnt mean that intelligence isnt there, again another fallacy of yours...
YOU HAVE TO DISPROVE SOMETHING WHICH YOU CANT, YOU CAN ONLY POINT TO THE LACK OF PROOF IN YOUR EYES AND SAY SEE IT DOESNT EXIST B/C I DONT BELIEVE IT. Again what PROOF do you have that God doesnt exist?
AGAIN you seem to have a comprehension problem hence your misunderstanding of you stats professor i assume...how do you know what I believe? youve never asked you assume...
Ive seen events, witnessed things that make me believe in God simply b/c you havent doesnt prove that God doesnt exist does it?
my evidence for God are my personal experiences, but again even if cant prove God doesnt mean God doesnt exist as you say, YOU WOULD HAVE TO DISPROVE GOD, so what evidence do you have to disprove God?
-
as did i and you know that simply b/c there is no proof(as you would put it) doesnt mean that something doesnt exist if you did...maybe you slept through that day?
simply b/c you cannot see the intelligence doesnt mean that intelligence isnt there, again another fallacy of yours...
umm thats not an argument ::) how is that an argument in favor of something? how is that a fallacy? lol
YOU HAVE TO DISPROVE SOMETHING WHICH YOU CANT, YOU CAN ONLY POINT TO THE LACK OF PROOF IN YOUR EYES AND SAY SEE IT DOESNT EXIST B/C I DONT BELIEVE IT. Again what PROOF do you have that God doesnt exist?
AGAIN you seem to have a comprehension problem hence your misunderstanding of you stats professor i assume...how do you know what I believe? youve never asked you assume...
Ive seen events, witnessed things that make me believe in God simply b/c you havent doesnt prove that God doesnt exist does it?
my evidence for God are my personal experiences, but again even if cant prove God doesnt mean God doesnt exist as you say, YOU WOULD HAVE TO DISPROVE GOD, so what evidence do you have to disprove God?
[/quote]
umm no the laws of probability are on my side, perhaps you should look at the formula,you are missing one key variable.
no it is you who has to prove god exists, i realize your proof or evidence is irrational and easily dismantled but provide something.
"Ive seen events, witnessed things that make me believe in God simply b/c you havent doesnt prove that God doesnt exist does it?"
if i take dmt i see fairies that doesnt mean they weren't real, but chances are they are not when no one else can see them. Along with corroborating evidence. sorry personal feelings aren't proof, you are irrational and illogically.
provide a definition of god and i will logically prove why there is no good reason to believe it exists. Provide your personal experiences also, whatever. Still no good reason to believe.
I cannot directly disprove something that is no avalible to the natural world, quite loophole you have yourself.
-
umm thats not an argument ::) how is that an argument in favor of something? how is that a fallacy? lol
AGAIN you seem to have a comprehension problem hence your misunderstanding of you stats professor i assume...how do you know what I believe? youve never asked you assume...
Ive seen events, witnessed things that make me believe in God simply b/c you havent doesnt prove that God doesnt exist does it?
my evidence for God are my personal experiences, but again even if cant prove God doesnt mean God doesnt exist as you say, YOU WOULD HAVE TO DISPROVE GOD, so what evidence do you have to disprove God?
umm no the laws of probability are on my side, perhaps you should look at the formula,you are missing one key variable.
no it is you who has to prove god exists, i realize your proof or evidence is irrational and easily dismantled but provide something.
"Ive seen events, witnessed things that make me believe in God simply b/c you havent doesnt prove that God doesnt exist does it?"
if i take dmt i see fairies that doesnt mean they weren't real, but chances are they are not when no one else can see them. Along with corroborating evidence. sorry personal feelings aren't proof, you are irrational and illogically.
provide a definition of god and i will logically prove why there is no good reason to believe it exists. Provide your personal experiences also, whatever. Still no good reason to believe.
I cannot directly disprove something that is no avalible to the natural world, quite loophole you have yourself.
oh goodness gracious necrosis i assume you know what type 1 and type 2 errors are since you supposedly know statistics now simply b/c stats say something is probably doesnt mean that is a certainty does it?
No no no you see you state that God doesnt exist so the burden of proof is also on you buddy. If you were to say God probably doesnt exist then you could get away with I dont have to prove anything but you state that for a certainty you know God doesnt exist so you must show proof, not lack of proof from the other side...
no matter what you disprove about my personal experience still doesnt disprove GOD, again lack of evidence doesnt disprove, YOU NEED EVIDENCE THAT GOD DOESNT EXIST TO SAY THAT...so what is your evidence?
-
The main difference between atheists and religious people is that atheists actually accept the possibility of a god, because of the simple fact that no one can disprove the existence of a god, or a pink unicorn, or a flying spaghetti monster.
So it is pointless to ask someone to disprove god. Meanwhile it is perfectly okay to ask for evidence of god. The burden of evidence lies on whoever is claiming incredible things.
-
The main difference between atheists and religious people is that atheists actually accept the possibility of a god, because of the simple fact that no one can disprove the existence of a god, or a pink unicorn, or a flying spaghetti monster.
So it is pointless to ask someone to disprove god. Meanwhile it is perfectly okay to ask for evidence of god. The burden of evidence lies on whoever is claiming incredible things.
No atheist a vast portion of atheist dont accept the possibility of God ask necrosis...as ive already stated the possibility that God doesnt exist is a viable possibility and one that i think everyone should explore especially those that choose to believe. I have and although it was a very spiritually and emotionally painful process I am a better person and have a better understanding of my beliefs as a result...
-
No atheist a vast portion of atheist dont accept the possibility of God ask necrosis...as ive already stated the possibility that God doesnt exist is a viable possibility and one that i think everyone should explore especially those that choose to believe. I have and although it was a very spiritually and emotionally painful process I am a better person and have a better understanding of my beliefs as a result...
whoever doesnt accept the possibility of a god or the possibility of anything are closed minded.
-
oh goodness gracious necrosis i assume you know what type 1 and type 2 errors are since you supposedly know statistics now simply b/c stats say something is probably doesnt mean that is a certainty does it?
No no no you see you state that God doesnt exist so the burden of proof is also on you buddy. If you were to say God probably doesnt exist then you could get away with I dont have to prove anything but you state that for a certainty you know God doesnt exist so you must show proof, not lack of proof from the other side...
no matter what you disprove about my personal experience still doesnt disprove GOD, again lack of evidence doesnt disprove, YOU NEED EVIDENCE THAT GOD DOESNT EXIST TO SAY THAT...so what is your evidence?
i have already shown by analogy and probability that i dont need evidence. Physical evidence is impossible to provide against a supernatural being, its unfair. How can i disprove something immaterial? Again theorectical physics prove stuff all the time by lack of evidence and indirect assumptions. We have cell phones etc to thank for it.
the logical impossibility of god along with the statistical improbability that something who created and participates in the universe yet leaves no evidence exists point to no god. Just like it points to no santa.
The burden or proof is on you, i see based on evidence that there is no god, however, there could be.
you have presented no evidence at all.
-
i have already shown by analogy and probability that i dont need evidence. Physical evidence is impossible to provide against a supernatural being, its unfair. How can i disprove something immaterial? Again theorectical physics prove stuff all the time by lack of evidence and indirect assumptions. We have cell phones etc to thank for it.
the logical impossibility of god along with the statistical improbability that something who created and participates in the universe yet leaves no evidence exists point to no god. Just like it points to no santa.
The burden or proof is on you, i see based on evidence that there is no god, however, there could be.
you have presented no evidence at all.
OMG i know for sure now you slept through stats, simply b/c a hypothesis is proven false statistically speaking doesnt mean you support the opposing hypothesis, that my friend is statistics 101...
Your assertion is that God doesnt exist, isnt it? or is it that there is a possibility that God exist, but you think that one doesnt?
Mine is that I believe God exists is it a possibility that God doesnt of course nobody knows for sure. My personal reasoning for believing in God will not be enough for you, you know this and I know this but then again I dont claim that God does without certainty exist such as you claimed without certainty that God doesnt exist...
We are in the same situation necrosis you dont know for sure and either do I at least now you admit that the possibility of God is there as before you maintained that God did not exist...
You have no proof to show that God doesnt exist just as I have none to show that God does exist, agreed?
-
OMG i know for sure now you slept through stats, simply b/c a hypothesis is proven false statistically speaking doesnt mean you support the opposing hypothesis, that my friend is statistics 101...
You have no proof to show that God doesnt exist just as I have none to show that God does exist, agreed?
true, however this is not stats. Probability is stats, a logical argument is not bound by stats. Yes the null hypothesis is quite complex, when you are going three way anovas, post hoc analysis and ancovas..
i would argue that based on probability and reasoning one can reasonable conclude that the god of the bible doesnt exist. However, god could exist, i am open minded. I wish he did to be honest, however, i only go by the evidence.
-
true, however this is not stats. Probability is stats, a logical argument is not bound by stats. Yes the null hypothesis is quite complex, when you are going three way anovas, post hoc analysis and ancovas..
i would argue that based on probability and reasoning one can reasonable conclude that the god of the bible doesnt exist. However, god could exist, i am open minded. I wish he did to be honest, however, i only go by the evidence.
Ok now again how do you know what I believe? I do not take a literal view of the bible like some do, again it was written and inturpretted by man and is therefore inherintly skewed man cannot touch anything without altering it with bias especially writing history.
See now your arguement makes sense, neither one of us know whether God exists or not for a certainty your evidence isnt enough for me and my evidence isnt enough for you and thats all there is to it.
-
Just thought I would express what gives allot of Christians the "evidence" of God's existence. The Bible itself, when studied completely, gives most Christians astronomical amounts of "proof/evidence" of God's existence. Some of the most irresistible credentials, found in the Bible, comes from 5 major categories. These include Science, Health, History, Honesty and the overall Harmony that it contains. However, it does require that one study it thoroughly. Also, reasonableness plays a vital role as well. Not to mention, being open minded.
Before a REASONABLE person concludes that the Bible and the One who claims to be the Inspiration/Author of it, in my humble opinion, should at least study it in the context mentioned above. After all, the hope contained in the Bible is worthy to any human to at least analyze completely and in depth the message it is conveying. It's (message) is so overwhelmingly POSITIVE not too! Peace!
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
Just thought I would express what gives allot of Christians the "evidence" of God's existence. The Bible itself, when studied completely, gives most Christians astronomical amounts of "proof/evidence" of God's existence. Some of the most irresistible credentials, found in the Bible, comes from 5 major categories. These include Science, Health, History, Honesty and the overall Harmony that it contains. However, it does require that one study it thoroughly. Also, reasonableness plays a vital role as well. Not to mention, being open minded.
Before a REASONABLE person concludes that the Bible and the One who claims to be the Inspiration/Author of it, in my humble opinion, should at least study it in the context mentioned above. After all, the hope contained in the Bible is worthy to any human to at least analyze completely and in depth the message it is conveying. It's (message) is so overwhelmingly POSITIVE not too! Peace!
GC/DEA_AGENT
no it is not, the old testament is filled wiht genocide and evil.. are you serious?
or are you picking and choosing?
-
In all fairness I would believe in God without the bible, the bible does narrow my beliefs and ideas but like I said I would believe in God without it.
-
no it is not, the old testament is filled wiht genocide and evil.. are you serious?
or are you picking and choosing?
I completely understand your point. And in the Hebrew/Aramaic portion of the Bible, I do admit if one only keys in on those assertions without further investigation, it does appear hard to stomach.
However, those examples that you are eluding too are not genocide or evil. Those instances were instigated by those who were destroyed. For ex. Hitler had no reason to do what he did. He merely felt like those people were not worthy/good enough to exist. That's not the case with those examples mentioned in the Hebrew/Aramaic portion of the Bible.
I have to say tho, you do have valid concerns. Out of curiosity, have you made an in depth study of the Bible? As intellectual as you are, wouldn't that be a reasonable thing to do first, before you make your final decision on this? At least do that first and then if you still have the same view you will have did your best as an imperfect human to base your opinion. Just a suggestion, not trying to imply you are uneducated at all. I think you might have second hand info that your going with. It seems like you would agree, as smart as you are, to at least do this recommendation first. What's your thoughts on this?
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
In all fairness I would believe in God without the bible, the bible does narrow my beliefs and ideas but like I said I would believe in God without it.
If you were God, would you do that to your creations? That is, not give them advice or counsel on what the best way is to live? The Bible was written for our instruction by God. Does this make sense?
I'm like you tho about believing God exist without it, to many other convincing proofs. However, I can't see a loving, fair, just ,etc Person just throwing His creations on a planet without giving them a guide to live by. That's just me tho. What's your thoughts on this friend?
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
I completely understand your point. And in the Hebrew/Aramaic portion of the Bible, I do admit if one only keys in on those assertions without further investigation, it does appear hard to stomach.
However, those examples that you are eluding too are not genocide or evil. Those instances were instigated by those who were destroyed. For ex. Hitler had no reason to do what he did. He merely felt like those people were not worthy/good enough to exist. That's not the case with those examples mentioned in the Hebrew/Aramaic portion of the Bible.
I have to say tho, you do have valid concerns. Out of curiosity, have you made an in depth study of the Bible? As intellectual as you are, wouldn't that be a reasonable thing to do first, before you make your final decision on this? At least do that first and then if you still have the same view you will have did your best as an imperfect human to base your opinion. Just a suggestion, not trying to imply you are uneducated at all. I think you might have second hand info that your going with. It seems like you would agree, as smart as you are, to at least do this recommendation first. What's your thoughts on this?
GC/DEA_AGENT
no i have not. i have read some of it, however, i find it pointless and a waste of time.
However, i agree with you.
-
no it is not, the old testament is filled wiht genocide and evil.. are you serious?
or are you picking and choosing?
The definition of Genocide doesn't apply the OT.
-
The definition of Genocide doesn't apply the OT.
k
the book is immoral, god should be everlasting and never changing, hence, one wrong action disproves his moral perfection and perfection as a whole.
-
If you were God, would you do that to your creations? That is, not give them advice or counsel on what the best way is to live? The Bible was written for our instruction by God. Does this make sense?
I'm like you tho about believing God exist without it, to many other convincing proofs. However, I can't see a loving, fair, just ,etc Person just throwing His creations on a planet without giving them a guide to live by. That's just me tho. What's your thoughts on this friend?
GC/DEA_AGENT
Who knows, I honestly dont know, why would God let ppl suffer or harm come to anybody? The answer isnt a straight foreward one there are alot of things that you could say a fair, loving and just God wouldnt do that does happen so I have no idea. All I know is I believe there to be a God who gave us Jesus and we should try and live a good life.
-
why would God let ppl suffer or harm come to anybody?
Why did he let his beloved son suffer? People are allowed to exercise free will. From what I can tell, God doesn't interfere with that as of now. However, He does guarantee in the near future that He will correct all of these injustices. At that point, people or the animals/insects/etc. will not be allowed to do harm to His creations.
The answer isn't a straight forward one there are allot of things that you could say a fair, loving and just God wouldn't do that does happen so I have no idea.
He didn't/doesn't do those things. Have a look at Romans 9:14, 17, 20 , 22-24 ; Job 1:9-12 , 2:4-6 ; Revalation 12:7 , 8, 12 ; 2 Timothy 3:1-5 ; Matthew 24:3 , 4, 7 , 8 , 12 ; Proverbs 15:3 , 27 , 11:5 , 6 , 19 ; 1 Peter 3:10-12 ; 2 Peter 3:9 , 15
All I know is I believe there to be a God who gave us Jesus and we should try and live a good life.
Commendable attitude indeed! In order for us to do this effectively, we need to follow Jesus' example. One of his admonitions to us was to take in knowledge of him and his father. The only book that claims to be of this source is the Bible. Jesus quoted from the Hebrew/Aramaic scriptures numerous times, indicating that his Father did provide a written source for us to go by. Anyway, it's good that you are sound in your belief in God. Peace!
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
k
the book is immoral, god should be everlasting and never changing, hence, one wrong action disproves his moral perfection and perfection as a whole.
Precisely.
-
Sorry to get off base, however, I have a bizarre question and I figured with all the Sharpe minds posting in this thread, I would give it a shot.
Is it possible to love to read, yet can't handle it? Peace!
GC/DEA_AGENT