Atheists' bus ads on the way

[Rick Grimes]

Tried it.

 

Apparently I won't be going to heaven.

 

don't worry, i'm sure they don't get to decide.

[shaun.lawson]

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...

 

Some Christians believe that even a mass murderer is admitted to heaven as long as he is of that faith; whereas the kindest, most compassionate person you can imagine is refused entry if they don't share their faith. Why would anyone want anything to do with a God as messed up as that? And who's to say Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin and Jeremy Beadle aren't up there having a ball, while the likes of Mother Theresa are burning their tits off down below? We just don't know.

[shaun.lawson]

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!

 

Weird, isn't it? The friend I mentioned earlier has seriously ****ed off my good mate Faisal, who has a very strong faith in Islam but also takes the **** of fellow Moslems, drinks, smokes, is hilariously politically incorrect and all the rest of it. Graham keeps telling him all his woes will be solved if he just converts - which is so, so disrespectful of who Faisal is - and when Faisal went to him for advice about a personal crisis he was going through, all Graham could say was: "I'll pray for you". How hollow and meaningless can you get?

 

Similarly, another friend's best mate became a born again Christian too. And when we had dinner a while back, she said it was much more important just to pray than give to charity or the homeless. Bizarre!

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I've read The God Delusion by Dawkins.

 

All I would say that evolution is still a theory and hasn't been proven either. However, I see elements of him being dogmatic in opining that view.

 

Either way, the point about all religions to me (and atheism, ironically, is fast becoming one) is that people don't accept death very easily.

[shaun.lawson]

I've read The God Delusion by Dawkins.

 

All I would say that evolution is still a theory and hasn't been proven either. However, I see elements of him being dogmatic in opining that view.

 

Either way, the point about all religions to me (and atheism, ironically, is fast becoming one) is that people don't accept death very easily.

 

Often though, scientific facts are called 'theories' even when they're proven facts: evolution foremost amongst them, I'd say. I agree with what you say about religion though: if religion and heaven didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent them - even if religion essentially seeks to make us ashamed of most natural human things.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Often though, scientific facts are called 'theories' even when they're proven facts: evolution foremost amongst them, I'd say. I agree with what you say about religion though: if religion and heaven didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent them - even if religion essentially seeks to make us ashamed of most natural human things.

 

I disagree though that evolution has been "proven" because there is scant evidence to suggest that humans have gone through a metamorphosis from fish-like things in water to primates.

 

The other big question is the Big Bang and the singularity. My question to this has always been what this stuff was floating around in and then what caused it to 'bang' in the first place?

 

And then I say to myself: It doesn't matter - I have better things to do than sit and ponder on these type of questions!

[ardwick1888]

I disagree though that evolution has been "proven" because there is scant evidence to suggest that humans have gone through a metamorphosis from fish-like things in water to primates.

 

The other big question is the Big Bang and the singularity. My question to this has always been what this stuff was floating around in and then what caused it to 'bang' in the first place?

 

And then I say to myself: It doesn't matter - I have better things to do than sit and ponder on these type of questions!

Calm down lads and lassies, were all shuvin marmite uphill.

[spud]

I disagree though that evolution has been "proven" because there is scant evidence to suggest that humans have gone through a metamorphosis from fish-like things in water to primates.

 

There are thousands of papers within the scientific literature that support the theory of evolution through natural selection. One striking line which shows the "metamorphosis" is embryology which does show the human embryo progressing "from fish-like things in water to primates" through its 9 month development.

[spud]

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.

 

Well put, sir.

 

There are some posters on here who seem to think that science is a closed mind fraternity. Nothing could be further from the truth. If an alternative theory to explain the development of life was put forward and backed up by empirical evidence then the scientific community would have to assign Darwin's theory of evolution through Natural Selection to the realms of scientific history. That is how science progresses.

 

However, all other theories require some enormous jump in logic and don't actually explain anything. My biggest gripe with religion is "if god exists then who made god?" The standard answer just does not explain anything.

[Deevers]

Often though, scientific facts are called 'theories' even when they're proven facts: evolution foremost amongst them, I'd say. I agree with what you say about religion though: if religion and heaven didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent them - even if religion essentially seeks to make us ashamed of most natural human things.

 

All religions are obstacles to finding true spirituality - and I would include atheism in that as well.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

There are thousands of papers within the scientific literature that support the theory of evolution through natural selection. One striking line which shows the "metamorphosis" is embryology which does show the human embryo progressing "from fish-like things in water to primates" through its 9 month development.

 

I'm sure there are thousands of papers.

 

My point is that after these thousands of papers, the theory still hasn't been proven. Just because it hasn't been disproven doesn't make it fact.

 

When the latest theories claim that humans have "stopped" evolving because old gits aren't procreating the species (apart from Des O'Connor) then you are entitled to wonder about the veracity of evolution.

[spud]

My point is that after these thousands of papers, the theory still hasn't been proven. Just because it hasn't been disproven doesn't make it fact.

 

When the latest theories claim that humans have "stopped" evolving because old gits aren't procreating the species (apart from Des O'Connor) then you are entitled to wonder about the veracity of evolution.

 

You can't "prove" anything but you can accept something with a reasonable degree of confidence if it is backed up by empirical evidence. All the evidence that has been accumulated can be explained by a single theory. To me that is "proof".

 

I have not heard about humans stopping evolving but I could think of a Darwinian explanation for this. If it was true it is explainable

[spud]

If it was true it is explainable

 

Sorry, I am not doubting your word.

[Bigsmak]

Does it matter if there is a God or not?

 

If you live your life as a good person and make the most of everyday that you have, will that not be good enough whether there is a God or not?

[Say What Again]

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

 

[Say What Again]

[BervieJambo]

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...

 

I like the image of you turning up at the pearly gates after popping your clogs, to be met by Jesus greeting you with the words "Now do you believe in me, you stupid bugger?"

[jamboinglasgow]

this is a side note, but for me God must have a sense of humour, only the hobos could be made as a joke by an almighty being wanting a laugh.

[The Brow]

And who's to say Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin and Jeremy Beadle aren't up there having a ball, while the likes of Mother Theresa are burning their tits off down below?

 

Bit harsh on old Beadle! Must have missed the 'youve been framed' episode where he committed genocide! (although it sounds like a classic.....)

[Louise]

Bit harsh on old Beadle! Must have missed the 'youve been framed' episode where he committed genocide! (although it sounds like a classic.....)

 

 

That made me think of that absolutely classic TV moment when he stitched up that woman to think an alien had landed in her garden...

[Craig_]

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

 

And here's me thinking it went to Ocean Terminal!

[The Brow]

That made me think of that absolutely classic TV moment when he stitched up that woman to think an alien had landed in her garden...

 

I think thats how maroonlegions landed on this planet.....

[Jamboelite]

*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.

 

i like your style each to there own but im an atheist and always have been bring on the advertising campaign

[Louise]

i like your style each to there own but im an atheist and always have been bring on the advertising campaign

 

You might want to learn some grammar first.

[Jamboelite]

I would add that what you believe is personal to you advertising that there is or isnt a god is irrelevant to me they advertise tampons on a bus doesnt make me need to go out and buy one or consider if i need one.

 

I have my own opinions and so do others what i would say is that if buses can advertise Christian messages with no alternative to their beliefs why cant there be a similiar statement on buses from an Atheist point of view i.e there is no god deal with it.

[Jamboelite]

You might want to learn some grammar first.

 

Harsh i'm meant to be working not talking to you lot

[Louise]

I would add that what you believe is personal to you advertising that there is or isnt a god is irrelevant to me they advertise tampons on a bus doesnt make me need to go out and buy one or consider if i need one.

 

I have my own opinions and so do others what i would say is that if buses can advertise Christian messages with no alternative to their beliefs why cant there be a similiar statement on buses from an Atheist point of view i.e there is no god deal with it.

 

[A Boy Named Crow]

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.

I think you'll find the bit in bold a tad idealistic on reflection!

 

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/bowdenmalcolm/evol.htm

 

Obviously this is just one website, but the point is there are doubts out there. It doesn't stop those of a dogmatic bent sticking their fongers in their ears and screaming "No no no, evolution is FACT!". Simply, it just isn't. It may science's best guess at present, but then science hasn't always got it right in the past now has it?

[Acey]

while the likes of Mother Theresa are burning their tits off down below? We just don't know.

 

Lot of false press surrounding Mother Theresa. She sounded like a total **** to me.

[Bigsmak]

I think you'll find the bit in bold a tad idealistic on reflection!

 

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/bowdenmalcolm/evol.htm

 

All science is best guess.... Scientists (proper ones) actively try to disprove things. That's how Science works.. You come up with an idea then try to disprove it - not prove it.

 

With regards to evolution this is the best solution that can be put forward at present with the evidence that we have. Scientists are always looking for the missing links / peices of the puzzle.

 

The page quoted above is a nice read. It would be better if it had links to support its claims as I would like to read more about them.

 

However, the problem here is not if Scientists can or cannot prove evolution, the problem is that some people with faith in their hearts will not allow their faith to be questioned with or without the use of facts.

 

Blind faith is dangerous, its the kind of thing that leads to Crusades or people becoming suicide bombs on buses. People must be allowed to believe what they want and everyone must be allowed, in fact, encouraged to continually question their belief and come to their own decisions. Some people believe in a God because their parents told them there is one. That is not a good thing.

[Debut 4]

To everyone on here that doesn`t believe in God...............

 

 

Do you celebrate Christmas?

[Craigieboy]

Religion makes people do funny stuff.

 

.

[hmfc_steve]

To everyone on here that doesn`t believe in God...............

 

 

Do you celebrate Christmas?

 

yep.... cos you get pressie's and grub.... still no god

[Louise]

I don't celebrate the birth of Christ, but some of my family do, and I view it as a time to let your family know you appreciate them and to spend time with them etc, goodwill and all that.

[Craigieboy]

To everyone on here that doesn`t believe in God...............

 

 

Do you celebrate Christmas?

 

Christians are the ones who shouldn't celebrate christmas. It's absolutely steeped in paganism. Also easter as well.

 

Now leave us heathens to have a good time!

 

[maroonlegions]

Has anyone or learned thinkers ever considered this that we could be all ONE ,that we have always existed and and always have done and always will be, in fact that we are GOD ,everything is ONE and we all come from the ONE source which is us , we are in fact responsible for all our actions and no one can take that away, we make our own heaven and hells and hopefully we learn from it , its easy to just have a notion of a God THAT WILL EITHER SAVE US OR TAKE THE BLAME FOR OUR OWN ACTIONS, i think all religions were created in order to control people and take away the real us , to stop people finding out who we are and were we really came from , to hand over control like that is not for me , why have religious dogmas never really worked in the history of the world , like governments they are created to cunningly take peoples real decision making away from them and FEAR is the primary weapon it uses , just my thoughts but 200 years ago i would have been burned at the stake for being a heretic or witch with these views, indeed religions have a lot to answer for.

[loveofthegame]

Nothing i hate more than atheists who say there can't be a god and thats the end of it and brand those who believe in something more are idiots.

 

My Dad is very religious, a strong Christian and whilst i couldn't say the same about myself his religion does nothing more than make him truly believe that there is something better after this life. And i don't see anything wrong with that, just wish i shared that belief so strongly. Maybe i'll learn to 1 day.

 

And if you met him you wouldn't ever guess it unless you got into a discussion on it- I also hate the stereotypical ''bible-basher'' thing that people put out there. Normal people can be religious too!!

 

Imo its atheists that are the most narrow minded people of all.

[Debut 4]

Christians are the ones who shouldn't celebrate christmas. It's absolutely steeped in paganism. Also easter as well.

 

Now leave us heathens to have a good time!

 

 

Thats the St Nicholas part mate.

 

Christians celebrate christmas because of the birth of christ. The three wise men bearing gifts etc. is why we give each other gifts. The two things have mingled together.

[Debut 4]

yep.... cos you get pressie's and grub.... still no god

 

That`s the point, christmas has become so commercialised its forgotten why we actually celebrate it.

 

So stop celebrating you non-believer!

[maroonlegions]

THIS IS A BIT OF AN EYE OPENER,

 

 

 

rense.com

 

The Nation Of Islam

And The Freemasons

By David Livingstone

7-18-6

 

I've been taking a closer look at the writings of Wesley Williams, and I am shocked. I had no idea the Nation of Islam was so enmeshed with Freemasonry. Enmeshed is an understatement, the two are basically one and the same.

 

Looking at his "The Book of God", he basically sets the history of the occult in reverse, where it is the "true Islam". Everything is there. The "Sons of God" or Nephilim, also the Fallen Angels, are God, a man, and his council. They have been guiding the select of humanity ever since. He even places them in "Shamballah" in the Gobi desert, being the same as the "Great White Brotherhood", or the "Hidden Chiefs" of "Hidden Masters" of the occult.

 

The entire history of the occult is co-opted to his version of Islam, including Gnosticism, the Templars and Cathars, and the Holy Grail. He invokes Masonic historian Manly P. Hall as a source, and also Blavatsky, an avowed Satanist. He even has a chapter about the "Masonic secret", which he correctly explains is that "Man is God".;)

 

That explains why the creed he expounds is that of anthropomorphism, because it is a hidden method of preparing the unsuspecting masses for the acceptance of the god-man Messiah of the Kabbalah.

 

So evidently, at the higher levels of the Nation of Islam, like all other occult fronts, Lucifer is recognized as "true God". I wouldn't be surprised if this were the belief of Mr. Williams, or that he would deny it.

 

Satanism does seem to be the original cult of the NOI, as its founder was accused of instigating ritual murder. That was Wallace Fard, who, according to the FBI, had as many as 27 different aliases, and was a sometime petty criminal. Fard initially joined the Moorish Science Temple, a quasi-Masonic and pseudo-Islamic organization, and seems to have been involved in a conspiracy to usurp leadership of that order, by having its leader, Noble Drew Ali, killed.

 

Fard finally got in trouble when one of his followers committed murder to, in his own words, "bring himself closer to Allah." He had quoted from Fard's booklet titled Secret Rituals of the Lost-Found Nation of Islam. Although not charged with any crime, Fard was asked to leave Detroit in early 1933 and to never return. He finally disappeared without a trace in 1934.

 

But he had already initiated a devoted follower, Elijah Mohammed, to whom he taught Masonic superstitions dressed in Islamic themes, and who went on found the Nation of Islam, and claimed that Fard was God. We already know of the corruption that was discovered by Malcolm X. And I fear too about Louis Farrakhan, who too is listed as being a Freemason.

 

What a gang of criminals. I wonder what their relationship is with their higher-ups, and how conscious they are about the purpose they serve.

 

If you want to peek through the "Book of God" of Mr. Williams, it's online here: http://www.theblackgod.com/theblackgodpage2_.htm

 

 

Disclaimer

 

Email This Article

 

 

 

 

MainPage

http://www.rense.com

[rustyboy]

That`s the point, christmas has become so commercialised its forgotten why we actually celebrate it.

 

So stop celebrating you non-believer!

 

 

It is actually Santas birthday ya big nutters!

[Seats]

yep.... cos you get pressie's and grub.... still no god

 

hahaha quality post!

[Seats]

THIS IS A BIT OF AN EYE OPENER,

 

 

 

rense.com

 

The Nation Of Islam

And The Freemasons

By David Livingstone

7-18-6

 

I've been taking a closer look at the writings of Wesley Williams, and I am shocked. I had no idea the Nation of Islam was so enmeshed with Freemasonry. Enmeshed is an understatement, the two are basically one and the same.

 

Looking at his "The Book of God", he basically sets the history of the occult in reverse, where it is the "true Islam". Everything is there. The "Sons of God" or Nephilim, also the Fallen Angels, are God, a man, and his council. They have been guiding the select of humanity ever since. He even places them in "Shamballah" in the Gobi desert, being the same as the "Great White Brotherhood", or the "Hidden Chiefs" of "Hidden Masters" of the occult.

 

The entire history of the occult is co-opted to his version of Islam, including Gnosticism, the Templars and Cathars, and the Holy Grail. He invokes Masonic historian Manly P. Hall as a source, and also Blavatsky, an avowed Satanist. He even has a chapter about the "Masonic secret", which he correctly explains is that "Man is God".;)

 

That explains why the creed he expounds is that of anthropomorphism, because it is a hidden method of preparing the unsuspecting masses for the acceptance of the god-man Messiah of the Kabbalah.

 

So evidently, at the higher levels of the Nation of Islam, like all other occult fronts, Lucifer is recognized as "true God". I wouldn't be surprised if this were the belief of Mr. Williams, or that he would deny it.

 

Satanism does seem to be the original cult of the NOI, as its founder was accused of instigating ritual murder. That was Wallace Fard, who, according to the FBI, had as many as 27 different aliases, and was a sometime petty criminal. Fard initially joined the Moorish Science Temple, a quasi-Masonic and pseudo-Islamic organization, and seems to have been involved in a conspiracy to usurp leadership of that order, by having its leader, Noble Drew Ali, killed.

 

Fard finally got in trouble when one of his followers committed murder to, in his own words, "bring himself closer to Allah." He had quoted from Fard's booklet titled Secret Rituals of the Lost-Found Nation of Islam. Although not charged with any crime, Fard was asked to leave Detroit in early 1933 and to never return. He finally disappeared without a trace in 1934.

 

But he had already initiated a devoted follower, Elijah Mohammed, to whom he taught Masonic superstitions dressed in Islamic themes, and who went on found the Nation of Islam, and claimed that Fard was God. We already know of the corruption that was discovered by Malcolm X. And I fear too about Louis Farrakhan, who too is listed as being a Freemason.

 

What a gang of criminals. I wonder what their relationship is with their higher-ups, and how conscious they are about the purpose they serve.

 

If you want to peek through the "Book of God" of Mr. Williams, it's online here: http://www.theblackgod.com/theblackgodpage2_.htm

 

 

Disclaimer

 

Email This Article

 

 

 

 

MainPage

http://www.rense.com

 

sadly not a quality post.

[Craig R]

I love this David Attenborough quote:

 

"My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, a worm that's going to make him blind. And I ask them, 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy'".

[Craig R]

To everyone on here that doesn`t believe in God...............

 

 

Do you celebrate Christmas?

 

Nope.

[hmfc_steve]

There are many philisophical reasons to doubt ( and prob believe) the existence of God, I'd just like this one answered... and not in Vlad smoke and mirrors tone

 

Omnipotence Paradox

This paradox asks a question that is contradictory for God. For example, ?Can God create an object so heavy that even God cannot lift it?? or ?Can God ask a question so difficult that even he cannot answer it??

[Craig R]

Who created God?

[topcat]

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.

 

Usually when people make this complaint it should be reworded as "They have an inability to accept that I may be right"

[The Doctor]

I love this David Attenborough quote:

 

"My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, a worm that's going to make him blind. And I ask them, 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy'".

 

From the wikipedia page for David Attenborough he also said "as far as I'm concerned, if there is a supreme being then he chose organic evolution as a way of bringing into existence the natural world."

 

I wouldn't argue with any of that.

 

I was thinking (despite what Dawkins might think of me) about the creation/evolution debate and the biblical account of creation. It's interesting to me that whatever way you read it, even if you are a literal creationist, the bible says God took six days to create the Earth. Why six days? Why not create it complete, in an instant? Even if you are ardently opposed to the theory of evolution and interpreting the first chapters of Genesis literally you can't deny that an evolutionary process took place.

 

As for both the omnipotence paradox and the question of who created God, these questions are fundamentally flawed in the first place. God is not like us, God is not bound by three dimensions as we are. As Ulysses put it very eloquently earlier God doesn't inhabit the same quantum universe we do. You are placing physical restrictions on the Almighty.

 

God is not a created being, He has always been and will always be, he is the ultimate expression of being, that's why he calls himself I AM.

[portobellojambo1]

I couldn't tell you what is and isn't advertised on the side of a bus, I cannot ever remember really looking. As the bus approaches the only thing I look at is my watch to see if it is on time.