Atheists' bus ads on the way

[maroonlegions]

Atheists' bus ads on the way

 

 

 

Published Date: 22 October 2008

ATHEISTS want to buy advertising space on Edinburgh buses to tell people: "There's probably no God".

Controversial author Professor Richard Dawkins has pledged cash for the venture and more than ?20,000 has been raised in individual donations to the British Humanist Association.

 

The idea came from comedy writer Ariane Sherine, who objected to a series of Christian adverts running on London buses.

 

Now the atheists plan to hit back with their own adverts and the message. : "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.":107years:

 

The ads are due to run in London in January, and organisers then hope to extend them to other UK cities, including Edinburgh.

 

 

Quality, like it and why not, after all its a free country and people should have the right to air their views.

[andy1874hmfc]

Atheists' bus ads on the way

 

 

 

Published Date: 22 October 2008

ATHEISTS want to buy advertising space on Edinburgh buses to tell people: "There's probably no God".

Controversial author Professor Richard Dawkins has pledged cash for the venture and more than ?20,000 has been raised in individual donations to the British Humanist Association.

 

The idea came from comedy writer Ariane Sherine, who objected to a series of Christian adverts running on London buses.

 

Now the atheists plan to hit back with their own adverts and the message. : "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.":107years:

 

The ads are due to run in London in January, and organisers then hope to extend them to other UK cities, including Edinburgh.

 

 

Quality, like it and why not, after all its a free country and people should have the right to air their views.

 

It's about time IMO.

[jambogaza]

Atheists' bus ads on the way

 

 

 

Published Date: 22 October 2008

ATHEISTS want to buy advertising space on Edinburgh buses to tell people: "There's probably no God".

Controversial author Professor Richard Dawkins has pledged cash for the venture and more than ?20,000 has been raised in individual donations to the British Humanist Association.

 

The idea came from comedy writer Ariane Sherine, who objected to a series of Christian adverts running on London buses.

 

Now the atheists plan to hit back with their own adverts and the message. : "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.":107years:

 

The ads are due to run in London in January, and organisers then hope to extend them to other UK cities, including Edinburgh.

 

 

Quality, like it and why not, after all its a free country and people should have the right to air their views.

 

Which paper was this in?

[Louise]

I like this, although it won't make the slightest difference to anyone's opinions TBH.

I've seen a distburbing amount of normal looking people driving about with Alpha Course stickers on their cars ...

[coppercrutch]

I like this, although it won't make the slightest difference to anyone's opinions TBH.

I've seen a distburbing amount of normal looking people driving about with Alpha Course stickers on their cars ...

 

Which is ?

[Chester™]

Which paper was this in?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7681914.stm

[Louise]

Which is ?

 

The Alpha Course

[maroonlegions]

Which paper was this in?

 

sorry here is the link from the Evening Hobo, http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/latestnews/Atheists39-bus-ads-on-the.4616191.jp

[coppercrutch]

The Alpha Course

 

Cheers. Not my cup of tea but doesn't look too sinister....

 

Have I missed something.

[maroonlegions]

"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.":), now that should get a few smiles and chuckles from people going to their work on the bus in the mornings.

[maroonlegions]

Cheers. Not my cup of tea but doesn't look too sinister....

 

Have I missed something.

 

 

 

not my cup of brew as well but sinister they could be so might dig a bit deeper......, or my be i could be wasting my time , feck decisions but your right nothing appears to be dodgy.

[Carl Weathers]

I seen a programme with Richard Dawkins about his book, The God delusion.

 

It was great tv.

[Eggo]

Atheists' bus ads on the way

 

 

 

Published Date: 22 October 2008

ATHEISTS want to buy advertising space on Edinburgh buses to tell people: "There's probably no God".

Controversial author Professor Richard Dawkins has pledged cash for the venture and more than ?20,000 has been raised in individual donations to the British Humanist Association.

 

The idea came from comedy writer Ariane Sherine, who objected to a series of Christian adverts running on London buses.

 

Now the atheists plan to hit back with their own adverts and the message. : "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.":107years:

 

The ads are due to run in London in January, and organisers then hope to extend them to other UK cities, including Edinburgh.

 

 

Quality, like it and why not, after all its a free country and people should have the right to air their views.

 

 

 

 

Thank God for that!!!

[maroonlegions]

Thank God for that!!!

 

aye, there is only one dude to thank for this , i take my hat of to big DON up there, eh, well somewhere.

[The Doctor]

The difference is the Alpha Course encourages people to investigate Christianity for themselves, it doesn't just tell people not to worry and that there's probably no God.

 

What an empty and pointless message.

 

How is someone who has questions about life supposed to gain anything from that?

 

I've run Alpha courses, participants are encouraged to ask questions and discuss issues for themselves, in fact leaders are trained not to answer the questions, but for people to come to their own conclusions.

 

I don't have an Alpha Course sticker on my car. Louise, do I look normal?

 

Have any of you actually been to an Alpha Course?

[Louise]

*sigh* I knew there would be one.

I am an unmoveable atheist yet I don't feel the need to advertise this on my mode of transport, I was simply wondering aloud why those with faith often do.

[leginten]

I trust they'll be keeping these adverts away from the No.36 to Damascus?

[jambogaza]

We've all seen what 'advertising' one's faith and beliefs can result in.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/3228822/British-aid-worker-shot-dead-in-Afghanistan-for-preaching-Christianity.html

[The Doctor]

*sigh* I knew there would be one.

I am an unmoveable atheist yet I don't feel the need to advertise this on my mode of transport, I was simply wondering aloud why those with faith often do.

 

"Be one":eek:

 

Why should Alpha not advertise their courses on buses, for an atheist that comes across as pretty intolerant.

 

I was trying to get out of you what you meant by normal looking?

 

That's not exactly wondering aloud why those with faith advertise it on buses. I'd say that it was a veiled insult towards Christians.

 

I had a look at the BBC report and laughed at Dawkins' assertion that thinking was anathema to religion. The man is more dogmatic than any minister I know, theologian I've read or sermon I've preached. Muppet.

 

Anyway, I'm off to run a house group (which is a sort of informal faith group, prayer meeting, bible study thing) I'll be back and no continue this fascinating debate later!

 

Cheery tiddly ho!

[Tazio]

Atheists' bus ads on the way

"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

 

Sounds more agnostic than atheist to me.

[Louise]

For goodness' I was trying to be humorous.

I don't tend to go out of my way to insult Christians, especially given that my mother is one.

[Deevers]

Sounds more agnostic than atheist to me.

 

That's the way to go. Far better to keep your options open!!!!!

[djf]

Sounds more agnostic than atheist to me.

 

The two aren't really mutually exclusive are they. I'm sure any right thinking atheist would believe the existence of God in the face of solid evidence proving it.

[Deevers]

The two aren't really mutually exclusive are they. I'm sure any right thinking atheist would believe the existence of God in the face of solid evidence proving it.

 

Most atheists share a single trait in common with most committed Christians, Muslims, Buddhists etc etc etc - and that is an inability to accept that they may in fact be wrong.

[K1874M]

Most atheists share a single trait in common with most committed Christians, Muslims, Buddhists etc etc etc - and that is an inability to accept that they may in fact be wrong.

 

They also share a trait with none of the above in that they base there beliefs on science and ACTUAL events.

 

Moan the Dawkins

 

 

The Dr is right, this may be the wrong message for some, just like the Bible and the Koran.

[Carl Weathers]

They also share a trait with none of the above in that they base there beliefs on science and ACTUAL events.

 

Moan the Dawkins

 

 

The Dr is right, this may be the wrong message for some, just like the Bible and the Koran.

 

Science > religion.

 

It's just not valid in this day and age - especially when you consider all of the wars it helps to create.

[Dunks]

God is Dog backwards.

 

Discuss

[systemx]

"Be one":eek:

 

Why should Alpha not advertise their courses on buses, for an atheist that comes across as pretty intolerant.

 

I was trying to get out of you what you meant by normal looking?

 

That's not exactly wondering aloud why those with faith advertise it on buses. I'd say that it was a veiled insult towards Christians.

 

I had a look at the BBC report and laughed at Dawkins' assertion that thinking was anathema to religion. The man is more dogmatic than any minister I know, theologian I've read or sermon I've preached. Muppet.

 

Anyway, I'm off to run a house group (which is a sort of informal faith group, prayer meeting, bible study thing) I'll be back and no continue this fascinating debate later!

 

Cheery tiddly ho!

 

Has your brainwashing session finished yet?

[Ulysses]

I had a look at the BBC report and laughed at Dawkins' assertion that thinking was anathema to religion. The man is more dogmatic than any minister I know, theologian I've read or sermon I've preached. Muppet.

 

I don't find Dawkins to be at all dogmatic, but of course his view of how the world was created is the same as mine.

 

He does, for want of a better phrase, set a high standard of evidence for proof of the existence of deities. He is dismissive of those who assert proof of gods without meeting that standard - and people who rely on faith for their proof of the existence of gods see that as dogmatic.

 

But it isn't.

 

There exists a hypothesis (more accurately, a set of connected hypotheses) of how humanity came into existence that does not require it to have been created by a god. All of the available evidence supports this and none of the available evidence contradicts it. If a single piece of evidence emerges to contradict it then it will no longer be accepted by science. It will be abandoned or changed to reflect the new evidence. That is the gold standard of theory, of research, of study, and of thinking. It doesn't just apply to the creation of the universe and of humanity - it applies to every aspect of the physical, chemical and biological world.

 

What Dawkins is asking for is that people who offer alternative views of how the universe and humanity came into being should meet the same standard. But they don't, and they can't. In faith systems, it is OK to think around what you believe. But it is not OK to test your beliefs by reference to the available evidence. In other words, it is OK to do thinking that supports your faith, but it is not OK to think about how the universe and humanity came about.

 

That is why Dawkins says that thinking is anathema to religion. And he is right.

[jamboinglasgow]

To me this is dangerous, which may sound silly but every day I find atheism is becoming a religion. I have no problems with anyone who doesn't believe in any spiritual being. Everyone is free in this world to choose what they believe in. But people are turning it into a religion. To me Dawkins is trying to be a minister of atheism. It is fine to put your point accross but not try and preach if that is what you criticise others of doing. I always found that South Park is great for demonstrating this point. They have a great episode when all the parents of south park decide to go atheist as they are afraid of catholic priests. In the end they treat it like some sort of religous group. THere is also a better one where in the future, everyone is atheist but turns it into a religion. That to me is a danger.

 

While do disagree with christian posters on buses which preach damnation and try to make people guilty. Chrisitianty to me (yes I am one) is about love, help and community. Sadly people misinterpert the bible and do bad things but it does not mean that religion is wrong, only those who look for the wrong meanings in it. This could easily happen with atheism as easily lead or people look for their own means use it to do bad things.

 

Also one of the biggest misunderstandings about religion is that it science contracdicts with it. Then why are so many scientists christians? To me science explains how god makes the world work, not contracdicts with it. I believe in evolution and hate creationism.

 

As I say I have no problems with anyone who is any religion, agnostic or atheist. To me you make your own choice in life.

[Rick Grimes]

I don't find Dawkins to be at all dogmatic, but of course his view of how the world was created is the same as mine.

 

i agree with pretty much everything he says, but i find him to be horribly dogmatic.

 

there's a double episode of South Park centred around him (and Cartman as Buck Rogers) in which its stated that his ethos is that its not enough to just try to disprove the existence of God, but that you have to be a dick to everyone whilst you're doing it.

 

i don't find it much of a stretch to believe he'd say that himself.

[The Doctor]

I don't find Dawkins to be at all dogmatic, but of course his view of how the world was created is the same as mine.

 

He does, for want of a better phrase, set a high standard of evidence for proof of the existence of deities. He is dismissive of those who assert proof of gods without meeting that standard - and people who rely on faith for their proof of the existence of gods see that as dogmatic.

 

But it isn't.

 

There exists a hypothesis (more accurately, a set of connected hypotheses) of how humanity came into existence that does not require it to have been created by a god. All of the available evidence supports this and none of the available evidence contradicts it. If a single piece of evidence emerges to contradict it then it will no longer be accepted by science. It will be abandoned or changed to reflect the new evidence. That is the gold standard of theory, of research, of study, and of thinking. It doesn't just apply to the creation of the universe and of humanity - it applies to every aspect of the physical, chemical and biological world.

 

What Dawkins is asking for is that people who offer alternative views of how the universe and humanity came into being should meet the same standard. But they don't, and they can't. In faith systems, it is OK to think around what you believe. But it is not OK to test your beliefs by reference to the available evidence. In other words, it is OK to do thinking that supports your faith, but it is not OK to think about how the universe and humanity came about.

 

That is why Dawkins says that thinking is anathema to religion. And he is right.

 

Now Uly, you're not going to expect me to agree with that are you?

 

I suspect that you and I and Mr Dawkins would agree entirely about how the universe came into being, I note with interest that you have referred to it as created twice, surely that infers a Creator? However I don't believe in a young earth and don't believe that evolutionary theory contradicts anything of the creation story in the first two chapters of Genesis, providing that story is interpreted as a metaphor (as much of the bible is intended to be).

 

I'm perfectly happy to test my belief against empirical evidence, because my faith does not stand or fall on whether Man came into existence through creation or through an evolutionary process, that's just not the central tenet of my faith.

 

You may say that it's convenient for me to interpret some bible passages as metaphor and some as literal truth, but I'd say that's rather inconvenient. It would be far easier for me to have God reveal Himself in an overt and obvious way to all, explaining clearly how and why He did it! But then where would that leave free will, or reasoned debate?

 

For me the literal truth is less important than the truth garnered from interpretation. For example, the point of the story of Adam and Eve, the Fall, the Garden of Eden, is not whether or not it happened, but that it happens. People sin, turn from God, act selfishly, without regard for consequences. This is what I mean by metaphor, interpretation and truth and it's certainly not something that doesn't require thought or understanding.

 

I'm not offering an alternative view as to how the universe and humanity came into being, I don't have one, so I accept that the universe is some 4 billion years old, that it probably began with a big bang and that we have evolved from complex strings of protein.

 

My conviction moves beyond that to ask why. I cannot accept that who I am, how I feel, that I love and hate and hurt and have joy and peace and all of those beautiful emotions are only the result of chemical and biological processes. I have a soul, I have a spirit. Can I prove it? No, but it's there, in my love for my kids, or my compassion for the needy, or my mourning for the dead, or my passion for my wife.

 

My faith makes sense of the why. It assuages the guilt, it provides hope for the future, it reflects who I am, it gives me value and purpose.

 

I think that Dawkins' little soundbite that thinking is anathema to religion is naughty and worthless. The college of which he is a fellow only exists because the church established it, surely then it follows that Dawkins' thinking, coming out of that college is equally detestable!

[Rick Grimes]

The difference is the Alpha Course encourages people to investigate Christianity for themselves, it doesn't just tell people not to worry and that there's probably no God.

 

What an empty and pointless message.

 

How is someone who has questions about life supposed to gain anything from that?

 

 

its the Cottleston Pie principle mate.

 

"things as they are".

 

whether you find that empty or pointless is a personal matter.

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

Good!

 

Religion is a load of pish. FACT. The cause of many pointless conflicts.

 

It is as ridiculous as believing in Santa, the tooth fairy or Vladimer Romanov.

[Rick Grimes]

Good!

 

Religion is a load of pish. FACT. The cause of many pointless conflicts.

 

It is as ridiculous as believing in Santa, the tooth fairy or Vladimer Romanov.

 

 

dogma is the cause of many pointless conflicts. religion just lends itself naturally to that.

[Ulysses]

i agree with pretty much everything he says, but i find him to be horribly dogmatic.

 

If you don't mind my asking, do you find him to be horribly dogmatic, or do you find the depictions of him by South Park or the descriptions of him by other commentators to be horribly dogmatic?

 

I'm asking because I haven't found him to be so, and I've met a lot of people (including atheists) who find him to be dogmatic but who haven't read his books or heard him speak.

 

Likewise, I've heard comments about religious commentators and representatives being dogmatic, only to be surprised by how reasonable they are in print, or on TV and radio.

 

I find that Dawkins isn't the least bit dogmatic about what he believes - if the evidence changed tomorrow he would drop his belief about how humanity came into being the day after. But he is relentless in his demand for a high standard of evidence. The problem is that believers in gods are equally relentless about their refusal to work to a high standard of evidence.

 

It's not so much that Dawkins and the believers are being dogmatic, it's that their paradigms of thinking are completely different and irreconcilable.

[Rick Grimes]

If you don't mind my asking, do you find him to be horribly dogmatic, or do you find the depictions of him by South Park or the descriptions of him by other commentators to be horribly dogmatic?

 

I'm asking because I haven't found him to be so, and I've met a lot of people (including atheists) who find him to be dogmatic but who haven't read his books or heard him speak.

 

Likewise, I've heard comments about religious commentators and representatives being dogmatic, only to be surprised by how reasonable they are in print, or on TV and radio.

 

I find that Dawkins isn't the least bit dogmatic about what he believes - if the evidence changed tomorrow he would drop his belief about how humanity came into being the day after. But he is relentless in his demand for a high standard of evidence. The problem is that believers in gods are equally relentless about their refusal to work to a high standard of evidence.

 

It's not so much that Dawkins and the believers are being dogmatic, it's that their paradigms of thinking are completely different and irreconcilable.

 

the former, tho i've only watched his shows on Channel 4 rather than read his books, so it might just be that he gets up my nose. i might read one of his books, but only if i find one lying around....

[shaun.lawson]

1. Has anyone on here come across a guy in London, usually based around Oxford Circus but sometimes Paddington or elsewhere on the tube, who walks around crying: "Don't be a sinner - be a winner!"? He's a scouser, probably in his mid-40s, and tries to accost passers by and explain the error of their ways. I've stopped and debated with him a couple of times (turning his focus to homosexuality and explaining why he was talking a pile of bollox) - but the man is nuts!

 

2. A good friend of mine went on the Alpha Course some years back, and literally changed overnight. No longer was he a regular guy who enjoyed drinking and burding: suddenly, he was a born again Christian whose mission was to preach to me and others. It was very disconcerting: he's now married and studying to become a priest!

 

I went out with a girl he knew from Alpha for a while too: she insisted that she'd felt under no pressure throughout, had been very sceptical to begin with, yet reached her own conclusions entirely independently. She was also convinced that she now understood herself, and the meaning of life perfectly - but I never really bought it. She was protesting too much, I always thought. And while my Dad hasn't given me the greatest advice over the years, his response when I told him she was a Christian (with all that that, ahem, entailed) was a succint: "Run, Shaun! Run for the hills!" So I did.

 

3. My friend (the first one, not the girl) also once took me to a large scale Alpha event, with about 5000 attending and listening to speakers, preachers and so on. As it ended, the speaker asked people looking to convert to join him on stage - and what I couldn't help noticing was the peer pressure that suddenly took hold. First only one or two came forward: then, seeing this was happening, scores of others followed. It was very creepy if you ask me - and much as individuals like to think they're making their own mind up, I think they're kidding themselves.

[The Doctor]

its the Cottleston Pie principle mate.

 

"things as they are".

 

whether you find that empty or pointless is a personal matter.

 

Surely though it's things are as I see them.

 

For me the truth is that there is a God, there's no question of this for me. I don't think I'm seeing things wrongly or denying the obvious, to me the existence of God is obvious.

 

But, however you look at to say don't worry, enjoy life is empty and pointless because it offers nothing, no comfort, no hope, no relief.

 

If I'm poor, if I'm mourning, if I'm lonely, how can I just not worry and enjoy life? How is this message making any difference to anyone?

[The Doctor]

 

It's not so much that Dawkins and the believers are being dogmatic, it's that their paradigms of thinking are completely different and irreconcilable.

 

I think that this absolutely true.

 

Dawkins could never understand where I'm coming from as my faith is based around a relationship with God, which is entirely anathema to him and because my conviction of this is so strong I can't deny it. So until something changes in our thinking and in our interpretation of our feelings we will always be irreconcilable.

[Rick Grimes]

Surely though it's things are as I see them.

 

For me the truth is that there is a God, there's no question of this for me. I don't think I'm seeing things wrongly or denying the obvious, to me the existence of God is obvious.

 

But, however you look at to say don't worry, enjoy life is empty and pointless because it offers nothing, no comfort, no hope, no relief.

 

If I'm poor, if I'm mourning, if I'm lonely, how can I just not worry and enjoy life? How is this message making any difference to anyone?

 

God gives you that relief, comfort and hope and I'm glad He does for you, mate. i wish you all the best with that.

 

i'm hugely sceptical on there being a God, but that doesn't make me worry that life is empty and pointless. it is what it is, my life is what i make it and i have my own moral compass to guide to me through it.

 

that's not to say i don't ponder the bigger questions, its just that i don't necessarily need any answers.

 

 

edit:

 

to answer your last paragraph, i think the message is to find whatever does make a difference for you. ok, the Bobby McFerrin inspired taglines on the buses "don't worry, be happy" may be trite, but no more than a "Jesus Saves" bumper sticker. you have to look into it a little deeper.

 

and besides, I'm reliably informed that "Robertson scores on the rebound" anyway

[shaun.lawson]

God gives you that relief, comfort and hope and I'm glad He does for you, mate. i wish you all the best with that.

 

i'm hugely sceptical on there being a God, but that doesn't make me worry that life is empty and pointless. it is what it is, my life is what i make it and i have my own moral compass to guide to me through it.

 

that's not to say i don't ponder the bigger questions, its just that i don't necessarily need any answers.

 

 

While I was researching in Leeds five years ago, there was a group of incredibly well behaved eighteen and nineteen year olds who'd walk outside and start singing. Not pop songs, nor hymns - but folksy, feelgood stuff. I got chatting with them, and found they were a group of Texan Christians over here to perform in various religious-related events in the north of England.

 

They were absolutely baffled by how unimportant religion is here in comparison with the US - and even more when I told them I was a Jew who doesn't really believe in God. "But you won't go to heaven", one of them said, "doesn't that scare you?" "Not really", I replied - "I don't know if there's a heaven or not, nor do I feel a need to know either". As they left, one of them said (very endearingly, and certainly not patronisingly) that she'd pray for me. I guess, to any Christian, you can understand why it's so important to them that everyone goes to heaven, and their alarm at those they believe who won't - but it is weird talking to people with such profoundly different belief systems.

[The Doctor]

God gives you that relief, comfort and hope and I'm glad He does for you, mate. i wish you all the best with that.

 

i'm hugely sceptical on there being a God, but that doesn't make me worry that life is empty and pointless. it is what it is, my life is what i make it and i have my own moral compass to guide to me through it.

 

that's not to say i don't ponder the bigger questions, its just that i don't necessarily need any answers.

 

Sorry I wasn't suggesting that your life was empty and pointless, how could it be? You're a Jambo!

 

I just think that if you're going to put a sign on a bus offering some opposing view to Christian faith it should say something.

 

I'd have less problem if they'd just quoted Bill and Ted and said "Be excellent to one another"!

[Rick Grimes]

Sorry I wasn't suggesting that your life was empty and pointless, how could it be? You're a Jambo!

 

I just think that if you're going to put a sign on a bus offering some opposing view to Christian faith it should say something.

 

I'd have less problem if they'd just quoted Bill and Ted and said "Be excellent to one another"!

 

 

possibly the best advice given to anyone, ever. and it was George Carlin who said it too

 

as to the sign, i think it does say more, as per my edit in the last post.

[Ulysses]

Now Uly, you're not going to expect me to agree with that are you?

 

No, not yet. But one day.

 

 

I suspect that you and I and Mr Dawkins would agree entirely about how the universe came into being, I note with interest that you have referred to it as created twice, surely that infers a Creator?

 

I wrote the text, so I can't infer. You can infer, and infer a creator if you like. But I didn't imply one.

 

 

 

I'm perfectly happy to test my belief against empirical evidence, because my faith does not stand or fall on whether Man came into existence through creation or through an evolutionary process, that's just not the central tenet of my faith.

 

The empirical evidence fully supports your faith. It just doesn't support a deity. They aren't the same thing.

 

 

You may say that it's convenient for me to interpret some bible passages as metaphor and some as literal truth

 

Nope. I wouldn't be so arrogant as to make any guesses or assumptions as to how anyone reads or digests their sacred texts.

 

 

People sin, turn from God, act selfishly, without regard for consequences. This is what I mean by metaphor, interpretation and truth and it's certainly not something that doesn't require thought or understanding.

 

A lot of that makes sense to me, except for that bit about the being that doesn't inhabit the same quantum universe that we do. And if you exclude that being (as I do), there's still room for all that good and bad stuff. Selfish is selfish. That doesn't require thought or understanding, and it doesn't require a god either.

 

 

My conviction moves beyond that to ask why.

 

But why?

 

 

I cannot accept that who I am, how I feel, that I love and hate and hurt and have joy and peace and all of those beautiful emotions are only the result of chemical and biological processes. I have a soul, I have a spirit. Can I prove it? No, but it's there, in my love for my kids, or my compassion for the needy, or my mourning for the dead, or my passion for my wife.

 

Who I am, how I feel, all my thoughts, psychology and emotions are ultimately the result of a series of chemical and biological processes. I also have a soul and a spirit. I feel the same stuff that you do. At the risk of sounding trite, I'm not in the least bit surprised that 3 billion years or more of evolution has led to this, and I don't see any rhyme, reason or need to have it explained by reference to some super-being.

 

 

I think that Dawkins' little soundbite that thinking is anathema to religion is naughty and worthless. The college of which he is a fellow only exists because the church established it, surely then it follows that Dawkins' thinking, coming out of that college is equally detestable!

 

You were doing well up to there, but I think that last piece was a bit uncharitable.

 

I've already explained the basis of Dawkins' statement as to why thinking is anathema to religion. People of faith might not like to hear it expressed in that way, but it is nevertheless true. Is "naughty" not just parent-speak for "sinful"? And why would Dawkins view of religion extend to his view of a college? To me it's obvious that there's no god, but it doesn't stop me from liking Pachelbel's Canon.

 

I think the real problem that people of faith have with Dawkins is not that he is dogmatic. It's that he is a heavy hitter.

[Rick Grimes]

 

While I was researching in Leeds five years ago, there was a group of incredibly well behaved eighteen and nineteen year olds who'd walk outside and start singing. Not pop songs, nor hymns - but folksy, feelgood stuff. I got chatting with them, and found they were a group of Texan Christians over here to perform in various religious-related events in the north of England.

 

They were absolutely baffled by how unimportant religion is here in comparison with the US - and even more when I told them I was a Jew who doesn't really believe in God. "But you won't go to heaven", one of them said, "doesn't that scare you?" "Not really", I replied - "I don't know if there's a heaven or not, nor do I feel a need to know either". As they left, one of them said (very endearingly, and certainly not patronisingly) that she'd pray for me. I guess, to any Christian, you can understand why it's so important to them that everyone goes to heaven, and their alarm at those they believe who won't - but it is weird talking to people with such profoundly different belief systems.

 

 

and there's my main issue with many who choose to preach at me (unlike our good Doctor).

 

if there is a God, and He's of the nice variety we hear about most of the time, is He really gonna deny me entrance to Heaven based on my decision not to follow what i see as dogma, but instead to try to live my life as a good person according to my own moral compass? my vision of a perfect deity is somewhat above such pettiness...

[Ulysses]

I think that this absolutely true.

 

Ah, so we agree then.

 

 

Dawkins could never understand where I'm coming from as my faith is based around a relationship with God, which is entirely anathema to him and because my conviction of this is so strong I can't deny it. So until something changes in our thinking and in our interpretation of our feelings we will always be irreconcilable.

 

Ah, so we disagree then.

 

 

 

 

Oh well.

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

 

While I was researching in Leeds five years ago, there was a group of incredibly well behaved eighteen and nineteen year olds who'd walk outside and start singing. Not pop songs, nor hymns - but folksy, feelgood stuff. I got chatting with them, and found they were a group of Texan Christians over here to perform in various religious-related events in the north of England.

 

They were absolutely baffled by how unimportant religion is here in comparison with the US - and even more when I told them I was a Jew who doesn't really believe in God. "But you won't go to heaven", one of them said, "doesn't that scare you?" "Not really", I replied - "I don't know if there's a heaven or not, nor do I feel a need to know either". As they left, one of them said (very endearingly, and certainly not patronisingly) that she'd pray for me. I guess, to any Christian, you can understand why it's so important to them that everyone goes to heaven, and their alarm at those they believe who won't - but it is weird talking to people with such profoundly different belief systems.

 

While I was in America over the summer me and a mate were swimming. My mate hurt his ankle doing something and limped out of the pool and sat at the side.

 

About 10 seconds later this guy walks over and asks if he can pray for my mate. My mate, obviously a bit puzzled agrees anyway which leads to the guy putting his hand on his thigh for over a minute while muttering some garbage making my mate uncomfortable.

 

Now this is what I detest about religious folk. They need to shove their opinions in your face whether you care or not.

 

Some daft old lunatic used to come to my door EVERY Sunday for about 2 years trying to tell us stuff about the bible. That's offensive in my eyes when we made it quite clear we weren't interested.

 

I'm not sure what my point is here but people are just as entitled to put adverts on buses about there being no god as these weirdos who came to my door every Sunday preaching something I never believed in.

 

I wish there was life after death because I really enjoy this malarky but I can't see it!

[Rick Grimes]

Now this is what I detest about religious folk. They need to shove their opinions in your face whether you care or not.

 

some do. so do some atheists tho.

 

you may just be attracting an unfair share tho. trying telling them to **** off if they keep bothering you. should do the trick

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

some do. so do some atheists tho.

 

you may just be attracting an unfair share tho. trying telling them to **** off if they keep bothering you. should do the trick

 

Tried it.

 

Apparently I won't be going to heaven.